Christian bakers win court battle in the U.K.

Gareth Lee (below left), requested a cake from Christian bakers Daniel and Amy McArthur. When they refused, he took the matter to court.


Here we go again. Just when you thought Christian bakers were out of the news for good, a story from across the pond has reignited the debate over religious freedom and LGBT rights. The U.K. Supreme Court has ruled that two devoutly Christian owners of a bakeshop in Belfast were justified in refusing to bake a cake for a local gay rights activist.

The bakery owners, Daniel and Amy McArthur, felt that making this specific cake would go against their sincere religious belief that gay marriage is sinful and informed. The potential customer, Gareth Lee, was outraged and informed the couple he would see them in court.

Bert and Ernie gay marriage cake

The cake included the message “Support Gay Marriage” and depicted popular Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie.

Court Sides with Christians

Initially, a lower court actually ruled in Lee’s favor, agreeing that he had been discriminated against by the business owners because of his sexual orientation. But subsequent appeals sent the case up to the Supreme Court, where justices ruled unanimously in favor of the Christian bakers.

The court explained that although LGBT rights do deserve certain protections under the law, the specific nature of Lee’s request was a significant factor in their decision. According to reports, Lee had asked that his cake include the message “Support Gay Marriage” in big frosted letters. Incidentally, the design also featured Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie, who have recently been the subject of considerable controversy.

In the end, the court decided that it was unfair to force the couple to endorse a message that so blatantly conflicted with their religious beliefs. While denying service to a gay person is reprehensible, the justices explained, in this case it was the message – not the fact that Lee is gay – that the couple objected to. “Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” they wrote.

“I Just Wanted a Cake”

Speaking to reporters after learning the court’s decision, Lee explained that he feels like a second-class citizen. “I think this has consequences for everyone. Anyone can walk into a shop – you shouldn’t have to work out if you’re going to be served based on their religious beliefs. I am confused,” he said. His full statement can be viewed below:

Two Courts, Two Victories

Christian groups frequently lament how their rights and religious freedoms are slowly being taken away. However, critics point out that if we’re keeping score, Christians are the ones on top right now. As you’ll likely remember, it was only a few months ago that the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who had refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding (albeit in a narrow ruling). That makes two courts in less than 6 months who’ve faced high profile cases and ruled in favor of religious business owners over their gay customers.

What do you think – is religious freedom really under assault?

 

113 comments

  1. Dr. Daniel R Thomas Ph.D. says:

    Yes religion is and always has been under assault. The underlying theme is that there truly is a good and there really is evil. Side with good and evil works all the harder to come out on top. The game belongs to God. He makes the rules. If you don’t like His rules, then don’t play His game. But, if you don’t play, then you have no right to the rewards that come with the game. You fail to inherit the kingdom of God. If you play, then you must play by His rules. Too bad that His game is the only game there is. Many will say “Lord Lord …” And I will reply “Truly I do not know you.”

    See you later? Maybe not.

    1. Frank Lowe says:

      Restaurants, eateries etc., can deny customers if they don’t wear shirts, shoes etc. This makes perfect sense to deny this gentleman his cake, owners are obligated to their business. If they world have done this and betrayed their beliefs then they probably lost more business.

      1. ebufi says:

        I wonder, why do gay people do not go to bakeries owned by gay people to make their weeding cakes? I wonder why.

    2. Rev. Rene says:

      Are these bakers the only bakers within a reasonable distance? Surely not, and just as customers have the option of choosing where they shop, so retailers (including bakers) should have the option, within reason, who they serve. I would not wish to serve a client with a costume of nazi design, arm band and cross, etc., and as this is abhorrent to these Christian bakers (homosexuality), so they should very well have the right of refusal.

    3. Sylvi Sterling says:

      To those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

      1. Iconoclast says:

        A thought-provoking comment, for those who actually think.

      2. Iconoclast says:

        See how few of them think? If they did, you’d have caught some flak.

    4. Carl Elfstrom says:

      It’s better to maintain a healthy balance between good and evil like everything else, then after you die, go to the other side of the light, and you’ll find the Summer land.

    5. Daniel Adams says:

      anything’s possible

  2. Jim Doire says:

    It wasn’t that he was gay that put the baker off, it was the message that he wanted on the cake. I would have bake the dude his cake only because gay or straight, who gives a rip? But those are my morals. I’m Christian and I think Jesus would have got a kick out of the homos. Especially the flamers. My understanding of Jesus is he was cool like that. But I can see the bakers refusal to bake a cake with that message on it. Some people feel strongly about where complete strangers park their beef bus. I could not care any less if I tried. But if I were a baker and someone asked for cake that said “Seattle Seahawks Suck”, I’d ask him to take his business elsewhere.

    1. Rich says:

      I can and do concur with you on that….

    2. Jim says:

      I tend to agree with you on this one, if he had asked for a simple birthday cake he would not have been refused. What would happen if someone wanted a cake that said “I support abortion”. Same thing! Most people would refuse to create it. Just go some other baker, and ask if they can make it for you.

  3. rebadams7 says:

    I will only put this as simply as I can- any artist in any medium may choose to decline a commission. It may be in cake or flowers photograph or paint, ice sculpture, marble sculpture or performance art. If He had walked into a shop. Pointed out a premade items and said I want that and they had discriminated with him that would be wrong but when you request a specific commission from an artist they have the right to decline the commission

  4. Prison Ministry Services says:

    No one should be forced to do anything . If this person feels he doesnt want to bake the cake them fine. He’s a fool, but he had a right to be what everkind of fool he wanted to be.
    He is the one not gonna get the money for it. Im sure there are other bakers who would back the cake and not judge the person requesting it. Is it right to reject this person’s order YES. BUT…I don’t thinh the baker should be forced to back it. So far as I know there is no law against being a fool. If there were the prisons couldn’t hold everyone.

    1. TIAII says:

      Close their

  5. The Pastor says:

    Me, if I were asked to bake that cake for the gay couple I would have. The Bible says judge not…
    If I agree with their life style or not it’s not my place to cast judgement. Maybe not the life style I myself would go with, but they have a right to be gay if they want to be.

