Christian Complaint that Baker Refuses to Decorate Cake with Anti-Gay Message

This is an interesting twist and I must say, I saw it coming. A Christian man has asked a Colorado baker (who is known to be LGBT-friendly) to decorate a cake with an anti-gay slogan, and the baker is refusing. Therefore, the Christian is complaining, claiming his religious rights are being violated.

Azucar Bakery in Denver is known for being a business that is welcoming of LGBTI people and has made wedding cakes for same-sex couples in the past but also make cakes with religious themes so staff were not suspicious when a customer came in to ask if they would make a cake in the shape of a Bible for him.

But it wasn't just that he wanted a bible on the cake (which is fine). He also wanted some pretty harsh anti-gay sentiments written on the cake. He wrote out the message, but wouldn't let the baker copy it down.

‘I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners … I told him that I would bake the cake in the shape of a Bible. Then I told him I’d sell him a [decorating] bag with the right tip and the right icing so he could write those things himself.’

In response the man told Silva that she would be needing to talk to a lawyer and then left.

Source

Here's a case where a customer is asking the baker to do something they DO NOT DO FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS - write derogatory messages against other groups of people. That is different from any of the similar cases we've seen before, where the gay couples were asking for the EXACT SAME product given other customers.

‘I would like to make it clear that we never refused service,’ reads a statement to DORA from Silva in response to the complaint, ‘We only refused to write and draw what we felt was discriminatory against gays.’

‘In the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays.’

Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) is expected to respond within 30 days.

Should be interesting. I expect the baker will not be held liable. because:
A. They're not refusing based on the customer's religion.
B. They don't provide this service (negative decorating) for anyone.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh for crying out loud! Talk about baiting someone in order to get in the news. In the end that self-righteous person will be shunned as a troublemaker. Good on the baker though for offering to provide the icing so that the customer could write whatever on the cake. It shows common sense and good business skills.

I wish i had something meaningful to say to this.
But i'm rendered speechless by the realization that there are people that will go out of their way to cause conflict.
That woman had to plan this sort of thing out, to some extent, she had to wake up one morning, and while ironing or whatever she actually built this scenario, you see what i'm saying?
she had to plan what to write on the cake, she had to purposely go to the only baker that she knew would refuse to do it, just so she can then go talk to a lawyer to make a fuss about this.
She could have used that day to literally do ANYTHING else.
the idea that people like that exist blows my f@ck1ng mind.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

perhaps if that dude werent so intent on insulting homosexuals, some of them would be willing to teach him how to make his own straight-pride cake. oh well, his loss.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.

Good on the baker .. had he done what the "good christian" requested he would have ended up in worse trouble for hate speach .. meh .. over there the poor baker most likely end up shut down anyway because of the "good christians" ..

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Seriously?

The judge should laugh them out of the court room. Or maybe fine them for contempt. Jesus H. Christ!!!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Christians don't get it a lot of times. I agree with your post, I couldn't have said it better myself.

In Washington State, there are anti-discrimination laws businesses have to follow - meaning they cannot legally refuse services to someone because of their sexual orientation. This is a good idea, because otherwise the business owner is denying a service as a way to abuse his power.

In Idaho, meanwhile, legislation was being discussed to protect the right of even medical providers to refuse services to homosexuals.

Christians see it as disagreeing with someone, therefore not helping them out.

a reply to: Logarock

Bullcrap. In the first case, the gay people were DENIED service. It's not like the bakers made the cake, sold it to them, then made them decorate it with gay themes or anything. They flat out refused to sell them a cake. The bakery in the OP would have sold the cake, even with most of the requests, but wasn't going to be complicit in slandering a group of people. So the bakery gave the person the instructions and icing to decorate it with on how to do it themselves.

The man in the OP suing is clearly a twat looking for attention. He point the bakery in a no win situation. If the bakery had done what he asked, they could have lost business from the gay community for the hate speech, if the bakery hadn't sold the cake they'd be in worse trouble, and with this situation they are still in trouble. He should just go crawl back under whatever rock he came from. Not very Christian either, if you ask me.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.

If the baker won't write hate speech for anyone, it is not discriminatory for him not to do it for the man that asked for it.

