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

a reply to: zazzafrazz

The Christian Gay Cake debate has got to be wrangled in. It is Out of Control.

Angry cake bakers - angry cake purchasers...anymore, the only thing these threads do for me is make me want cake

a reply to: Annee

I am not an authoritarian. I am an absolute Libertarian and may as well just be an anarchist.

There is no excuse for government force in private matters.

No one should be forced to labor in a manner that they disagree with. Even if that means not serving a specific group because of a prejudice.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zazzafrazz

The Christian Gay Cake debate has got to be wrangled in. It is Out of Control.

Angry cake bakers - angry cake purchasers...anymore, the only thing these threads do for me is make me want cake

Good point.

When we need to get $400 an hour lawyers involved in litigating $15 cakes, you know there is something DRASTICALLY wrong.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Annee

I am not an authoritarian. I am an absolute Libertarian and may as well just be an anarchist.

There is no excuse for government force in private matters.

No one should be forced to labor in a manner that they disagree with. Even if that means not serving a specific group because of a prejudice.

You don't need to know what I think of Libertarians.

So, let's move on.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
If EVERYONE has to accept EVERYONE and not discriminate against ANYONE'S beliefs, then this baker is just as wrong as the other.

This baker offered to bake the cake and set the customer up with the tools he'd need to do something that she disapproved of once the customer took it home. Because what he DOES with the cake is none of her business. Her job (by her choice) is to make cakes for the public.

The other baker denied any service based on what the gay couple was going to do with the cake (marriage celebration), which the baker disapproved of, even though it's none of his business. His job (by his choice) is to make cakes for the public.

BOTH bakers disapproved of the purpose of the cake.

Yet one offered to make the cake (and help with decorations) and the other refused to make the cake.

If you want equality, if you want fairness that means that everyone's beliefs are equal and MUST be treated the same.

As Grim said, this is not about beliefs being equal or treated in any way. It's about PEOPLE being treated equally under the law.

If I want you to make me an anti-jewish cake with a swastika then you have to do it. Or...you allow the business owners to choose who they do and don't server no matter what.

Making a certain decoration is VERY different from deciding WHO does and doesn't get served. Decorations vs People.

Here's a simple example:

Suppose there's a Jewish artist.

A customer goes into his shop and asks for a painting that says, "I hate Christians." Fine. He paints the picture.

Another customer goes into his shop and asks for a painting that says, "I hate Muslims." Fine. He paints the picture.

A third customer goes into the shop and asks for a painting that says, "I hate Jews." The artists says, "No, would you like something else?"

A fourth customer goes into the shop and asks for a painting that says, "I love being gay." The artist says, "No, would you like something else?"

The artist didn't discriminate against any person. He simply chose what artwork he would produce.

Yup.... Better yet how about Christian pharmacists who won't fill BC prescriptions... I know I know a cake isn't the same thing as BC.... isn't that the point!

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zazzafrazz

The Christian Gay Cake debate has got to be wrangled in. It is Out of Control.

Angry cake bakers - angry cake purchasers...anymore, the only thing these threads do for me is make me want cake

Good point.

When we need to get $400 an hour lawyers involved in litigating $15 cakes, you know there is something DRASTICALLY wrong.

haha! Agreed! Some would argue its about FOS though! What about the baker's FOS?!?!

Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage, I think this is the same as that other moronic lawsuit.

For the record both lawsuits are stupid, but if you have to do one, you need to do the other.

1Co 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

If the baker refused, he should be sued just like the other baker was. Or we can overturn that other lawsuit and get government out. Let them both say no.

originally posted by: s3cz0ne

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zazzafrazz

The Christian Gay Cake debate has got to be wrangled in. It is Out of Control.

Angry cake bakers - angry cake purchasers...anymore, the only thing these threads do for me is make me want cake

Good point.

When we need to get $400 an hour lawyers involved in litigating $15 cakes, you know there is something DRASTICALLY wrong.

haha! Agreed! Some would argue its about FOS though! What about the baker's FOS?!?!