    1. b0blf says:

      ‘pastor?’: Not a pastor of the Scriptures, I’m sure! ‘The Bible says judge not . . .’ you said. Why not be an honest student of the Bible and present differing aspects of judging?

      In John 7:24 Jesus encouraged us to judge ‘rightly’. And He told us to rebuke the errant in Luke 17;3. All this involves discernment, perception . . . . judgement.

      Now, is it permissible to ‘judge’? Who is correct . . . you or Jesus?

    2. Ricky says:

      Pastor, I liked what you wrote about leaving judgement to God, and I agree with you.

      But I’d like to point out a couple of things if I may. First, people aren’t gay because “they want to be.” No one, gay or straight, chooses their sexual, romantic, or social attractions; they just are who they are.

      Also, there is no gay lifestyle, only gay lives. There are as many lifestyles as their are people, and no two are exactly alike.

      1. RM says:

        Exactly, Ricky! Very well stated. Homosexuality is not a choice. They are born that way.

        1. b0blf says:

          rm: Iconoclast is right! His 22 Oct observation is especially pertinent. The increasing incidences of LGBTQXYZ-ers’ activities correspond with today’s more leisure time, more labor/time saving devices and more opportunity to explore the ‘untried’. People DO choose their sexual, romantic, or social attractions.

          1. Iconoclast says:

            TYVM, b0blf

          2. T'Keren Valmaz says:

            Words of wisdom from a man that wanted to rape his sister for years. Yeah Ill just take that wisdom and wipe my arse with it, and even then I feel sorry my tush has to get that close to such filth.

      2. Iconoclast says:

        As adults, we are able to influence our own desires, by the things about which we choose to daydream (or fantasize).

        1. Iconoclast says:

          Actually, there is no published scientific proof that people are born with any particular sexual preference.

        2. T'Keren Valmaz says:

          I know Boblf here has admitted to fantasizing about raping his own sister. And hey he is one of the few that gets on with you here Icono. Maybe think about that, that a man that wanted to rape his sister is one of your main allies here on these forums.

  6. The Pastor says:

    MAYBE JUST MAYBE FOR ONCE IN OUR LIVES WE SHOULD NOT WORRY SO MUCH WHAT OTHERS DO OR HOW OTHERS LIVE THEIR LIFE, BUT FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO AND HOW OUR ACTIONS IMPACT THE PEOPLE AROUND US.

    FUNNY HOW THESE THINGS BOTHER US IF THE GAY COUPLE LIVES RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US
    BUT SHOWS ON T.V. THAT STAR GAY ACTORS OR HAVE A ROLE ON THEM WHERE SOMEONE IS GAY… THAT’S FINE.

    1. Jim Doire says:

      MAYBE JUST MAYBE FOR ONCE IN OUR LIVES WE SHOULD NOT WORRY SO MUCH WHAT OTHERS DO OR HOW OTHERS LIVE THEIR LIFE, BUT FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO AND HOW OUR ACTIONS IMPACT THE PEOPLE AROUND US.

      You just spelled out Christianity to me. And I’m not sure but I think you may have spelled out Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, a cool Atheist, Taoism, Paganism and any other “ism” out there. Tending to your “own garden” will keep you so busy you wonder what anybody is else up to. You’re all right.

      1. Tuk says:

        To The Pastor,
        Many years back I did live next door to a gay couple. I found them to be intelligent, caring, motivated, artistically gifted, and very trustworthy. As we were good friends my wife and I felt completely at ease letting them babysit our two young children, and our children preferred to have Matt & Mario than any other babysitters in the neighborhood. Mario, a celloist in the Philharmonic Orchestra, would let my children play with a few stringed instruments, while he played his cello, and they would make their own special kind of music. The kids loved it and would relate some great stories and even adventures while being watched by Matt & Mario.
        Just because I liked Matt & Mario doesn’t mean I like everyone else that’s a little different then I am. As with all interactions, with others, my accepting, and trusting is on a person by person basis. This also means that as a person I’m also being judged on my character, and will, or will not be accepted, by some based on my actions, attitude, and treatment of others — regardless of who or what they are.
        It’s funny as I don’t consider myself to be a Christian, but I do strive to be the best person or human I could be and to treat all those persons or humans around me with a tone of friendship and respect. Just because I like and treat all people with respect doesn’t mean all people will like and treat me with respect; and as I understand that’s going to happen makes it alright.

  7. The Pastor says:

    THIS NEW SPIN OFF OF ROSEANN. THE LITTLE BOY LIKES TO DRESS LIKE A GIRL.
    NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT… IF THAT LITTLE BOY WERE YOUR CHILD’S CLASS MATE YOU WOULDNT LET YOUR KIDS BE FRIENDS WITH HIM.
    AND FOR SURE YOU WOULD NEVER INVITE HIM TO YOUR HOME FOR SUPPER.

    1. b0blf says:

      ‘pastor’: You still haven’t answered by question in reference to your 12 Oct posting. Does the Bible allow us to judge?

      1. Jim Doire says:

        Ah dammit. Here you just said

        MAYBE JUST MAYBE FOR ONCE IN OUR LIVES WE SHOULD NOT WORRY SO MUCH WHAT OTHERS DO OR HOW OTHERS LIVE THEIR LIFE, BUT FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO AND HOW OUR ACTIONS IMPACT THE PEOPLE AROUND US.

        The kid on the show is different, not bad. He’s not hurting anyone. You’re not one of those virtue signalers are you?

      2. TIAII says:

        Condemnation

        1. ebufi says:

          Samson was a judge,there is a book of Judges in the Bible, Salomon used to judge and he was wise. Good judgment can lead to good decisions.

      3. T'Keren Valmaz says:

        A self admitted incestuous rape fantasist that yearned to abuse his own sister like you BobLF really has no standing to demand answers of others.

