Gay Marriage

When Your Foes Are Cashing In on Your Outrage, Maybe Reconsider the Signaling

The latest incredibly important news on cakes and flowers.

|

"Actually, I support gay marriage. I'm just refusing in the hopes of cashing in on the backlash."."
Credit: Ivonnewierink | Dreamstime.com

A few related tidbits about the current culture war battle over who can refuse service to whom:

• Washington State florist Baronelle Stutzman was recently fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $1 in court costs for refusing to provide her goods and services for a gay wedding. She had religious objections to gay marriage. She had no issue with selling flowers to gay customers, but would not service a gay wedding. This put her at odds with the state's public accommodation laws.

As with the recent Memories Pizza mess in Indiana, a fund had been set up for people to support Stutzman financially. The fund was created in February, but took off after Memories Pizza was attacked for the cultural crime of telling a reporter they wouldn't provide imaginary pizzas for a hypothetical gay wedding, a thing that is never going to happen anyway. More than $800,000 has been raised for the pizza place. For Stuzman's shop, Arlene's Flowers, more than $80,000 has been raised from more than 1,800 donors. More than half the money came in just last week, according to the Seattle Times.

So some folks who have signaled their anger online that places like Memories Pizza have declared a right to discriminate are also angry that these businesses are now getting rewarded for it. That's what happens with a culture war, folks. You send up your signals and they send up theirs, and on and on and on. People did not want Memories Pizza or Arlene's Flowers to be punished for the principles they hold, and so they were willing to use their financial backing to counteract the actions of those who do want to punish them. Ignore this signal at your peril. Regardless of whether people want to see pizza parlors or bakeries or florists turning away gay couples getting married, there are enough of them offended by the idea of driving them out of business to counteract these shaming and boycotting efforts. And it goes both ways. How many gay or gay-friendly folks have made sure to do businesses with companies who supported them and had been targeted by the religious right back in the 1990s or so?

• Meanwhile, remember in Colorado when a Christian gentlemen tried to turn the tables by filing a complaint against a bakery for refusing to bake a cake with anti-gay messages on it for him? He claimed he was discriminated against on the basis of his religion. The case has been tossed. The logic here is that the bakery had the right to refuse to write messages they found offensive, even if they came from the Bible. That's not discriminating against the customer's religion. They offered to make him cakes but wouldn't add the messages. The customer, William Jack, said he would appeal and added "I find it offensive that the Bible is censored from the public arena," which is not true (and that's not what censorship means).

Unfortunately the cake battles have developed into a fight over what is and isn't speech, and freedom of association barely factors in. A wedding cake is not speech, the government says. But once you start adding text and images to the cake, that part is speech. Some bakers who actually make the cakes disagree. They argue that simply making a wedding cake for a gay couple is a show of support for the concept of the union, even if they don't know the actual people involved.

That's why it's unfortunate that concepts of freedom of association aren't factoring in here. It really shouldn't matter what parts of a cake count as "speech." Bakers (and any other business) should be free to decide whether or not they want to provide their services to their customers. After all, customers are free to organize and make the reverse decision as consumers. If the customers hold all the cards, why are they so worried about what some little florist or pizza parlor is doing? Perhaps it's because of the backlash to the backlash. All that money heading to those businesses is a warning to tweeting boycotters and state bureaucrats that they're by no means the final word.

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.

146 responses to “When Your Foes Are Cashing In on Your Outrage, Maybe Reconsider the Signaling

  1. Another example of Me today, you tomorrow.

    For a long time, activists had an advantage because real people had jobs and other stuff to do, while activists had little else to do but flog their hobbyhorses.

    The internet levels that out. What used to require time and organization now requires no more than a few minutes of Googling and a few mouse clicks.

    The SJWs are learning that they aren’t the only ones who can fight a culture war online. The Gamergaters probably blazed the trail in pushback, along with SF fandom, but now its escaped into the big world.

    The punch line? It turns out both numbers and resources aren’t on the SJW side. Real people who have jobs also have money, and now the internet lets them aggregate that money into something that matters via GoFundMe or whatever.

    1. I also love that it cues a great big Nelson Muntz “HA HA!!”.

    2. It turns out both numbers and resources aren’t on the SJW side.

      Unfortunately, the law is.

