Gay Marriage

A Silly Fight Over What Part of a Cake Counts as Speech

A sweet medium and sour messages

|

Bill Jack, deliberate media spectacle who inexplicably shunned the media.
Worldview Academy

The tale of the Colorado bakery that refused to write anti-gay statements on a cake and now faces an investigation for violating the state's public accommodation laws has gone national. I wrote about it based on the very early news coverage here.

The man who ordered the cake apparently avoided responding to the media at first because he figured they'd just try to spin it to make him look bad, he told the editor in chief of Christian media outlet World News Group. This was an exceedingly dumb decision because it resulted in one-sided stories that point out his refusal to comment, and so the media is absolved of inaccuracies. So now he's talking because, he says, the media got the story wrong … partly because he didn't respond to the media.

Anyway, beyond that unsavvy decision, the gentleman, whose name is Bill Jack, has said that he didn't demand all sorts of offensive anti-gay comments like "God hates gays" on his cake, contradicting what the bakery owner claims. He asked for several religious quotes about sin, but only one was about homosexuality: "Homosexuality is a detestable sin—Leviticus 18:22." The bakery, Azucar Bakery in Denver, said Jack refused to let them make a photocopy of the paper he provided or let them read the words out loud.

In this silly fight, what Jack actually asked the bakery to write matters. Since he's claiming that he is being discriminated against due to his religion, it likely makes a difference whether he was just asking for Bible quotes or some just general anti-gay bigotry (though I'm very certain the word "homosexuality" appears nowhere in the Bible). Eugene Volokh explains some of the complexities of invoking discrimination based on religion here.

And so as this case spins out, we end up with the amusing situation where religious conservative groups are supporting the right of the bakery to refuse business to a religious conservative and the American Civil Liberties Union trying to explain why this is all so very different from a bakery refusing to provide a gay couple a wedding cake at all. The two sides, via BuzzFeed:

"It was clearly Ms. Silva's right to decline to promote a message with which she so clearly disagreed," Jeremy Tedesco, senior legal counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. "Ms. Silva should not be forced to use her artistic abilities to further a message with which she sincerely disagrees." …

"Folks are trying to compare the Azucar Bakery story to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case… but in fact the two situations are quite different," ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in an email to BuzzFeed News.

The baker refusing service, she said, is "based on a neutral standard of taste that she would apply to any customer," and is different from barring customers "not because of what the desired cake looked like, but because of who they are."

I just have to shake my head at Goad's invocation of a "neutral standard of taste." Would just any old customer want a cake with an anti-gay message on it? The baker has made it clear that she didn't want to add these words to Jack's cake because she didn't agree with his sentiment. She did not want to be forced to say something with which she did not agree. It was not a "neutral standard."

And I would point out that those bakeries who do not want to make gay wedding cakes haven't refused to completely serve gay customers. They did not agree with the message that is produced by the creation of a wedding cake for gay couples. That is to say, they also refused service because of "what the desired cake looked like."

Wading into all this comes Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., with the exact wrong conclusion for terrible reasons:

And it leaves us wrestling with the tricky question of how to draw a line protecting the rights of same-sex couples to be served while allowing businesses to refuse to participate in bigotry like Jack's. Some, including Slate, have suggested requiring a baker to serve anyone who walks through the door, but exempting her from having to write any message — whether "Congratulations on Your Same-Sex Marriage" or "Burn in H–l, Sodomites" — that offends her.

The problem is, that gives a baker veto power over her customer's freedom of expression. The sentiment on the cake, remember, comes not from the cake maker — she's just the one writing it out in frosting — but from the customer. Will we then exempt a baker who declines to write a message celebrating a mosque's 20th anniversary?

So here's another idea. Maybe Silva should just hold her nose and bake the cake.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That is not what "freedom of expression" means. How can a newspaper columnist not know the difference between government censorship and private free association? Jack's freedom of expression has not been "vetoed" because he can make his own damned cake and decorate it however the hell he wants without having to worry about being sanctioned by the government. That's what "freedom of expression" means. It has nothing to do with using authority of the government to force private actors to help you produce or distribute your message. That is the opposite of "freedom of expression."

Fundamentally, the absurdity of all this arguing is why I've taken the "nobody has a right to cake" purist freedom of association route, rather than trying to navigate legal issues surrounding what is or isn't speech on a cake. At what point does a wedding cake make a statement? Is it the cake itself? Is it when the baker is asked to top it with two grooms or two brides? People are literally asking the government to decide what constitutes "speech" on a cake. Just deal with it yourselves, people!