  8. Rev. Brien M Demartino says:

    OK, enuf with the stupid, and yes I do know how to spell enough, see if all of you crazy freakin zealots on both sides can wrap your poorly twisted brain cells around this……ready?…I DO NOT GIVE A FIDDLERS DAMN WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE. Now, let me break that down for you.
    1: My beliefs are my own, and I will not impose them on you.
    2: Your beliefs are your own and you will not impose them on me.
    3: I reserve the right to serve, socialize, and otherwise claim to my village anyone I damn well please. If you do not like it, you are probably not part of it.
    4: You also have the same rights spelled out in #3.
    5: If I do not wish to do business with you then move on. I am certain you will find a much better place to spend your money.
    6: Again, you have the same right spelled out in #5.
    7: I do not care at all what label you apply to yourself. Likewise you do not have to care about any label put on me.
    Now I hope this little trip through COMMON SENSE has made an impact on you crazy folks. Again, as always, these common sense items are NOT open for debate. Grow up and be your own person, and stop trying to be famous. —end or sermon—

    1. Rich says:

      well put, I concur and will most likely use your verbiage in future.

    2. Barry says:

      One thing that should be remembered. The owner of a business has the inherent right to refuse to do business with anyone he/she doesn’t want to. My father owned a jewelry store for over 40 years. He was a very open and tolerant man and I have only known him to refuse to take care of 2 people that I know of,

    3. Eric Norrbom says:

      Amen! We choose our own path. Others choose theirs. Live and let live.

  9. Ben says:

    This kind of ignorant discrimination in the 21st Century is insane.
    That said, I wouldn’t trust some ignorant ass clown with making anything for any special event I was having. Especially my wedding, So, they should find another baker, who isn’t so close minded.

    1. Jim Doire says:

      Having strong beliefs does not make the baker an “ignorant ass clown”. Your use (or misuse) of punctuation would lead most to believe that you are an ignorant ass clown. Yet no one here can pass that judgement based only on your tenuous grasp of the English language. Are you any good at math?

      1. Iconoclast says:

        Oh, but Jim, he uses “college-educated English” according to him.

        1. RevDR says:

          Okay, this is getting hilarious! Thanks @Jim Doire and @Iconoclast!!

          1. Iconoclast says:

            LOL!

    2. TIAII says:

      More will come

    3. Carl Elfstrom says:

      ….or buy a cake mix. How hard is it to bake and decorate a cake? I’ve done it several times, without any training.

  10. b0blf says:

    ‘dementedtino’: Not so fast . . . . . at the ‘end or sermon’ (end OF sermon) there’s usually an ‘altar call’, an ‘invitation to ‘get right with God’. You for got that part!

    1. Jesus cares what your beliefs are.
    2. Your so-called ‘rights’ maybe ‘yours’ . . . but where are they taking you?

    The Bible says that you need a Savior because we all are sinners. ALL. And the only Savior that meets Father God’s requirements is Jesus. ONLY Jesus.

    So, back to your ‘sermon’ end’. It’s decision time. Have you acknowledged your sins and repented of them? Do you know Jesus as your Savior? Now is the time!

    1. Ken Dixon says:

      “The Bible says that you need a Savior because we all are sinners. ALL. And the only Savior that meets Father God’s requirements is Jesus. ONLY Jesus.”

      You’re wrongly assuming that everyone’s religious beliefs are (or should be) exactly the same as yours.

      1. Iconoclast says:

        I have not seen any writing on this blog that anyone’s religious beliefs are or should be exactly the same as anyone else’s.

      2. b0blf says:

        Ken: No, I do NOT assume everyone’s religious beliefs should be exactly as mine. I DO assert the everyone’s beliefs should be what the Scriptures portray.

        Otherwise the hoards who attack the Bible and ignore the demands of a righteous God, illustrate Matthew 17: 13,14 . . . wide is the way that leads to destruction, but narrow the way to life.

    2. TIAII says:

      As it always does

  11. Tuk says:

    I just have one question. Why can anyone else, in any other industry, refuse their service without any repercussions; but, when it comes to a Christian business that refuses service to anyone regardless of their expressed reason, or perceived motive, they are persecuted? I mean, doesn’t the owner have the right to refuse serve to anyone for any reason? OK, I miscounted that’s two questions.

    1. Jim Doire says:

      I think you got three questions in there. Two and half questions for sure. 🙂

    2. Catherine says:

      I grew up with the belief that any business can deny any customer service. Why is it that only Christian businesses can not do so? Also, why do the people who bring these lawsuits go to a Christian bakery. Are there no gay cake decorators in town? Why would you force someone to make you something when they do not want to do it. They may spit or worse, in it. The answer is, the money. They go to Christian bakery, schools etc. Asking for something so out of the way so that they can sue. It is all about the money.

      1. TIAII says:

        will lose sight

    3. Judith Waldrop says:

      Indeed. I NEVER see a gay couple asking Muslim bakers to make them a wedding cake or “support gay rights” cake. I wouldn’t expect a Muslim restaurant to serve ham sandwiches either. These bakers never refuse to serve gay customers birthday cakes, cookies, pies or any item that does not appear to condone something that they don’t find violate their personal beliefs. As to myself, I personally would bake the cake and performing their marriage ceremony.

    4. Carl Elfstrom says:

      What goes around, comes around. How often have supposed Christians persecuted gays, regardless of what Jesus did with his twelve merry men when nobody was looking?

  12. Iconoclast says:

    —“Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”—

    1. Iconoclast says:

      (Attributed to Marie Antoinette, most likely erroneously)

  13. Amber says:

    There are two issues going on here, the right to run a business the way the owner wishes and equal liberties. The unfortunate truth is that the laws state his business, his rules. It isn’t a government office so isn’t subject to division of church and state. As long as they are paying their taxes then they get to decide who to serve. It’s bad business, granted, with the discrimination involved, but regardless the reasons the business owner does get to choose.

    As for the discrimination, these are not violent acts and nothing is taken from the gay couples in question, and they can go elsewhere to get their cakes, so as far as the laws are concerned there isn’t a crime here. Clear prejudice and nastiness, sure, but no crime. I hate getting political on a religious site but if you don’t like faith getting to discriminate in the name of their religion then vote, petition, protest, do what is within your rights and power to do that isn’t breaking laws. The fact is politics, as much as we might not like them, affect us all one way or the other. Don’t like how something is going, dig deep, see where you can get involved and make change. Otherwise it just keeps going until people get seriously injured.