      1. An antiquated law showing its age and gradually being attenuated with RFRA legislation.

        1. If by that you mean that RFRAs, which were broadly popular until now, have suddenly become anathema to the media and chattering classes.

          Call me when anyone but libertarians thinks you should be allowed to discriminate whenever you feel like it.

          1. Our own David Weigel has written about the latent popularity RFRA enjoys among voters overall. Democrats are praying they can pitch this as a victory for their ephemeral vision of gay rights rather than a deprivation of religious rights. They have an uphill slog ahead of them.

            1. Not sure when Shriek became “our own…”

            2. “Our own David Weigel ‘

              The Unbeloved

              We do not speak of that person. that one was outcast.

    3. The whole cycle is happening so fast, too. So we get from somewhat-principled opposition to peak derp in less than a week. Fortunately, peak derp tends to turn most people off.

    4. SF Fandom? You should hear the screeches of the SJWs that thought they had total control over the Hugo Award.

      Liberal tears are so tasty.

  2. More than $800,000 has been raised for the pizza place.

    High-larious.

    1. SJWs send mean tweets.

      Anti-SJWs send cash.

      Who would you rather associate with?

      1. I have a feeling this means SJWs are the ones in the group that pony up less for a meal, and are also lousy tippers.

        1. Let’s be honest, they did only have the kale salad.

    2. And the SJWs are trying to get the law involved to take that money away on fraud charges.

      The fun has just begun.

  3. Oh, this is so entertaining.

    1. There isn’t enough popcorn in the world, even if you include all the gourmet stuff.

  4. It was pretty funny seeing all of this outrage at Memories Pizza on Wednesday, and then see the same people outraged at the fund on Thursday. You did that, morons.

    1. Agreed. Watching the rending of garments in at Jezebel in real-time as the donations kept reaching ever more unbelievable levels was fucking hilarious. They were absolutely apoplectic as they began to comprehend the depth of their opposition.

      1. They were so proud of their vitriol at the pizza place, they felt so clever with their fake Yelp reviews, they patted each other on the back for engaging in RightThink.

        And then the next day… as said above, a big Nelson Muntz, “Ha ha!”

  5. I wonder: what happens when a professional surrogate mother refuses to bear a gay couple’s child?

    1. Hilarity ensues…..

      Watch for the new Tina Fey/Amy Pohler vehicle!

    2. “What happens when a professional surrogate mother refuses to bear a gay couple’s child…” using the sperm donated by one of the gay men?

      1. You’re not allowed to rent out for womb for cash. Bioethicists said so.

  6. The kind of people who would whole-heartedly endorse state violence over something as trivial as pizza are so smug and self-important that their butthurt over making these “bigots” rich is just delicious schadenfreude.

    There are serious pizza truthers out there who think this whole thing was a conspiracy to get donation money.

    1. “serious pizza truthers”

      Yet another inadvertent fabulous band name!

    2. So now there is a financial incentive to discriminate against gays, apparently. Those SJWs are playing some really subtle 6-dimensional chess.

    3. Can we run them out of business for selling deep dish?

      That’s cricket, right?

      1. I made myself a deepdish pizza this weekend. Just finished the leftovers for lunch. It was fantastic.

        1. I made myself a deepdish pizza casserole this weekend.

  7. The SJW Petard Hoisting…..finally we get to the entertaining part of the whole affair!

    1. Hoist by their own retard.

  8. You forgot the funniest part. Chris Loesch (unfortunately I can’t find it now) sent out a tweet with a screen capture from Facebook where a progressive said something like “They’ve raised $700,000 from 35,000 people – that’s $20,000 a person, so clearly it’s just rich GOPers trying to help the bigot.”

    That person must have had a rough time in math class.

    1. LOL, yeah, progressives. The intellectual giants of our society.

      1. Look, STEM classes don’t offer a rigorous enough look at intersectionalism and class theory.

      2. If we don’t pass this jobs bill, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs every month.

    2. They don’t do math because it can’t be manipulated to support their narrative.

    3. That’s not unique to SJWs. When the news broke that Michelle’s old college buddy wasted $600 million on an Obamacare website that didn’t work, my Facebook feed blew up with people trying to do math. “They could have given every person in America $2 million and solved healthcare!!!!”