Advertisement

NEXT: Eager to Imprison Medical Marijuana Users, Prosecutors Hide the Truth From Jurors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is it with the cakes and teh gaiz?

    1. When a group acquires the power to push people around, some members of that group will use said power to push people around.

    2. Ask the people who are trying to punish bakers for their free expression.

    3. There is another demographic that also loves cake.

      1. “There is another demographic that also loves cake.”

        I locked eyes with one of ’em once. Won’t do that again.

      2. Brides?

        Birthday boys and girls?

      3. French peasants?

        1. Close. It’s shreek. And sometime ‘Tony’.

      4. Marie Antoinette?

    4. Except this is a (presumably) non-gay, Christian.

      1. That guys totally goes into public restrooms tapping his foot away.

        1. Hey, I’ve been using “The Astaire” since high school and it has never led to restroom intercourse.

          1. Perhaps you have been too ginger about it?

        2. Check your narrow stance privilege cis shitlord.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal

          1. Hey thanks, that’s the first time anyone’s ever called me a shitlord.

  2. I would demand an anti-mosque Boston Creme Pie. That way no one has to make a cake they don’t want to make, only a pie.

    1. Mmmmmm. Pie.

    2. I want a cheesecake that says “Chris Kyle would totally shoot up an elementary school.”

  3. my roomate’s mother makes $63 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for 10 months but last month her check was $18498 just working on the internet for a few hours. read the full info here……………
    ????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

  4. (though I’m very certain the word “homosexuality” appears nowhere in the Bible)

    There is an entire industry built on coming up with new revisions of the Bible to justify whatever the customers want to justify.

    I recall Leviticus having a verse in there to the effect of “no man shall lay with another man.” Someone must have changed it to “Homosexuality is a detestable sin” in some revision.

    1. That would be “The Living Bible”:

      Lev 18:22

      1. It bleeds, we can kill it.

        1. I ain’t got time ta bleed…

    2. Yup wikipedia sez “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” from the King James Bible.

      I’m pretty sure wanting to put a bible verse on a cake (no matter what it says) is far more defensible a publicity stunt than “G-d hates teh gayz”. What amazes me is the lengths both sides will go to make a point.

    3. Translations from the original text in the original language are not word-for-word (and would be unreadable if they were), but the gist of all of them is “don’t stick it in the pooper – god doesn’t like that”, and it has been translated as such in every language by every authoritative theologion of all the big 3 Abrahamic religions. It’s not an inaccurate summary, nor a recent one. It’s a condensation of “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind” into “homosexuality” and an expansion of “abomination” to “detestable sin”. The meaning isn’t changed. As much as some people would like to make it otherwise, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim god isn’t down with the backdoor shenanigans. He doesn’t have anything to say about lesbianism though, proving that god is a man.

      1. Oh yeah? Well then how come God didn’t print “exit only” on everyone’s ass?

        /no homo, nttawwt

        1. He did, but then after the tower of Babel it required so many translations that the labeling was dropped.

          1. I always found that story to be amusing. People were given different languages, causing them to disperse. When in reality as people dispersed, their languages diverged.

          2. I am not sure you are correct. Romans 1:26-27 (NIV): “26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

            Now, there is a fair amount of leaway with “Unnatural relations,” but, contextually, lesbianism can certainly be a reasonable interpretation.

            Just so you know.

            1. True enough, although that’s as related by Paul in the NT. There is no specific mention in the Mosaic law of female homosexuality, nor of any specifically prescribed punishment for it as there is with male homosexuality (even Paul’s passage in Romans seems to indicate that the penalty accrues to the men). Most likely not because the ancient Hebrews were cool with lesbianism, but because women were of so little regard that it wouldn’t have warranted mentioning.

            2. Horses.

            3. I’ve studied Ancient Greek. That passage specifically refers to pegging. Everything else is okay.

    4. That’s because it’s spelled a-r-s-e-n-o-k-o-i-t-a-i.

      /poe

  5. How does this effect my plan for a wedding cake that says “Fuck the Draft”?

    1. It doesn’t effect it either way, though it may affect it.

      1. Effect can be a verb. It’s affect that cannot be a noun.

        1. In this case, I don’t think it either affects or effects his plan.

        2. Yeah, but the verb version is along the lines of to enact something, not to cause something to happen.

          1. According to Merriam-Webster, one of the meanings is accomplish, which is rather appropriate for a plan.

        3. “Affect” can be a noun.