  14. Rev Dr Robert Murphy says:

    Let’s try to boil this down to a little Common Sense. A businessman and/or owner of any business establishment has a right to do business with and/or serve whoever he pleases! If he doesn’t like to looks of “Sonny Jim” he doesn’t have to serve him, or her. If he takes an order and then doesn’t like the message, or what the message implies, which also may or may not reflect upon their business, then they have a right to refuse or withdraw the offer. It may be a little shortsighted or foolish from a business point of view but it’s only money at the end of the day.

    However, look at the amount of publicity that this case has brought both parties. The complainant has had received positive support and negative support in equal measures and the Business owner likewise.

    I’m quite sure that, in this age of the compensation culture, there was no thoughts of any compensation or damages or bruised feelings and ego when the case was started. I’m also sure that the courts costs are damned astronomical. At the end of the day what has this gained that common sense wouldn’t ?

  15. Mike W says:

    I’ve always voted with my Dollars and you can vote with your Dollars/Euros/Pounds. If a business discriminates against me or something I believe in, I go somewhere else. And I let people know, politely, what is going on. Then they can choose where to spend their money. (That’s what Yelp is for.) When business drops, then maybe they will see the light and change their ways. 🙂

  16. David Corbett says:

    So, we are all “Ordained Ministers” right? And can or do marriages for hire, right? Cool. Couple comes up, wants to hire you, marriage is all nude.. everyone, with the exception of swastika arm bands. Can you refuse?

    1. Bob says:

      Yes, the marriage is a ceremony within a religious context. You can openly discriminate against people within the Church structure based upon the moral beliefs of the Church (Catholics openly discriminate against women within the Church structure). However, once you open a public business, you are no longer protected by being within the confines of the Church and your freedom to discriminate is (and should be) limited.

  17. Herb Kleinfeld says:

    Wal-Mart absolutely refuses to decorate cakes with certain motifs. Yet, everyone just accepts that. Why all the fuss over a small bakery doing the exact same thing?

    1. Mike Denyer says:

      Because certain groups in society seem to have the “conviction” to fight for their cause when going up against a “mom and pop” business, but lack the balls to go after giants like Walmart… it’s easy to sue a small business into the ground… not so easy when the business in question has money and lawyers… Bullies have been using this tactic for eons… and that’s EXACTLY what these “special interest groups” are… they’re bullies.
      They feel they have more rights than others and they use unfair tactics to get their way. Here in the US it’s the same way… however, freedom of and freedom from religion are written into our Constitution… choices relating to sexuality are not… yet “mom and pop” stores and small businesses are targeted every time by special interest groups… Here’s something very interesting though… I live near Dearborn, Michigan… where the largest concentration of Arabic Muslims outside of the Middle East resides… there are MANY Muslim owned bakeries in this area and yet, despite the fact that they most certainly WILL NOT cater to homosexuals (based on religion)… not one of those bakeries has ever been sued by a homosexual couple for not receiving their cakes… I wonder why that is.

  18. themarketminstrels says:

    If all he wanted was a cake he sure could have founds an infinite number of ways of getting one other than trying to force someone to make him one who didn’t want to do it. I wonder why he is so intolerant of their right to pursue their creative art in accordance with their moral standards. I wonder if he rips burkas off muslim women because he just wants to see their faces. .I understand left-wingers are the most intolerant group around, such as the Antifada Fascists or students who will not let conservative speakers talk at a university, but his political beliefs do not give him the right to make others submit to his will. Let us pray left-wingers will someday realize the value of tolerance.

    1. Minister Norman says:

      Your myopic definition of “Tolerance” is… amusing, at best.

      But speaking of Burkas, I wonder if you’d be okay with this Baker refusing to serve them, since you’ve invoked Muslims as your example?

      Just a thought! Our do they get a pass?

      As for Left-Wing Radicals, its Antifa, not “Antifada”, so at least, try, and make an cogent-intelligent point. And I guess you missed all those Right-Warped insane MAGA Marching with (lol), Tiki Torches, and one of them driving his car into a crowd of Peaceful Protestors; Murdering one, and injuring dozens??

      ***

      Regardless, I’m against all forms of hate speechs, hateful actions, violence, and discrimination!

      But I do respect an individuals right to have & hold whatever beliefs they choose… Just so long as they don’t impose them on everyone else. While I do NOT believe anyone “Chooses” to be Gay, anymore than anyone “Chooses” to be Straight, people do “Choose” to be Religious, Intolerant, Racist, and Bigoted, and in whatever form that takes.

      The issue I have with most of the intolerant comments here (including yours), is the “Religious” imposition on everyone else, and mostly from those professing to be “Christian” & “Tolerant” & otherwise “Religiously Motivated”!

      First off, this is The UNIVERSAL Life Church, NOT a “Christian’s Only Forum”, so get over yourselves!

      Secondly, you chose, or were raised, or were indoctrinated into “Christian” beliefs, however “devout” you are! So you do not get to inflict your “beliefs” on everyone else, or decide right & wrong for everyone! Any more than a Muslim, Atheist, or anyone else does. Not in a UNIVERSAL Forum, and certainly not in a, thank God, still Secular Society!

      Third, if you do want to continue pushing Religion as “Law”, as so many have suggested here & elsewhere, be careful what you wish for!

      Bringing about (imposing) “Biblical Laws” on Society, as too many believe “GOD intended!”, will backfire! It always has!

      I would caution you to look back at the Inquisitions & other “Christian” Religious abuses throughout history! But actually, you need look no further than Radical Islam & Sharia Law, for what you are actually suggesting.

      Once we go there, and I and a lot of others will fight against all of you, but you may find the “Religious Utopia” you so hoped for, was just a figment of your imaginations, but the nightmare too many others are willing to impose on ALL of us, is all too real, and what you believed you signed on for, is actually Tyranny!

      “Those who do not learn from the past, are destined to repeat it.”

      I’ve studied the Bible front to back, many times over the years, but more importantly, I’ve studied it’s “Origins”! As such, I could never be a “Bible Literalist” as too many ignorant people are today. That book is just too transformed over the ages from it’s humble origins, and I believe, from Jesus true Universal message of Love, and Peace, and Tolerance.