      I kept saying, no. Math. I mean, you’ve got a calculator right there on your computer if you’re confused. 600 million/2 million doesn’t even have an order of operations cue. This should not be difficult.

      Math is a dead language to huge swathes of people. Like Latin.

      1. Given that there are about 300 million Americans in the US, I feel like I could do 600 million/300 million pretty quickly.

        1. So did they. The difference is, I have some confidence that YOU would get the answer correct.

          My Facebook days consisted largely of yelling “MATH” and “Wait a second…” interspersed with regular anecdotes about what really happens in a commercial kitchen. It was too much like reading comments on Yahoo news.

      2. That exact math can be done with precision when someone is wanting to show how cheap it is.

        For only $2 you can provide XXX safety net or YYY missile defense system!

        1. XXX safety net

          Um, good band name?

    4. That person must have had a rough time in math class.

      I’m pretty sure math isn’t required for a BA in perpetual victim studies. Except maybe for calculating the appropriate level of butthurt based on victim class, and that equation keeps changing. A few years ago gayz had a much lower Coefficient of Butturt than blacks and womyn. Now their Cb seems to be a lot higher.

  9. Interestingly enough, one side of the culture war is voluntarily funding their principles while the other side is attempting (with some success) to use the force of government to silence the other side.

    I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about that state of affairs.

    1. Well, the other side of the culture war showed no compunctions against using government force to silence their opponents when they held the power. What’s actually happening is that the conservatives who used to gleefully oppress their opponents no longer have the capacity to do so and have therefore begun constructing a counterculture based on voluntary transaction in order to keep themselves from being abused by the people who now wield control.

      It’s sort of like how progressives totally loved freedom of speech back when they had no power so freedom of speech kept them from being oppressed, but now that progs are ascendant, free speech is now something that can be done away with in order to avoid speech which is ‘hateful.’

      1. Now you’re catching on… 😉

      2. the conservatives who used to gleefully oppress their opponents

        I’m honestly drawing a blank, here. Example?

        1. The Stonewall Riot, anti-sodomy laws which weren’t struck down until a decade ago, obscenity laws, rules against sending pornographic material by mail, the banning of a host of books which only really came to an end during the 50’s and 60’s when a left-wing counterculture had gained enough power to effectively challenge book censorship.

          Remember: Ginsburg was put on trial in 1957 because Howl was considered to be obscene and was found not guilty because the court decided it wasn’t obscene. You’ll notice the court didn’t find obscenity laws unconstitutional, they merely found that Ginsberg had not violated them.

          The Supreme Court was still arguing about porn censorship in the 1970s.

          1. Sure.

            I was thinking something more contemporaneous, is all. Most of that is 50 – 60 years ago. What we used to call “two generations” ago.

            1. Florida Man pointed out sodomy laws, 2005 is pretty recent, and several states have kept theirs on the books even if they’re now unenforceable because. The Republicans used heavily anti-gay rhetoric to whip up the base during the 2004 election. Over the last 10 years various states have gone further than banning gay marriage and banned recognition of relationships legally similar to marriage.

              I know a number of gay men who are a much better fit for the GOP, but can’t stomach working with them or voting for them after the 2004 elections.

              2008 was the Langbehn case in FL where a woman was barred from spending the last few hours with her partner while she was dying because the hospital refused to recognize her as family even though she had her durable health care power of attorney faxed over, and after her death wouldn’t release a death certificate to her.

              1. I did say “most” of that is two generations ago. I know sodomy laws were technically enforceable until more recently.

                I don’t pay a lot of attention to what Republicans say, so I could have missed that heavily anti-gay rhetoric.

                My recollection is that the Langbehn case in FL was an example of a hospital possibly violating its own policy on health care agents. Much turns on timing: did the hospital deny access after it got the health care power of attorney? Because before it gets the paper, the gay partner was just another bystander, for medical-legal purposes.

                While its possible this happened as a result of anti-gay bigotry on the part of hospital staff, I’ve always wondered what else was going on. As in, was the partner a massively disruptive pain in the ass? Because that’s pretty much the only time I’ve ever seen a hospital deny access by a health care agent to a patient.