          4. Psychology. feeling or emotion.
          5. Psychiatry. an expressed or observed emotional response: “Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.”

          1. The plan was designed to effect a certain metrosexual affect.

          2. Yes, but it’s almost never used in ordinary speech.

            1. So basically we should just abandon “affect” because the rules surrounding it are somewhat nebulous, the distinction between it and effect are slight, and expanding the legitimate use of ‘effect’ would not hinder understanding or change meaning.

              *wraps raps gavel*

            2. I take it no-one ever says “you have a flat affect” to you?

      2. Every one of you who participated in this is dead to me.

    2. Do you want to make the ghost of justice Holmes,
      sad?

      1. Huh? Are you saying that Hugh and his wife are Imbecile Generation 2.0? And Ollie will be sad if they have kids?

        1. Dude I’m like a fifth-generation imbecile. It’s a proud tradition dating back to the time my ancestors stepped off the boat halfway to America.

          1. Three generations was not enough?

            How dare you challenge the unimpeachable intellectual ratiocination of Mr. Justice Progressive?

            1. Mr. Justice Progressive

              I went looking for more information on him and Progressivism and now I’m not sure he was a progressive? Jeffrey Rosen describes him as “a cold and brutally cynical man who had contempt for the masses and for the progressive laws he voted to uphold”. The impression I get is that he voted to uphold laws because FYTW and had the attitude that Congress passed the law and that they should deal with the consequences.

          2. I’m so fucking jealous. I’m a nouveau idiote myself.

            I spend all my time trying to fit in with old world stupidity.

    3. It should be noted that his wife is Bertha “The Draft” Akston.

  6. “So here’s another idea. Maybe Silva should just hold her nose and bake the cake.”

    At least Pitts stands by his “I want cake” principles.

    Now it seems to be a dispute over whether the baker can put an anti-sodomy scripture passage on a cake.

    Suppose, during cross-examination, the baker says she’d be happy to inscribe “do not judge so that you will not be judged” (Matt 7:1) or “to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me” (Matt. 25:40)?

    So that would be an admission that the baker will discriminate among religious messages based on the content. How is this not discrimination based on “creed?”

    And even if after several years the baker “wins,” it will be like Pyrrhus’ “victory” over the Romans. And we know the Romans survived that “defeat” and gained in power.

  7. Wading into all this comes Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., with the exact wrong conclusion for terrible reasons

    How can you tell? That is exactly how he writes as a matter of ROUTINE!

    1. They publish his whines in my local paper. It’s amazing someone can make a career out of being such a whiny little bitch.

  8. How can a newspaper columnist [Leonard Pitts Jr] not know the difference between government censorship and private free association?

    Of course he knows the difference, he’s not an idiot. But he is bound by his commitment to his little red Marxian ideology, so it is about principles.

  9. “Ah, Mr. Rothstein, I am glad to be shoppink at your bakery. I am from ze Church of ze Aryan Warriors und I vould like you to bake a cake saying ‘Hitler did God’s work in killing the Jews.’ Just but ze cake in ze oven, ha ha, get it?

    “Any vay, bake it or I sue you into bankruptcy for racial discrimination, you racist.”

    1. *put* ze cake etc.

    2. religious discrimination

    3. I love this. Please make it happen.

    1. Speaking of retards:

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/c…..itter_page

  10. “Just deal with it yourselves, people!”

    Well if that’s your attitude, why do we even have a government!?

  11. though I’m very certain the word “homosexuality” appears nowhere in the Bible

    Fuck your ‘certainty’, ya lazy bum. Is it really that hard to look up Leviticus 18:22?

    1. I think the point was that the word “homosexuality”, you know the specific word spelled h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-i-t-y, does not appear. And I believe he’s correct, at least about the KJV.

      But, having said that, it’s a silly argument because even though they don’t use that word, the OT is clearly agin’ it. Also teh shrimps, but we’re not supposed to talk about that.

      1. The NT specifically throws out the food rules (for Gentiles), while doubling down on the sexual immorality rules.

        1. And don’t forget the wiener chopping…

          This is now a circumcision thread.

          1. Speaking as a circumcised Christian, I find Christians who circumcise for religious reasons to be weird. And wrong.

            And talking about you, Tebow.