      So I challenge all of you so-called “Christians”, to test your “Faith” and belief structures, by finding out how your “Holy Bible” actually came into being, with all of its many iterations, and especially, how all of it’s many additions & subtractions for Papal & Political Gains & Control came into being.

      Or not! But put a sock in it!

      Not everyone does or has or should believe as you do; so go “god-damn” yourselves, and at very least, leave the rest of us out of your “Literalist Religious” insanity. Plainly, If you cannot be civil within a Secular Society, then at least keep it to yourselves.

      Finally, only the legal aspects of any of this matter anyway, or should, be considered; not “Religion”!

      Legally, these Bakers do have a right to refuse to serve anyone! That’s a fact, and that should be the only consideration here. Those pro-testing them, also have a right to go elsewhere for their “Message Cake”! …And that’s what this was!

      However, where I believe there is a legal issue, is using the Bible to discriminate, and just as it was misinterpreted and abused to discriminate against Black People in the not so disyand past. I’d fight that aspect of this case in court, if I’d been appealing it, but alas, sadly, for now anyway, it’s already been adjudicated in the Highest Court.

      I do wonder though, what the ruling would have been if this was simply an obvious case of, “I refuse to sell you ANY cake, pastry, or anything else we make, and because you are Gay”, sans any Pro-Gay Message requests? Though I do believe the Courts already erred in their decision anyway! How is this any different from refusing to serve someone of a particular Race you dislike, or perhaps that Muslim Woman wearing that Burka, so many find offensive?

      We make so many exceptions to our Secular Laws in favor of “Religious Tolerance”, and when it is too many Religions that are actually being Intolerant.

      Where do we draw the line?

      Can someone refuse to serve someone they “suspect” is Gay, or perhaps who makes that evident with say a tee-shirt confirming that fact? Not sure this ruling says that’s okay, and if it does, well, there’s your “Slippery Slope”! Because then, they are not merely invoking a right to refuse to actively “endorse” a message or as many say, “Lifestyle”, but infact are actively exercising discrimination!

      If you’re okay with that, then can others say, “No Christians Allowed”, because, “We don’t serve intolerant people”? That’s where this is all heading. It’s not “Religion”, it’s Tribalism. And is this really the Society anyone wants?

      It’s not a Society I’m going to easily tolerate. It is one I will continue to fight against.

      Finally, and personally, I’d have gone someplace else if I were them! A wedding is a joyous event, why sully it with a Cake, either baked reluctantly, or especially, filled with HATE?

      A few years back, I went to an “Ethnic Bakery” near my house, just ONCE! I stood in line, only to have the counter person lean out and say “Next” to the people behind me, and of her same race! I said, “Am I invisible? I was next!” She laughed and replied, “Yes, just like we are! You get served if and when I decide to serve you!” Almost everyone in the place laughed!

      I left, and I never went back!

      But I did tell all my friends, and in a very mixed neighborhood, that didn’t go over well. That Bakery had once expanded, but after more people experienced or heard about their discriminatory practices, they now occupy just a third of their former grand-bakery footprint!

      Vote with your feet! And tell others!

      I did, and especially folks of their same race, and many of them also stopped patronizing that Bakery.

      Today, it’s barely squeaking by!

      My takeaway! Don’t patronize any businesses that discriminate against anyone for any reason!

      Always Vote with your feet!

      If enough of us do this, then the Bigots & Racists & Religious Zealots can all rot in their own hatred, or, learn to actually become more Tolerant.

      Thats my “Novela” on the issue! Thanks for reading it! 😂

      1. Minister Norman says:

        *DISTANT* not “disyand”? …Oh the typos!!!

        1. John Owens says:

          I actually DID read it, Norman. Thoughtful. I appreciate it.

  19. TIAII says:

    for the froth

  20. David H. says:

    Surely these people can’t be the only bakers in town. And I’m sure there are some very creative gay bakers that would love to take on this commission. I think if he had done a little more research he would have saved himself quite a bit of money and embarrassment.

    1. Alicia says:

      He’s an activist. I’d be willing to bet that this bakery was targeted so that he could get the publicity. I doubt very much he was embarrassed.

  21. Bob says:

    First off, I am gay. If I owned bakery and someone came in and asked for a cake with writing that said “Gays Are Evil”, I would refuse to make that cake. Pure and simple.

    1. Alicia says:

      Exactly! Finally, someone who gets it!

    2. John Owens says:

      …and who, in their right mind, would blame you?

  22. oldbill says:

    I think I would choose a business where sexual preference makes no conceivable difference.

  23. HM King Possum III says:

    When someone operates a business that’s open to the public, the anti-discrimination laws in the US require that they must serve all of the public. If a business sells decorated wedding cakes as a regular item, then they must sell them to anyone who has the money to pay for it.

    You can’t turn away customers based on who they are. It’s the same as when lunch counters in the southern US refusing service to black customers. I thought we’d settled that issue half a century ago.

    Selling a cake doesn’t equal participation in the wedding, as some of these bakers claim. How can he be participating if he isn’t even there? The cake is just a food item that’s served to the guests after the ceremony, none of whom know or care where it was bought. Whatever happens to the cake after it leaves the shop is none of the baker’s business, and is no reflection on him.

    Personally, I’m suspicious of the Colorado baker’s claim that he’s just exercising his “religious freedom.” When a straight couple comes into his shop to order a wedding cake, does he ask them if either of them are divorced? Have they committed adultery in the past? Have they conceived children out of wedlock?

    I’d bet my last dollar that he doesn’t ask those kinds of questions, even though Bible is equally against those things, and states that these things are also sins.

    It looks to me like he thought he’d found a clever way to raise his middle finger at the gays, and used the “religious freedom” excuse get away with it. I wonder what Jesus would think of someone using Christianity as a way to cloak his bigotry?

    If you want to pick and choose your customers, then become a private contractor. Then you can accept or decline any commissions you like.

    1. Robert Tucker says:

      FYI. Jack Phillips, the Christian baker from Colorado, no longer makes wedding cakes of any kind.