                Still, I’m not about to say there isn’t lingering anti-gay bigotry. I’m having a hard time calling it “conservatives gleefully oppressing their opponents”, is all.

                1. I know sodomy laws were technically enforceable until more recently.

                  Lawrence v. Texas didn’t end up before the Supreme Court over whether the laws were “technically” enforceable.

                  And even as recently as 2013 there were still people trying to enforce laws that were “technically” unenforceable.

                  According to Lambda Legal’s breakdown of the Langbehn case:

                  Even though Langbehn held Pond’s durable health care power of attorney, the hospital refused to accept information from Langbehn regarding Pond’s medical history. The hospital also informed her that she was in an antigay city and state and that she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family. A doctor finally spoke with Langbehn, telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Despite the doctor’s acknowledgment that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Langbehn nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival. Soon after Pond’s death, Langbehn attempted to obtain her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for her children. She was denied both by the state of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

                  Even if she’d been a massive pain in the ass in the hospital, there seems to be a systemic problem if she was unable to get the death certificate afterward.

        2. Anti-sodomy laws?

          1. I bet you’re thinking “who could be against fun!?”

        3. In Corpus Christi, it is still illegal for a woman to buy a dildo. Goodness only knows what she might do with it!

          1. Something called “pegging.” There’s no practical limit to the precautions we can take against that possibility.

          2. In Corpus Christi, it is still illegal for a woman to buy a dildo.

            You’d think it would be legal so long as she was only buying it to insert into her vagina. Of course, any such regulation would require someone to monitor the woman’s use of said dildo. Sounds like a tough job, but I’d be willing to “take one for the team”…

            1. “take one for the team”…

              A job monitoring dido use that is. Not a “pegging” for the team, just to be clear. Sheesh, phrasing, amiright?

      3. the other side of the culture war showed no compunctions against using government force to silence their opponents when they held the power.

        You could accurately claim that side of the culture war wouldn’t acquiesce to the demands of the other side for SSM, but I can’t think of any attempts at “silencing” big Gay short of Jerry Falwell’s castigation of the purple teletubby two decades ago.

        1. Yeah because sodomy wasn’t illegal or anything a couple decades ago.

          1. Unless you count the screams of joy (or agony depending on the endowment of one of the partners) I don’t see how that equates to “silencing.” That’s the whole thing that bothers me with this: it’s one thing to have a position on an issue, even if I believe that position is a denial of liberty. It’s another thing to try silencing all dissent. That is the greatest threat to liberty, even if used in the instant case to advance liberty (which it isn’t in this case).

            1. Sure, the thread of jail time, loss of custody, loss of job, etc., is totally not silencing.

              1. There were threats of jail time for the act of publicly opposing sodomy laws?

                1. I am genuinely confused about how goalposts moved from “complaining about teletubbies was actual silencing” to “criminalizing sex wasn’t.”

        2. I always thought the Republicans stoking their base with the Federal Marriage Amendment nonsense for the 2004 election was a nasty, if unsuccessful piece of work. Although there were a few states that ended up banning not just gay marriage but gay marriage, civil unions or legal arrangements that were substantially similar to marriage during the ’00s.

          1. But you have to admit, the slippery slope arguments were spot on.

            1. I still can’t marry my dog, my mother, my siblings or any number of inanimate objects, so not really.

      4. What’s actually happening is that the conservatives who used to gleefully oppress their opponents no longer have the capacity to do so and have therefore begun constructing a counterculture based on voluntary transaction in order to keep themselves from being abused by the people who now wield control

        A bit much to blame this on “conservatives”, when the whole world (conservative, liberal, secular, etc) was on the same page as far as this issue goes for a very long time. While this was an appalling state of affairs, it was not caused by conservatives — and what’s more, I’d like to see actual examples of an American conservative appealing to government force to silence pro-gay rights types or force gays to serve them in business (much less a mass movement centered around same).

        1. It’s illegal to refuse service or employment to someone based on religion, so there’s that.

        2. I’m confused. When Ginsburg was being sued for obscenity, who do you think was on his side and who do you think was against him? The people against Ginsburg in that instance could easily be considered ‘conservatives’ and I think you have to lay the blame on a conservative cultural establishment.