            1. Christian circumcision: the original cultural appropriation?

                1. +1 Lindsay Bluth

            2. Jeez rob, you can’t let Peter have this one tiny win? Paul got to set the rules for everything else.

              1. Sounds like lots of peters lost to me.

            3. I find Christians who circumcise for religious reasons to be weird. And wrong

              If Jesus truly fulfilled the first covenant, then the shucking of the penii seems superfluous and a small bit inconsistent with the tone of the NY.

              1. NT*

          2. But how does Jesus feel about immigration and millennials?

            1. Well, he was okay with the Samaritans. And he’s supposed to be back any minute to establish a millennial kingdom…

              1. Hmm, he’s also traditionally depicted as a beardo with beardo friends.

                Jesus was so hipster he was doing it 2000 years early.

                1. How do we really know he turned water into wine and not PBR?

              2. Either that, or we have to establish it before he comes

                /postmillenialist

  12. Fundamentally, the absurdity of all this arguing is why I’ve taken the “nobody has a right to cake” purist freedom of association route

    And what other route is valid? Either people have a right to associate with whoever they wish or they don’t. If someone tells you that there are “exceptions”, then pointing out to that person that the exception is completely arbitrary is NOT being a purist! It is being LOGICALLY CONSISTENT AND INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!

    1. Exactly. The freedom of association is also the freedom to not associate.

      1. No, as long as you’re choosing to associate or not associate for the right reasons, then we need the government to step in and force the association or disassociation.

        1. No, as long as you’re choosing to associate or not associate for the right reasons, then we need the government thought police to step in and force the association or disassociation.

          ftfy

    2. It is being LOGICALLY CONSISTENT AND INTELLECTUALLY HONEST

      Otherwise known as being an ideologue, which is a very bad thing.

      1. Re: sarcasmic,

        Otherwise known as being an ideologue, which is a very bad thing.

        Don’t equivocate. We’re talking about concepts (the right to freely associate), not Ideology.

        And, Ideology does not require logical consistency.

        1. I was being sarcasmic (sorry for forgetting the exclamation point). Anyone who goes by principles gets shit on by the left for being an ideologue.

          1. To be fair you fooled me too. Your sarcasmicicity is at times, undetectable even to seasoned observers.

    3. Based off that quote, I think it’s pretty obvious that Shackford is a complete homophobe.

      /sarc

      1. Who else would support the right of a baker to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake? All right thinking people abhor those people. And abhoring someone’s beliefs means you should want to make them illegal.

    4. How dare we believe that the rules should apply equally to everyone, regardless of their beliefs?

      That’s just stubborn ideological blindness. The government has a duty to make people believe the right things, so it’s ok to make the rules different for people with incorrect beliefs.

    5. then pointing out to that person that the exception is completely arbitrary is NOT being a purist! It is being LOGICALLY CONSISTENT AND INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!

      I love you, you filthy old Mexican.

  13. Fundamentally, the absurdity of all this arguing is why I’ve taken the “nobody has a right to cake” purist freedom of association route,

    The route you should have taken is “accommodation is anti-liberty.”

  14. I only want free speech with the correct message (mine, of course). Let’s try not getting bogged down in principles.

    Furthermore, I want private business to serve everyone I think they should serve. I’ll make a list of approved and disapproved groups and I’ll be expecting my government to ensure compliance (with guns if necessary).

    Let freedom ring!

  15. I wanted to put a bunch of quotes from the Crime Bible on a cake once, but Libra got wind of it and burned the bakery down. Martian Manhunter was on call at the JLA that day, and since it was fire, he said he was in the bathroom when the call came in.

    Later on, Flash wound up saying he’d go back in time to stop the fire, but he got distracted by one of the other Flashes in the past and wound up taking the wrong timeline back. I’m pretty sure Batman was involved at some point, or maybe just his corpse, or his ancestors or descendants (I’m sure you guys know how confusing it gets with Bats ever since he took the Omega Beams to the face).

    So, long story short, I never did get my cake.

  16. . . . how to draw a line protecting the rights of . . . to be served . . .

    Oh, I think I see what the problem here is.

  17. I want a cake with some Orange Catholic Bible quotes on it!

      1. You got the reference. What does that make you?

        1. Still in the closet

          1. Really? You handle comes from a Princess Leia line in the worst of the trilogy, and you claim to be in the closet?

            1. SACRILEGE! HERESY!

              Next you’ll be telling me Ewoks were cute and lovable and totally fit in with a story about galactic war.