    2. Alicia says:

      The baker in Colorado had made many cakes for the gay couple previously with no issues at all. They were good customers and they knew of the baker’s beliefs. The baker just wouldn’t make a WEDDING cake for them. He even gave the couple the name of another bakery who would make the cake. The baker wasn’t against the gay couple…he just couldn’t design a cake celebrating what was against his beliefs.

      What that couple did was try to ruin a good business. That was just plain evil and far worse than someone not baking a damn cake.

  24. Sam says:

    I think people tend to forget the privileges and power in general that Christianity has; and it’s not fair and it’s not right They feel their religious freedom is under fire yet they’re winning case after case and have many laws in law books in their favor. If anything, they’re “on fire”. Example, USA is supposed to be secular but Christian holidays are nationally recognized and the government closes its offices as do other businesses. Try getting Yom Kippur or Ramadan as a national holiday in the USA; or any Christian country. Chritians can have Christian themed tv programs and no one questions it; they even have massive church services televised. Their Christian themes pop up in movies and other pop culture and no one questions it. The Christian religion has freedoms other religions can only dream of and hope to obtain one day. Churches are exempted from paying taxes, and there are millionaires who only have that money because they preach in massive churches and on tv. Chritians are not seen as bombers here to destroy the world; they’re not seen as evil Satan worshippers when the word “magic” pops up. They’re having a fit because they’re slowly being taken off the top of everything. They’re having a world sized toddler temper tantrum and it’s both funny and sad to see; and a little dangerous. How far will they continue to go with any of this because they’re feelings have been hurt and they feel they are slowly being chipped away at? They already think they have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies (women’s reproduction rights for one GIANT example).

    1. Robert Tucker says:

      “USA is supposed to be secular ”… What makes you believe this?

      “The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

      Yom Kippur and Ramadan are all “free exercise thereof…” If your business doesn’t close it’s doors for those holidays… or the Post Office being open on Fridays (a holy day of the Pastafarians) affronts your sensibilities then fight to change it. But, don’t pretend that religious observance of those two examples are punished by the “government” in any way shape or form. It is simply not true.

      Continuing on, this republic of ours was founded by men who believed…

      “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~John Adams, the second President of the United States, in a speech to the military in 1798.

      Christianity never mentioned.

      “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” ~Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

      Again Christianity is not specifically mentioned.

      “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” ~Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary.

      “The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” ~Noah Webster.

      Christianity here is put forth as a moral standard. But again, not an argument for the establishment of a state religion like England had.

      “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.” ~James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and one of the original six U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

      Personal belief of a Supreme Court Justice… again not a call for a State establishment of religion. Interestingly, Justice Wilson opposed the Bill of Rights. He felt they were unnecessary amendments because the power over the press, assembly/association, search and seizure and others were not granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution—the “Enumerated Powers”.

      “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.” ~Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House.

      “By a power within them…” the operative phrase here. It advocates personal responsibility. Again, the implication is that involvement by the state (“the strong arm of man”) is to be avoided.

      “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” ~George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America.

      “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” ~Benjamin Franklin, diplomat and signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

      Nowhere in our founding documents does it call for an establishment of a particular religion. Religious (sometimes specifically Christian) Virtue and adherence to the First Principles were paramount yes… but they were not seeking a theocracy. Far from it.

      Moving on.

      “The Christian religion has freedoms other religions can only dream of and hope to obtain one day.” In the United States? Can you provide examples?

      “Churches are exempted from paying taxes…” This includes ALL churches that apply for that status… including ones that deify pasta or practice magic.

      “They already think they have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies (women’s reproduction rights for one GIANT example).”

      They have a right to disagree with those that do not share their views. (That pesky First Amendment again.) But again, Roe v Wade is the settled “law of the land” so who wields the real power in that argument?

      1. Iconoclast says:

        Excellent and relevant research, Robert. Thank you.

    2. John Owens says:

      Um… Sam, reference your second statement above, I would submit that if they weren’t “under fire” there would not BE any cases for them to win. Just saying. They are seldom the instigators of these suits.

      BTW, I actually observe Yom Kippur, but we call it the Day of Atonement, rather than the Day of Covering, which is what Yom Kippur means.

  25. Bob says:

    I don’t believe that religious beliefs should allow one to discriminate in the public square. My belief is that the principles of equality and tolerance take precedence over religious beliefs in the public square. I am Catholic. The Catholic Church discriminates against women in not allowing them to be in positions of authority in the Church. However, once in the public square, I cannot use that belief to not put women in positions of authority within my business. Once you open your doors for a public business, you should be required to serve whomever walks in the door. You don’t get to decide not to serve people based upon their belief system. Baking a cake, even with the message requested, is not in any way a sign that the bakers endorse the lifestyle – they’re just making a cake for God’s sake.

    1. Robert Tucker says:

      “Once you open your doors for a public business, you should be required to serve whomever walks in the door. ”

      Bob, would you then demand the halal restaurant down the street, open to the public, should now serve pork? Or the African-American owned/operated art studio around the corner should sell material enjoyed by a member of the KKK?

      Also, your comparison about the Catholic church and women is a moral choice. You believe it wrong to discriminate in that way. That is based on your interpretation of your own faith.

      The (hypothetical) halal restaurant mentioned above discriminates against Jewish tradition by not serving kosher foods. The fundamental religious reasoning for—and preparations of—halal and kosher foods are very similar but not the same. It is rooted in moral (religious) objection to a particular thing. That same halal establishment discriminates against your everyday lover of BLTs. This type of discrimination has not produced any lawsuit. Not even a #BLTsAreSandwichesToo social justice movement. It is a double standard.

      “Baking a cake, even with the message requested, is not in any way a sign that the bakers endorse the lifestyle – they’re just making a cake for God’s sake.”

      “Making a Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwich is not in any was a sign that the kosher deli workers endorse the gentile (non-jewish) lifestyle – they’re just making a BLT for God’s sake.”

      Are those the same?