          1. When Ginsburg was being sued for obscenity, who do you think was on his side and who do you think was against him

            Most of the establishment (New Deal liberal or conservative) was against him. Many of those outside the establishment (mostly radicals of various sorts) were on his side.

            The radicals were right, but as a group they don’t map onto left-right politics very well.

            Frankly, if you have to look back to shortly after the Nazis were a major force in world politics (and before social conservatism was “a thing” in politics), there isn’t much of a case for evil conservatives using the force of government to silence opposing political or religious views.

            Again, this is not the same as suggesting that one side is consistently classically liberal — it is a rebuttal of the “both sides do it” claim, which has become a convenient way for libertarians to distance themselves from making a judgement call in cases where it conflicts with their aesthetics.

        3. I’d like to see actual examples of an American conservative appealing to government force to silence pro-gay rights types or force gays to serve them in business (much less a mass movement centered around same).

          That doesn’t really make sense in this context. Conservatives used government force to prevent businesses, which would’ve otherwise recognized gay employees’ spouses as married from providing benefits, or made those benefits more costly where businesses felt the right thing to do was to offset tax penalties gay couples dealt with that straight couples didn’t.

          1. Conservatives used government force to prevent businesses, which would’ve otherwise recognized gay employees’ spouses as married from providing benefits

            Please explain. Having lived in states with gay marriage bans, I distinctly recall that businesses will often provide equivalent benefits to gay partners when it is in their interest to do so — they’re just not required to (nor should they be).

            made those benefits more costly where businesses felt the right thing to do was to offset tax penalties gay couples dealt with that straight couples didn’t

            Government carve-outs for marriage benefits are a crock of shit. I’ll agree that it is not particularly fair that gays are excluded from these carve-outs, but it is a small part of what makes these carve-outs repulsive and is in no sense similar to the free speech and religious freedom issues at play in this case.

            Mind: I am not saying that either side is libertarian or classically liberal in any consistent sense.

            I am saying that one side stands head and shoulders over the other in terms of ostracizing those with different *views*, and that the “both sides do it” narrative is wrong.

            1. I am saying that one side stands head and shoulders over the other in terms of ostracizing those with different *views*, and that the “both sides do it” narrative is wrong.

              I wouldn’t disagree with that statement. I think you still have a lot of people who see themselves as in counter-attack mode for long-passed legal opposition (Anita Bryant, employment purges, entrapment laws, and obscenity charges for newsletters that advocated for decriminalization for homosexuality even if they didn’t contain any particularly obscene material). It would be better for everyone if people didn’t feel the need to be vindictive when the pendulum swings in their direction, but that’s rarely how people have behaved throughout history.

              1. All the more reason to exercise restraint at the moment of victory.

    2. Compulsion vs. cooperation. Which is better, morally and in practice?

  10. If the customers hold all the cards, why are they so worried about what some little florist or pizza parlor is doing?

    I think that many of them have their very identities wrapped up in being Great Civil Rights Crusaders. Alas for them, the real battles were fought long ago. So they’re reduced to manufacturing villains. Don Quixote had his windmill; these folk don’t even have that. Ye gods, they may have to live the life of ordinary people. Ick! How can they impress their 23 cats with that?

  11. Unfortunately the cake battles have developed into a fight over what is and isn’t speech

    I see a new and terrible Supreme Court precedent in our future.

    1. Yes , one which the government will decide what should happen baded pn what content os verboten, not what the customer wznts or what the business operater is willing to provide.

    2. You kidding? We already have that precedent: the redlining of commercial speech out of the 1A.

      I’m thinking the decision will go like this:

      Putting a text or image on a product is commercial speech, and hence not protected by the 1A (much, certainly not enough to override Public Accommodation). So, any business can be forced to print any message, provided the message is demanded by a Protected Class.

  12. I think this calls for a Photoshop contest: The Most Unbakeable Cake. Something like Mohammad screwing his child bride while saying “Fuck gay marriage!”, all on a penis-shaped cake.