A price on freedom and equality?

BTW, meanings of FOS: acronyms.thefreedictionary.com...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage,

Nope the OP was clear. The baker only refused to decorate the cake how he wanted. The baker was fine with baking the cake with a bible on it or in the shape of a bible.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage, I think this is the same as that other moronic lawsuit.

You didn't even read the OP.

The WOMAN did not refuse to make the bible cake.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage, I think this is the same as that other moronic lawsuit.

You didn't even read the OP.

The WOMAN did not refuse to make the bible cake.

She did. She refused to make the cake that was desired.

It's like saying I won't refuse to make your gay wedding cake, but I will only put a man and woman on top, and will not write what you want, you write it yourself.

If it's a Bible quote, and she refuses to write SOME bible quotes, but will write OTHER quotes, from either the Bible or another book, she is just as guilty.

I read the OP, thanks.

Either people have to make the cake that is ordered regardless of their beliefs, or they don't. Can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage,

Nope the OP was clear. The baker only refused to decorate the cake how he wanted. The baker was fine with baking the cake with a bible on it or in the shape of a bible.

Then they clearly broke the law. They are picking and choosing which parts they will do based on what they agree with. That was not the cake that was ordered. Unless the cake ordered is beyond their means to make, which clearly it's not, this is discrimination.

I think it's stupid. Both bakers should be able to refuse.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage, I think this is the same as that other moronic lawsuit.

You didn't even read the OP.

The WOMAN did not refuse to make the bible cake.

She did. She refused to make the cake that was desired.

No, she didn't. She agreed to make the cake.

She does not do negative messages for anyone, for any reason. That is equality. Whether you want to accept it or not. She treats everyone equally by not doing negative messages.

But, she even went one step further offering the customer the tools to write whatever he wanted.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Good luck trying to reason with them. The authoritarians don't care about people they disagree with. Their sense of equality only extends to the people they've deemed their equals.

It's ironic because using government to enforce your subjective morals is immoral.

I'm going to open a restaurant and only serve Libertarians.

I'm trying to decide if this even makes any sense.

Still trying . . .

Well...he and I were right. There is no discussing this topic with people who want special treatment for what they agree with and/or want "equal" treatment...but only for those they approve. I'm not going to argue it...it is way too simple to understand and anyone arguing is just trying to push an agenda. The definition of fair and equal are black and white and set in stone. Much like truth, lie and liar which we have apparently forgotten also.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Way too many pages to read. But if the man refused to bake the cake, with a bible, and a bible passage, I think this is the same as that other moronic lawsuit.

You didn't even read the OP.

The WOMAN did not refuse to make the bible cake.

She did. She refused to make the cake that was desired.

No, she didn't. She agreed to make the cake.

She does not do negative messages for anyone, for any reason. That is equality. Whether you want to accept it or not. She treats everyone equally by not doing negative messages.

But, she even went one step further offering the customer the tools to write whatever he wanted.

No, she refused to make the cake that was ordered. She offered to make a similar cake that matched her beliefs. SHE is the one deciding whether a religion is sending a negative message, and which religious beliefs she will accept, and which she refuses. That's not equality, that is her refusing to make a cake that does not conform to what SHE has decided is right.

Either you have to make the cake whether you agree with the message, or not. Can't have it both ways.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I really think now would be a good time for you to read the thread because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

See this is what happens when you jump into a thread and gloss over all the replies because this has been covered ad nauseum.

You are simply wrong on this and I surprised you need it explained to you.

Here let me point you to a few recent posts that cover it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IMHO No human being should be forced into believing in or
feel coerced into doing that which they simply do not want
to do. The world is filled with way too many emotionally driven
agendas which make people feel captive to their surroundings based
on other peoples ideals of what is right and what is not.

Every person on the planet has the right do or say what they please
so long as it DOES NOT physically harm another.