      1. Bob says:

        You misunderstand. As a business owner you can decide what you want to serve, but you don’t get to determine who you serve based on philosophical or religious beliefs. If you don’t want to sell pork, don’t sell pork. But if you sell pork, you should serve it to anyone who walks in the door (yes, even Nazis and the KKK). I didn’t say the Catholic Church position was immoral. I was pointing out that we have a long standing tradition of different discriminatory policies allowed within the structure of a religion that are not allowed within the public square. Your last statement again confuses the issue. You don’t have to serve bacon, but if you do, you don’t get to decide not to sell bacon to fat people.

      2. Bob says:

        You’re mixing up what a vendor chooses to provide with whom he chooses to serve it to. A vendor can decide to offer whatever services he/she chooses. One can decide to sell pork or pizza or hamburgers or BLT’s. That’s not the issue. The issue is that once the vendor establishes the services he/she provides, they should not be allowed to deny those services to people based upon a religious or philosophical belief If you’re selling pizzas, you sell to Nazis, the KKK, Christians, Muslims, Jews, the LGBT community, etc. Also, I did not say that the Catholic treatment of women is immoral. I was simply pointing out that there is a long tradition of allowing discriminatory practices within a religious organization that we would not allow in the public square. This is not new ground.

        1. Robert Tucker says:

          No I am not. Show me the lawsuits against a kosher deli for not serving pork… and I would be inclined to change my mind based on the logical evidence.

          Selling non-kosher items is a religious objection to a thing. So it will not be sold to you, even when if you ask nice. Lawsuits against the deli would be laughed out of court.

          Just look at all the examples of lawsuits against food service establishments (including a McDonald’s in Dearborn, Michigan) that sued because the customer believed the restaurant broke halal.

          Depicting the prophet Mohammed is heresy, so you could not ask a Muslim painter to paint you one. (Look at what happened to the at Charlie Hebdo…)

          Christian bakers that oppose gay marriage won’t make you a cake…

          It is the same thing.

          1. Bob says:

            I’ll try once more. A business can decide to sell whatever products they want for whatever reasons they want. Some businesses don’t sell pork, or alcoholic beverages, or cigarettes or Playboy magazine based upon religious or moral objections. I have no problem with that. A kosher deli does not sell pork to anyone. So the person who walks in and asks for pork is being treated exactly the same as every other customer – we don’t sell pork. That is different than a bakery that sells wedding cakes, but refuses to sell a cake to some segment of society. Unlike the kosher deli where no one can walk in and get pork, lots of people can walk into the bakery and get a wedding cake, but a small segment of the population will be refused that same service. That is my objection and the two examples are different. (Relative to McDonald’s in Dearborn, they served halal chicken. They were sued because people believed they were selling non-halal chicken as halal. McDonald’s took all halal items off of the menu. Just like the kosher deli that does not sell pork, these McDonald’s no longer sell any halal food. There is now no legal issue.

          2. Bob says:

            I’m trying to understand how our points miss each other. I do agree that the rationale behind the decision to not serve pork is the same as the rationale behind the decision to not serve gay people – they are both based upon a religious objection. Does that appropriately describe how you see them as the same? However, my focus is on the resulting actions, not the underlying rationale. In the case of the deli, that rationale is used to determine WHAT to sell – I am perfectly ok with that. The result is that if 1000 customers walk into the Deli they are all treated the same in terms of the services or products they receive. All 1000 people can get the cole slaw, but none of the 1000 get pork – all are treated equally. In the case of the bakery, the religious rationale is used to determine WHO to serve. I have a problem with that. If 1000 customers walk into the bakery, 999 will be served a wedding cake and 1 person will be refused that service. How customers are being treated in these two scenarios is very different. In your response above you ask about evidence of lawsuits against the deli that doesn’t serve pork. There aren’t any (at least no successful ones) because that circumstance is entirely different than refusing to serve gay people. They are not seen as the same by the law. As to your example of McDonald’s, the restaurant served hilal chicken. The lawsuit claimed that McDonald’s was selling chicken as hilal which did not meet the requirements for that designation. McDonald’s subsequently took all hilal foods off of the menu which ended the legal issue (they have every right to decide WHAT to put on their menu). I hope this helps better explain my position.

          3. Bob says:

            I’m trying to understand how we are missing one another on this. I can see that the rationale being used by the deli in choosing not to serve pork is the same as the rationale used by the bakery in not serving gay people – it is based on a religious objection. Does that appropriately describe how you see them as the same? My issue is different than that. My issue is with the resulting action, not the underlying rationale. In the case of the deli, the rationale is used to determine WHAT to sell – I am ok with that. The result is that all customers who come into the deli receive the same products and services. If 1000 customers come into the deli. They are all treated the same. They can all get cole slaw and none of them can get pork. I have no problem with that. In the case of the bakery, the religious rationale is used to determine WHO to serve – I have a problem with that. If 1000 people walk into the bakery, 999 can get a wedding cake, but 1 person cannot because they are gay. I object. Those two circumstances are very different. That difference is also indicative of why you don’t see lawsuits against the deli that doesn’t sell pork – it’s not the same as the bakery who refuses to sell to gay people. In your McDonald’s example, they were sued over allegedly selling chicken as hilal chicken which did not meet the requirements for being hilal. McDonald’s responded by taking all hilal food off of the menu. That ended the legal issue – they have every right to decide WHAT to sell.

          4. Iconoclast says:

            They can sell you a cake, but they do not have to do so. All businesses everywhere turn away some customers. They have to do so. To think there is a law anywhere that says you cannot is worse than naive– it is delusional. He probably would sell them a cake– a beautiful cake, but he would not put two grooms on it, and he would not write on it. They would have to get someone else to do that, so they might as well get someone else to bake it for them.

          5. Robert Tucker says:

            Bob,

            I can see and understand your confusion on this subject, and I appreciate your civility while discussing this topic. In order to understand how the courts are ruling (some very differently than others) we have to look at the cases individually and the opinions written by the court. As this would take an unwarranted amount of time and space I will try to sum it up.

            On the one hand, with cases here in the United States, you have the First Amendment argument; specifically concerning the Second and Third clauses. Those being, “…or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”. In essence, the Christian cake shop owner (photographer, calligrapher, etc.) is invoking these clauses as the basis for their religious objection. Same as the owner of the kosher deli does in every day practice.