    1. No that won’t do. Not enough to offend the Christians.

      How about Mohammad fucking Jesus in the ass while his child bride dressed as a domminatrix flogs him on a vagina shaped cake

      1. How about Mohammad fucking Jesus in the ass while his child bride dressed as a domminatrix flogs him on a vagina Star of David shaped cake

        Just to include the Jooos.

        1. He must be crucified to the Star of David using Vishnu’s 8 cocks.

          1. So Jesus crucified to a Star of David with Vishnu’s 8 cocks being anally raped by Mohammaed as Mohammed is being flogged by his Domminatrix child bride all laid over top of a picture of a vagina?

            So that covers most of the ethnic and relgious groups. Now we need to find some way to make it offensive to Athiests and SJW’s

            1. Now we need to find some way to make it offensive to Athiests and SJW’s

              Isn’t everything offensive to atheists and SJWs?

            2. Not to worry. The Star of David will trigger the SJWs, and all the other religious imagery will trigger the militant atheists.

            3. I think the n-word needs to be worked in somewhere.

            4. Have Mohammed be dressed as a woman.

  13. In my distant youth, it used to be a fairly common retort when someone took issue at your stance on something to retort: “Its a free country, ain’t it?”

    This being the only justification for providing or refusing to provide services to any individual would be a welcome change. I don’t owe anyone an explanation as to why I refused service. Its my work, I get to choose where it goes.

    1. In my distant youth, it used to be a fairly common retort when someone took issue at your stance on something to retort: “Its a free country, ain’t it?”

      And the absence of that phrase from daily life should tell you something remarkable about the character of the people that infest these lands at present.

      1. Yeah, try saying that to a cop and see what you get.

        50-50 it’s either a beat down or a 72 hour time out with the Nurse Cocktail. (Ativan, Haldol, Benadryl)

    2. How about, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight like hell for your right to say it.” That’s gone too.

    3. People still say it, but always accompanied by a near-terminal dose of sarcasm. Because we’re only free to do exactly as we’re told, with the proper permits and so long as our thoughts are pure.

  14. You’re simply not going to get both Public Accommodation and a failure to fight about its boundaries. The obvious solution is to eliminate Public Accommodation but OH NOEZ RACISM!

  15. The concept that’s lost on most people outside of H and R is that you could be against any type of discrimination, yet still feel that it’s wrong to use the government to force someone to provide a service against their will. I wish that were the discussion we were having.

    That being said, watching this all from the sidelines is starting to get fun as both sides push the limits of sanity.

    1. Is anyone against all discrimination? Price and quality discrimination are damn common.

      1. I don’t see many people being equal opportunity sex partners, either.

        1. Next frontier for SJWs: Illegalize people choosing their partners and have it all done by government lottery.

  16. That’s why it’s unfortunate that concepts of freedom of association aren’t factoring in here.

    Scott, that is because a lot of people seem to regard Freedom of Association with either indifference towards bigotry or promoting bigotry. Of course, it means neither. This argument for freedom should be firmly founded on the principle of Property Rights and not mere freedom of association.

    That is how we should have this conversation with enemies of freedom: by making them seem like the SNEAKY AND COWARDLY THIEVES they are instead of making US look like BIGOTS which we’re decidedly NOT.

    1. “confuse”, not “regard”. Sorry.

    2. But whites held people as property 200 years ago, ergo property rights are teh RAYCISS!

  17. When your foes are people hundreds of miles away, who have never harmed anyone, and do not intend to use force against others. Maybe reconsider your ideology.

  18. How are we still talking about this? The is the dumbest culture war battle since whatever the last one was.

    1. I dunno, nothing else going on. Government is perfect, economy is beyond perfect. Really, it’s all perfect, except for some people not wanting to make cakes or pizzas for other people.

    2. KULTUR KAMPF helps people ignore actual problems.

      1. You know who else used Kulturkampf to distract his people from actual problems?

        1. Bill Clinton?

        2. Professional referees?

      2. Don’t you mean KULTUR KREIG?

  19. She had no issue with selling flowers to gay customers, but would not service a gay wedding.

    How about this approach:

    “Here are your 50 table arrangements and 20 boutonni?res, Steven and Chris. I presume you won’t be using them for a gay wedding.”