But someone having their feelings 'hurt' over another persons personal opinion
and refusing service to them based on their own personal choice though?
oh come on, it's forever going to be that way, people seriously need to deal
with that and get over it. Wah.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: zazzafrazz

The Christian Gay Cake debate has got to be wrangled in. It is Out of Control.

Angry cake bakers - angry cake purchasers...anymore, the only thing these threads do for me is make me want cake

Good point.

When we need to get $400 an hour lawyers involved in litigating $15 cakes, you know there is something DRASTICALLY wrong.

Well...then maybe you would agree with me on this. I think that if someone starts a business, invests in a business, etc...they should be able to fully decide who their clients are, what they produce, how much they charge, where they are located...etc. If ANY of these are dictated, it is no longer their business. Freedom for the business owners to either succeed or fail. That is my personal belief.

We have become a society where "hate" is a bad thing. I get that. But hate is apparently only bad when it is directed at select groups. It is fine to hate the rich. It is fine to hate the pedophile. It is fine to hate the smoker. But if you hate the poor, the murdering Islamic terrorists or the gay community...all of a sudden it is wrong. People today don't want equal treatment...they want SPECIAL treatment. And don't get me wrong, besides government I don't hate any group. But unless you want to pick a word different than equal or fair, you have to allow the anti-gay group to be in the parade if you are going to let the gay group be in the parade. You have to allow the Nazi party to march if you allow the anti-Nazi party to march. If we are going to celebrate diversity...you have to accept diversity, not only the diversity of which you approve. Or worse yet...the diversity that OTHERS TELL YOU you should approve. And YES, if you put a Catholic statue in a government building you have to allow a Satanic statue also. If you are going to play a call for Muslim prayer over the loud speaker you have to allow a Catholic call to prayer. And if you allow teaching evolution, you have to allow teaching creation. Sorry...but I know the definition of equal and fair and nothing anyone else says will change those definitions. So...choose a different word. My suggestion is SPECIAL treatment instead of EQUAL. At least it is the truth.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I really think now would be a good time for you to read the thread because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

See this is what happens when you jump into a thread and gloss over all the replies because this has been covered ad nauseum.

You are simply wrong on this and I surprised you need it explained to you.

Here let me point you to a few recent posts that cover it.

It's 15 pages long, that is why I stated outright I did not read it. Thank you for the links, I will address them.

Are decorations part of the cake? I believe they are. By refusing to decorate the cake in the manner the person requested the baker refused to make the requested cake. The person DOES have a valid point, one refused all service, one offered partial service. I would argue partial service is not service at all. It's like saying there is a difference between one restaurant who refuses to serves blacks, and one who will serve them, but only at the black only counter, and arguing the blacks are being served so they have no complaint.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The decoration is part of the cake. What about a baker who would do any decoration for a white person, but would refuse decoration for black people. What if the original baker said he would make a cake, but would refuse to make it a "wedding" cake, as that is content, does it become alright at that point? The content IS the cake. If someone does religious cakes with religious content they must serve ALL religions equally. So while they do have a point, they took it too far. You can not force someone who does not do ANY religious cakes to make one. You can not force someone who does NO wedding cakes to make one.

But if you do weddings, you have to make them all. If you do religious cakes, you have to make them all.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem being is that the recent ruling says the opposite. The baker did not refuse service to gays, he refused to do the CONTENT of a gay wedding cake. What I understand is that it was only a wedding cake he would not make, and would have been happy to make another type of cake for them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As I write this I do see that there are differences. The first baker denied full service, the 2nd baker denied partial service. For now I am sticking with denial of partial service is the same as denial of full service. I am still contemplating it though and go back and forth so my opinion may change.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well DORA will make a decision in the case soon and I am confident they will find the baker was in the right.


No one was discriminated with this case. With the other case the baker wouldn't make any cake with this the baker wouldn't make a cake in a way they don't already offer.


In the other case with the gay wedding they were not asking for anything different than what had been offered before.

This is really about content and no one can dictate content.