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

A gay wedding cake is just that, a cake for a wedding with no malice or bad intent behind it. This is a cake for no real reason with hateful anti-homosexual messages on it. Deliberately designed to inflame. They are not the same thing. This so called Christian seems to be really following the message of Jesus. (Sarcasm)

Stopping some bigot from openly discriminating and spouting hateful retoric against a group of people is NOT discriminating against said bigot, it's doing the right thing. I really worry for people that can't see the difference.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

It has everything to do with hate speech laws. Everything in this thread is about how a baker didn't want to put hate speech on a cake and the laws about hate speech and discrimination.

Can you post the hate speech law that pertains to this case?


Didn't think so.

No, I cannot nor do I care really. Perhaps we should refer to it as anti-discrimination laws. Same thing really. The funny thing here is I didn't say anything against this baker or his/her decision not to write the particular thing on the cake, and you are on the attack. I know your position well enough to know why, but apparently you do not understand my position.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The only thing I know about your position on this is that even when you get called out for making up laws and claiming they pertain you have a hard time admiting it. I also have a suspicion you were trying to steer or tie this issue to some agenda 21 type of thing by going off topic because that seems to happen a lot. Hate speech laws and antidescrimination laws are not the same thing.

If you think you know my position and reasoning then maybe your psychic but then again I doubt you know either. This is a really simple case but for some reason some are finding it hard to understand.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It has everything to do with hate speech laws. Everything in this thread is about how a baker didn't want to put hate speech on a cake and the laws about hate speech and discrimination.

Actually, someone here brought up "hate speech". This case doesn't deal with "hate speech" per se. The baker said she didn't want to put a discriminatory message on her cakes for anyone. She didn't mention any fear of legal repercussions, though she may have considered it. The reason "hate speech" was brought up is that someone here suggested that if the baker had put the message on the cake, she could be charged with hate speech.

Not true. Unless the speech causes imminent violence, "hate speech" is protected by the first amendment.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

Source

Yes I think several people here have used the term "hate speech" so I think it's not entirely without merit to discuss it.

Agreed. Hate speech isn't against the law in the US, unless it results in imminent violence.

originally posted by: coldkidc
So who gets the nod when matters of conflicting creeds butt heads?
The store owner or the customer?

It's not black and white. The laws differ from state to state, but most states say that the business cannot discriminate based on race, gender, religion, disability, etc. SOME states have added "sexual orientation" and yet others have added "gender identity". A business can refuse to serve an individual for many reasons, like them being drunk, disorderly, no shoes, improperly dressed, dirty, etc. But legal discrimination involves refusing service based on the customer's "group" (race, gender, sexual orientation...)

A customer is free to discriminate. In other words, they can refuse to buy something because of the business owner's "group". But the opposite is not true in most cases.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I'm not trying to steer anything, nor have I even mentioned Agenda 21 in this thread. You think you know me but you don't. I said in my first post here I thought this whole thing was just tit for tat, and I would personally never think of going into a bakery and asking them to write that. You are just trying to beat up on me for what you think I stand for, and you are just flat out wrong.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And imminent violence is exactly what I cited in my post from the Hoover Inst. Thanks

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Don't be so sensitive. You postulated something that was incorrect I corrected you.

Maybe you weren't going to go the agenda 21 route but it looked like it with bringing up laws from other countries.

And so it goes with this person....
1) I don't like political correctness, because it forces me to not say what I want to say!
2) Since false equivalence says everything is the same, then I CAN say whatever I want!
3) So, that means that I can force you to say what I want!

In all this, the idea of respect and dignity is left out. That thing Jesus said, Love your neighbor as yourself. Well, I guess if you have hate in your heart, you'll end up hating your neighbor. And justify it by saying IT'S ALL THE SAME.

If it were, ALL THE SAME, then Jesus wouldn't comment so much about different behavior, like in the parable of the Good Samaritan. So, the question becomes, which side are you on? I've seen "atheists" act more like Jesus than some "Christians".

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I address that then you turn around and claim it isn't about content. Make up your mind on what you are trying to argue.

BTW the writing would be content. If you have ever had a cake made writing is extra so obviously no charge if there is no writing.

I don't get how you can be so thick on this.

Tell you what why don't you quote the law you think applies because it isn't an anti discrimination law.

My thought is you can't quote a law that applies because none do.

You claim I am thick, yet are unable to understand I never said it's not about content. Maybe you should read my comments again rather than use ad-hominems when you are unable to understand. I said both are content. To use one of the posts you showed as an example, an artist can not refuse service to a person, but he can refuse to make what they ask for. Similarly a baker can not refuse to serve someone based on them being gay, but they can refuse to make a certain item as it's the CONTENT that they are refusing, not the person.

A specific artwork, a specific writing, a specific cake, all are content, and that content should be able to be refused.

Stop calling other people dense due to your inability to understand simple posts.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your the one being dense.

Content in this case is the writing that is clear.

A specific artwork, a specific writing, a specific cake, all are content, and that content should be able to be refused.

If A specific artwork, a specific writing, a specific cake are offered to the public that would be a product and you don't get to decide who the public are. The courts have already ruled on that.

In this case the writing requested was not previously offered or ever offered to anyone and the baker had every right to turn them down.

There is no parallel to be made between this case and the other no matter how hard you try.

I bet the members of Westboro Baptist Church are kicking themselves in the head for not thinking of this first.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Your the one being dense.

Content in this case is the writing that is clear.

So now you are backtracking, where previously you stated I said it was content, then said it was not content. So you agree you were unable to follow along and I have always said it's about content? Thanks.

originally posted by: JessicaRabbitTx
I bet the members of Westboro Baptist Church are kicking themselves in the head for not thinking of this first.

They are all lawyers.

They know there's no case here.

Unfortunately, I see the baker being charged with discriminating and be forced to do it...
go figure...

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Nicely said!!

a reply to: Logarock

I am pretty sure as a vendor, the baker is not obliged to take business. Thus this twat could go find a homophobic baker.

If the World is plunged into another world war, i highly doubt
topics such as ' so and so won't write on my cake because
it's not nice even though it's written in the koran and the
bible,' Would even be relevant.

The world will resemble something out of the 'Vikings' TV Series,
and i doubt they'll really give a shat at that point. Every man
for himself will be the law. That is if the world dives head
first into a full blown world war..

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What are 5 do you care to discuss the case maybe you finally realize them refusing to write the passages was within their right and this case draws no parallel to the case where the baker refused to sell the gay couple a wedding cake.


You claimed a gay wedding cake was the content so explain WTH is a gay wedding cake and how it is different from a straight wedding cake. Are you saying they must be baked with gay flour or somthing?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
You claimed a gay wedding cake was the content so explain WTH is a gay wedding cake and how it is different from a straight wedding cake. Are you saying they must be baked with gay flour or somthing?

If you had not been rude and resorted to ad-hominems I would simply point out your error. Since you have been rude, I will let you go back and read it again and figure it out yourself.