              1. Yub yub!

                1. I’ll bet you do

                  1. I was ten when the movie came out. Of course I liked the Ewoks. When I was ten.

                    1. Then later I decided Jedi was the best of the three for obvious reasons.

                    2. Sure, that’s why you always link to the Jabba wanna-bes at the Daily Fail.

                    3. I’m doing a public service for the chubby-chasers!

                      *humf*

                      No good deed goes unpunished.

                    4. Then later I decided Jedi was the best of the three for obvious reasons.

                      More like its one redeeming feature. After they escape from Jabba the rest of the movie is downhill, culminating with the introduction of the worst Star Wars alien species, until Gungans were introduced in Menace.

              2. They were bloodthirsty savages who thought there was good eating on a Corellian smuggler.

            2. and here I thought his namesake was the Futurama janitor.

              1. and here I thought his namesake was the Futurama janitor.

                Get off my lawn, you whippersnapper

            3. You handle comes from a Princess Leia line in the worst of the trilogy

              *glares at Sarcasmic*

              “‘Empire’ had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader’s his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that’s what life is, a series of down endings. All “Jedi” had was a bunch of Muppets.”

  18. public accommodation laws

    That this even exists is morally repugnant and antithetical to any semblance of the protection of private property. Private entities are NOT public accommodations. That is all.

    1. Do you want Tony in here? Cause that’s how you get Tony in here.

      1. I immediately scrolled down, expecting Tony to immediately reply wth a picture of Michigan J Frog dancing with his top hat.

    2. But they use roads and sidewalks to get to them! They didn’t build that!

      1. I’ve actually heard that argument used. They don’t seem to get how that could be turned against them. They never do.

        Another one is “You agree to follow all state laws when you accept a state business license.” Hmm, not too circular.

    3. There is no such thing as private property. See what happens when you don’t pay your property taxes rent.

    4. public accommodation laws

      Ensuring benefit to some by taking liberty from others.

      Ladies and gentlemen…I give you…politics.

      1. “Goernment is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
        -Bastait

        1. I’ve learned to use the “PREVIEW” button to catch typo’s, since there is no “EDIT” one.
          The quote is from BASTIAT, not Bastait.

    5. These things are pure evil.

  19. “Jack refused to let them …read the words out loud”

    Jack has magical powers.

    1. They are “The Words That Shall Not be Read!”

  20. Bill Jack…wasn’t there a movie about this guy back in the 70s?

    1. I’m gonna take this right foot, and I’m gonna whop you on that side of your face.

      1. Now it is “I’m gonna take this right wing bible quote and write it on the left side of your cake”

  21. The ultimate test case for this would be for someone to go into a Muslim-owned bakery and ask for a cake with the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cover on it.

  22. He should have gone to a bakery that operates on Sundays and made them write Numbers 15:32-36:

    “And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and had found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day, [33] That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude. [34] And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him. [35] And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him without the camp. [36] And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded.”

    1. What does that have to do with Sunday?

      The sabbath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

      1. As the guy in the story is a Christian, I presume he believes Sunday is God’s super-special-awesome day.

    2. Let me guess, after they got him stoned, he kind of wandered off and was never seen from again?

      1. “Man, I sure could go for some manna about now.”

  23. we end up with the amusing situation where religious conservative groups are supporting the right of the bakery to refuse business to a religious conservative and the American Civil Liberties Union trying to explain why this is all so very different from a bakery refusing to provide a gay couple a wedding cake at all.

    The whole sorry spectacle should be evidence enough of the inherent lack of meaning and logic behind anti-discrimination laws, by the fact that nobody seems able to pin-point what is discrimination and what it is not. In other words: it is a meaningless concept, because it ends up being defined by whose feelings are hurt.

    1. the fact that nobody seems able to pin-point what is discrimination and what it is not

      It’s not discrimination when I do it, it’s discrimination when they do it!

      1. It’s not discrimination when I do it, it’s discrimination when they do it!

        And let’s not forget that only whites are capable of discrimination because racism is all about power inequality…and furthermore; derpidity do da derp.

    2. When does realization strike Shackford that the ACLU has little to do with a principled defense of civil liberties?

    3. it ends up being defined by whose feelings are hurt.

      And whether or not they belong to a governemnt approved Permanently Aggrieved Victim class.