    1. Part of the wedding service they provide is bringing them on site and setting them up.

      My wedding (1st anniversary in 6 days!) was small but the cake and flowers and etc were brought by the respective vendors to the church.

    2. Would you feel comfortable telling someone “Here is your gun, mask, gloves, security code, safe combination, address, list of valuables, and resident’s schedule?” just because you technically haven’t confirmed they are going to rob the place?

      If you think helping perform some action is wrong, then helping to perform it while pretending it’s not happening is still wrong.

    3. Should have read the comments before I posted:)

    4. No, a better approach would be “Sure, we’ll supply a gay wedding. Just so you know, however, we will donate the profits to the Westboro Baptist Church.”

  20. Clearly this is a conspiracy created by GoFundMe. They tapped into the great Culture War and will make a fortune.

  21. You people don’t realize what’s really around the corner – a boycott of Gofundme for allowing religious conservatives to raise money for their ‘bigotry.’

    The progressives are truly offended by the money these people have made as they thought they could destroy these businesses. They had gotten fat and arrogant off their previous public lynching crusades for people they found guilty of thought crimes. These people don’t take a step back and reevaluate. It’s always escalation.

    IF they can’t browbeat regular Americans, they’ll target organizations that are too cowardly to resist and ideologically sympathetic to them in the first place.

    1. Followed by the Buycott of GoFundMe by conservatives. They’ll even create a GoFundMe page to support GoFundMe against the boycott. I’m telling you, this a conspiracy by GoFundMe to rake in a fortune. They may be the greatest war profiteers ever to live.

      1. Culture War Profiteers.

        1. Now, THAT is a great bband name!

  22. OT: The fraternity at the center of a discredited Rolling Stone article about an alleged gang rape at University of Virginia “plans to pursue all available legal action against the magazine,” it said in a statement.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us…..va-n336541

    Which reasonoid was writing a TV script about this?

  23. I wonder if you’ll start seeing bakers offer set menu of toppings and decorations, non gender specific, and just say this is what we offer. Then it shouldn’t even be an issue.

    1. Actually I suspect a lot of restaurants that don’t want to have to cater gay weddings will simply shut down their catering business. I know that’s what I’d do if I ran a resaurant and was opposed to gay marriage. If anyone asked me why shut down my catering business I’d just say it was “cost prohibitive” to avoid any SJW horseshit.

      Bakers and florists might have a harder time taking that approach because I imagine weddings are a much larger portion of their businesses than catering is for a restaurant.

      1. Basically anyone who has unacceptable views and wants to express them publicly, won’t be able to be in those sorts of businesses. That of course is the entire point. Gradually, the number of businesses affected will be increased driving unacceptable views completely out of the public square.

        1. I wonder what effect this will have on the economy if a good 30% of the population is basically forbidden from opening service businesses.

    2. I think we will see a rise in “clubs and organizations.” That way they have plausible deniability about their reason for rejecting people.

      “I’m so sorry, you need a personal reference from somebody already in the club in order to join. Only then can you become a bakery insider club member and use your complementary wedding catering benefit.”

    3. I wonder if they would be allowed to say something like they only cater weddings held within their actual church, or within their specific denomination.

  24. The non-SJWs may be able to raise a lot of money voluntarily, but the SJWs have access to government force – to compel businesses to serve favored classes and to raise the money for prosecuting such cases.

    After there’s one or two high-profile cases, maybe the non-SJWs can raise some cash. But what about the tenth case, the twentieth, or the hundredth?

    What about the businesses who simply capitulate because they don’t want to be sued?

    By the time the non-SJWs develop compassion fatigue, and stop contributing to all those defense funds, the SJWs will still be using men with guns to hound conscientious objectors out of business.

    1. Seriously, why are Reason writers whistling in the dark?

      “Sure, this violation of religious freedom/freedom of association is bad, but it’s OK because these businesses will simply raise funds from the SoCons, or make inferior products.”

      I think the writers feel such a sense of ritual pollution from defending SoCons that they are simply looking for excuses to minimize the situation.