He wont write anti-homosexual messages.
He wont write anti-christian messages.
He won't write anti-muslim messages.
He won't write anti-democrat messages.
He won't write anti-republican messages.
He won't write anti-dog messages.
He won't write anti-mexican messages.

Not wanting to write hate speech for anyone isn't discriminatory.

The only way this guy has a leg to stand on is if he can find a time when the baker did write some hate speech on a cake. Which I doubt will happen.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.

There is a huge difference between a gay couple asking for a wedding cake from a baker that the baker supplies to other heterosexual customers and asking for a cake that is discriminating against someone due to their believe in a book written by shepherds two millennium ago.

We are now in 2015, about time some folk joined us in this century as it seems to me that “SOME” Christian Fundamentalist in the USA are no better that the Islamic fundamentalist in the Middle East. Both forms of fundamentalism are cut from the same cloth.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.

discriminating against discrimination. thats what our constitution DOES support.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views. The other guy wasn't allowed to do that.

The customer here was trying to get the baker to decorate a cake in a manner that is obviously offensive to the baker personally. For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.

Nope. Not the same thing. For example, a baker could decide that they won't make a cake that looks like a penis. They won't do it for ANYONE - not for a group of heterosexual women having a bachelorette party, nor for a group of gays.
If the baker agreed to do a penis cake for the heterosexual women, but not do the exact same cake for the gays - THAT is being discriminatory.

This baker won't decorate a cake with an anti-gay message for ANYONE - not for a Jew, not for a Christian, not for an atheist - no one. That is not discriminatory.

A baker could decide not to stock figurines of two men - that's fine. The baker has the say in what stock they will or will not carry. But the baker can't (according to the appropriate state law) refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple that he will make for a heterosexual couple.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

Bullcrap. In the first case, the gay people were DENIED service. It's not like the bakers made the cake, sold it to them, then made them decorate it with gay themes or anything. They flat out refused to sell them a cake. The bakery in the OP would have sold the cake, even with most of the requests, but wasn't going to be complicit in slandering a group of people. So the bakery gave the person the instructions and icing to decorate it with on how to do it themselves.

Any part of service comes into play here. The guy should get a medal or something because he still offered to make the dam thing? This is like serving blacks out the back door.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Usually I'd just chuckle and say turnabout is fair play, but I agree that this guy took it one step further, so if he's trying to make a point and compare it to a bakery forced to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, his plot is ill-conceived, as it's not the same thing.

I stand by this baker, as I stand by the decision of the other baker, though--the government shouldn't force a private business to do something it doesn't want to, regardless of how detestible it may be to me or anyone else. These days, the free market and social media can take care of bigots without government intervention.

I don't support gays suing people for not doing wedding business with them, and I don't support this guy either.

originally posted by: Logarock
But the baker is still discriminating, making a distinction, based on their own personal views.

She (the baker) discriminated (nonlegal term) against the decorations, not the person. And she wasn't discriminating (legal term) against the customer based on his religion, which is what I assume he was trying to prove (ineffectively).

For the christian baker it was was no less offensive really than putting two men's name on a wedding cake or a figurine of two men.

The gay couple didn't ask for two men's names or a figurine of two men.

a reply to: Logarock

The bakery has a policy not to put hate speech on their cakes. It's as simple as that. She wouldn't have put anti-Christian speech on her cakes either. This whole situation was a trap for the bakery with no good outcome. Luckily for the bakery it isn't the same thing as a bakery denying service to a gay couple. This "Christian" man needs to be charged for wasting the court's time and this lawsuit be thrown out.

It is not discrimination. It is refusing to do something that you don't feel comfortable with. What gives anyone the right to make a business owner do something that they don't believe in? People that go out of their way to start this kind of trouble are what is wrong with our country.

a reply to: Logarock

Any part of service comes into play here. The guy should get a medal or something because he still offered to make the dam thing? This is like serving blacks out the back door.

Logarock. Please tell me you aren't really defending this ploy. If I come to your bakery, and ask you to make me a cake with a derogatory meme about your mother or wife, because I don't like either one of them, and you refuse to do it, should I be able to sue you and win? I don't think so. But by your logic I could.