  24. Off topic, but interesting article about everyone’s favorite generation: The Millennials!

    Interesting projections for the future of business:
    the economy in the US will likely be stagnant for at least another 20 years, with a subtle downward slope. In essence, it’ll be a steady state economy – a regime which we’ve not really seen in history before. This means that forward capitalization schemes (credit) will generally fail, as credit is reliant upon economic growth. Investments will also have low long term yields, and the stock market will have little net growth (there will be local highs and lows, but long term investments may not be worth it).

  25. Why didn’t the baker just make the goddamn cake and stick his dick in the batter before he baked it like any normal person would do?

    1. Maybe he already does that with all his cakes and is afraid it would lose its significance?

    2. You seem to be using a definition of “normal” with which I was previously unfamiliar.

      1. You’ve clearly never worked in food service then?

        1. “Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit against the Pressman Hotel over the urine content of their soup.”

  26. I’m very certain the word “homosexuality” appears nowhere in the Bible

    Well, true, but then neither do the words “Lord”, “God”, “smote”, “sin” or “salvation”, since the Bible is written in a combination of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    That said, I think it’s safe to assume that “homosexuality” is a roughly equally valid translation of the original as “for a man to lie down with another man, as with a woman”.

  27. That BuzzFeed piece failed to explicitly state an important point. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is principled in its stand for free association whether its gays not baking anti-homo cakes or anti-homo bakers not baking gay cakes. While the ACLU is breaking its own pelvis their reasoning is so contorted.

  28. Typically, this is going off on the wrong bit of the Constitution.

    This isn’t about free speech so much as it is freedom of association.

    1. To the average Duhmerican, freedom of association is one of those obscure bits.

  29. I’m very certain the word “homosexuality” appears nowhere in the Bible

    Maybe in some of the newer tanslations? I don’t know.

    Also, freedom of association, bitchez. Ideally a baker or any other business should be able to refuse to serve any customer for any reason they choose. Don’t like it? Find another baker who will or bake and decorate your own damn cake (or get an undecorated cake and do the icing yourself).

    Of course, that ship has already sailed, so we’re all going to have to put up with absurdity of the government deciding whether or not decorations on a fucking cake constitute protected speech or not.

  30. It’s worth noting that the silliness of the debate really helps to shed light on the stupidity of the entire issue.

    It’s just fascinating how once you frame things in terms of speech, people suddenly think it’s not ok to force people to do things against their will.

    Like “It’s ok to force a bakers to bake a cake he doesn’t want to, but it’s not ok to force an artist to paint a picture or a newspaper to print words they don’t aqgree with.” As if there is some magic line wherein cake baking crosses from action to expression and actions can be compelled but expressions can’t.

    Someone should ask Pitt’s Jr. if newspapers should be forced to print advertising by the KKK, because ad space is a public accomodation.

  31. Are the courts so devoid of real work to do that they accept such foolishness?

    1. Hush. “Such foolishness” is what keeps the courts from making more harmful rulings.

  32. Is anyone aware of the fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop, which refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, never had to make said wedding cake? The owner simply changed his policy so his business wouldn’t make wedding cakes for any couple, be they opposite-sex, interracial, or same-sex. That way, he could obey his faith while also following anti-discrimination laws, and the same-sex couple doesn’t get their wedding cake from him!

    Azucar Bakery has the right to make a similar policy, one which enables them to both obey their beliefs AND follow anti-discrimination laws. As long as this policy is general enough that it doesn’t favor or discriminate against any one group, it should be fine. A policy of refusing messages which denigate any group seems perfectly reasonable. Messages such as “All who oppose same-sex marriage are anti-gay bigots”, “All Muslims are terrorists”, “Christianity is a Fairy Tale” would be refused. Any message which denigrates a group would not be allowed.

    I would be ok with a baker refusing to make me a wedding cake because of the kind of relationship I’m in, or to refuse to make a cake that says something like “Anti-Gay Bigots Are Losers”, as long as they refuse similar services and messages to anyone, and that’s all they would need to do to follow anti-discrimination laws.

    1. This is really stupid. What if you personally like making wedding cakes and think it’s the funnest part of the job? Now your forbidden from doing something you enjoy because you don’t want to do it for everyone who asks.
      What if he made wedding cakes on the side for free, but only for opposite-sex couples? Would that be legal? If so, why does it suddenly become illegal if he accepts money for them?
      If it’s still legal, what difference does it make whether it’s part of the bakery or not? Are you going to create a bunch of regulations and hire a bunch of thugs to go do inspections to make sure he’s not using his bakery kitchen to make one-the-side non-gay-wedding cakes?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.