    2. Yes and no. It is true that you can’t raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of a business very many times, but neither can the fascists make a national story and outrage out of a business refusing to serve a gay wedding very many times. Does doing it a few times have a chilling effect? Sure. But sometimes life requires courage. If the people object to gay marriage, they need to tell the first gay couple who wants their services sorry but can’t do it and then thank them for providing the opportunity to sacrifice for their faith.

      1. but neither can the fascists make a national story and outrage out of a business refusing to serve a gay wedding very many times.

        [citation needed]

      2. They don’t need a national outrage, when they have the government fining (or imprisoning) business owners who refuse to cater gay events.

  25. “Bakers (and any other business) should be free to decide whether or not they want to provide their services to their customers.”

    One wishes it were so, but that horse left the barn and jumped aboard a ship that sailed half a century ago — the USS Civil Rights act.

  26. The reason why they are concentrating so much on gay weddings is that it is the only way they can even pretend there is much or any public accommodation discrimination going on. The problem is that being gay isn’t obvious to the onlooker the way being black is. A racist business owner can cut off his nose to spite his face and refuse to serve people of another race, it is clear how to do it. If someone decides they hate the gays and are no longer going to serve gays, it is not clear at all. They have likely been serving gays for years and will do so again no matter how much they wish not to. The only way they could ever effectively discriminate is if the customer announces they are gay. And that is unlikely to happen outside of a wedding.

    So they go after anyone who refuses to serve a gay wedding because that is all they have. Only the most delusional business owner is going to claim to refuse to serve gays because anyone not delusional is going to understand that doing that is for intents and purposes impossible.

  27. Has someone set up a fundraiser for Azucar Bakery’s legal costs? I’m sure it would raise just as much money as the ones for Memories Pizza and Arlene’s Flowers, because as I’m constantly assured, this is entirely about a principled stand for freedom of association and has absolutely nothing to do with anti-gay animus.

    1. If they are just doing it because they hate gays, they should have raised money for them too. The fact that maybe they haven’t isn’t evidence the people supporting the pizza parlor just hate gays. It is just evidence that no one has set up a fund.

      Moreover, even if every person who supported these business did so for the single reason that they hated guys, how would that make their position any less right? Since when does a position have to be taken for the right reasons in order to be correct?

    2. Azucar Bakery didn’t actually get fined or punished, as far as I can tell.

    3. Did Azucar Bakery actually incur any legal costs? As far as I can tell, they were ratted out to the Colorado Civil Rights Division of the state Department of Regulatory Agencies, where the complaint was “investigated” and subsequently dismissed. There were no court appearances, and there don’t appear to have been any legal proceedings for which the bakery would have required counsel. It could be that since the government sided with the bakery and nobody, you know, threatened them with death and ran them out of business, that people didn’t figure they really needed any help.

  28. I understand that you believe the main point is that “[b]akers (and any other business) should be free to decide whether or not they want to provide their services to their customers.” I agree that if we are arguing purist libertarian principles, that is the most important point.

    Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent, similar acts, have made those decisions illegal in many cases depending on the motive for the decision. And that is why the debate about the nature of speech is so important, since freedom of speech is one of the few areas where businesses still have a small measure of freedom. The other area in which this battle is being fought is in trying to distinguish between discriminating against doing business with the customer himself, and discriminating against participating in particular activities in which the customer wants the business owner to participate.

    1. The other area in which this battle is being fought is in trying to distinguish between discriminating against doing business with the customer himself, and discriminating against participating in particular activities in which the customer wants the business owner to participate.

      This. Not wishing to sell to gay people is not the same as not want to participate in or facilitate a blasphemous (to them) religious ceremony.

  29. So, tonight on “Who Unintentionally Created a Millionaire” . . .

    It’s worth noting that every counter-effort against the GoFundMe campaign failed utterly.

  30. Pizza, Games & Books: 3 Threads of the SJW String wp.me/p31sf8-1Kj

  31. A baker is both a service provider and an artist. While a cake can be a service, if it were just the service anyone could do it. What you’re buying with a wedding cake, however, is a piece of edible art.

    Just as writen speech cannot be compelled, artistic skill cannot be compelled either. You might be able to compel the baker to provide the service of cale baking, but since it’s artistic skill that makes it taste good and look beautiful, odds are you won’t like the cake you have for your wedding.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.