            On the other hand we have the “violation of Civil Rights” issue… which invokes many statues and regulations. All of which seem to derive their power from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

            (See: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm)

            So, even the courts are at odds with each other at times. Do they side with the civil rights side of the argument? Or the side of the First Amendment argument? Here in the States, usually the lower courts come down on the side of the Civil Rights argument… with the higher courts taking the side of the First Amendment.

            Why can’t they agree? Jurisprudence. If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the “violation of civil rights” side of the argument, many (Justices included) feel such a decision would be setting up horrible precedent for “compelled speech”. The courts in the United States have wrestled with this notion for some time. Can the judiciary, or even SHOULD the judiciary compel speech? It has been done. I.e. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, cigarette manufactures are required to put warning labels on packs of cigarettes, etc. But, cases where speech in compelled by the judiciary or government at large is, in essence, “legislating morality”. If the court were to compel the Christian to make something that went against their deeply held religious belief… that would then bleed over to the kosher deli, the Muslim artist and the gay baker. NONE would have the right to refuse. This would destroy the First Amendment.

            We as human beings shouldn’t (by our own virtue) do these things… yell fire to cause danger… lie to the public about the harmful nature of inhaling smoke… etc. And as good human beings we should treat other human being with respect. This goes both ways.

            Take the case of MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL. (the Jack Phillips case) the SCOTUS ruled that Mr. Phillips‘ First Amendment rights were violated due to the public animus the Civil Rights Commission showed him in respect to the law.

            “…Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.
            (b)
            That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.”… (Court Opinion, page 2)

            So, how does all this lead us to clearing these muddy waters; to some understanding? Put simply, those that object on the basis of “violation of civil rights” have often times targeted (via lawsuit) those with which they disagree. In the cases of same-sex weddings it is often (exclusively?) the Christian.

            For me, this comes down to simple civility. I feel the customer wanting the BLT is civil about the refusal to make that item; thereby respecting the freedom to exercise one’s religion, and the freedom of speech. A gay cake artist will (as evidenced here) not make a cake that would be used for a “Stop Gay Marriage” event. It has been evidenced (by conspicuous lack of lawsuits) that the Stop Gay Marriage customer would act in a civil manner as far as the law is concerned. They would respect the refusal.

            I hope this all makes sense. And please forgive me if I ramble… just got done watching the 18 inning World Series Game 3 slug-fest lol.

  26. Robert Tucker says:

    Interestingly enough, that Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, is once again mired in legal issues—due to his refusal to make a gender transition affirming cake. We’ll see how that plays out. Also interesting is that the US Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Commission that deemed what Mr. Phillips was illegal prejudiced him. It was more a referendum on the process.

    That aside, this case is wholly similar. The court likely held up the “message” aspect of the case as there is legal precedent for not forcing artists to produce commissions they do not agree with. (Covered by the First Amendment here in the US. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention of “Freedom of Expression” into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act.)

    It is immoral to coerce someone to create something that sends a message they disagree with. Especially when the basis of that disagreement is religious.

    For me, this kind of thing hinges on religious objection to a thing… which is the part people attack. In these cases it is the religious objection to spreading a message of gay marriage or gender transition that is the offending element. NOT the gay/transgender person themselves. (“Hate the sin, not the sinner.”)

    “There should be no objection! Your are discriminating if you don’t bake the cake!” Some may say. I’m curious to know if they would say the same to a Jewish owner of a kosher deli when they were really hungry for a pulled pork sandwich? Would the vitriol aimed at Christians for not making a cake be the same vitriol leveled at a Muslim artist who refused to paint a picture of Mohammed? I seriously doubt it…

    This kind of double standard is biased against the Christian. This is why they win their cases.

    1. Alicia says:

      Sounds to me that the LGBT community is pissed that the baker won on the wedding cake, so decided to have someone try for a gender reassignment cake just to sue the pants off the poor guy again. People suck.

    2. Carl Elfstrom says:

      However, it only offends some Christians. It does not offend many Christians, or Christianity as a whole. That is the most controversial religion I’ve ever heard of. Everything depends on how a particular sect, or even a particular individual Christian, interprets one book, the Bible. And there seems to be nearly as many interpretations of it as there are Christians. And in that, absolutely anything could be against Christianity, to a particular, individual christian, without being against Christianity as a whole, for there is no such thing as the whole body of Christianity. There is no one set way of being Christian, or there would be no such thing as Christian denominations, or sects.

  27. Alicia says:

    Here’s my take on this: The man is a gay rights activist. It seems to me that he specifically went to this bakery, knowing they were devout Christians, and KNEW how it would play out (not getting a cake). He wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

    I’m a supporter of LGBT rights. I’m also a supporter of rights for EVERYONE. I’m sure there are other bakeries in the area that are NOT owned by Christians. He could have gone to any one of those but, nope…he had to go to THIS particular bakery.

    If being told by someone that YOUR beliefs don’t correspond to THEIR beliefs makes you feel like a “second class citizen”, then you have issues that are far greater than a cake. I’d like to know if this activist ever went to that bakery for other cakes. If so, how was he treated?

    Bottom line here: Don’t expect others to bow down to YOUR beliefs. I wouldn’t expect Christian bakers to bake me a cake celebrating Paganism, so if I wanted a cake with a pentagram on it and the words “The Goddess is Great” on it, I wouldn’t go to a bakery owned by Christians. It’s their right to be Christian and have Christian beliefs just as it’s MY right to be Pagan. RESPECT EACH OTHER! Don’t scream about lack of diversity, then bitch when someone is “different”.

  28. RM says:

    I believe there is a misconception of the Bible. The Bible was NOT written by God or Jesus. It was written by man…numerous men. It is intended to teach. Not to take word for word and so extremely literally. The Bible is read, and the reader chooses their own perception of what they read. To one person, it can relay one message. But, to another, can be perceived quite different. Stop throwing out your own interpretations and calling it, “Gods word”.

    1. Alicia says:

      If you’re talking to a born again Christian, they will tell you that the Bible was written by God and is his word. They also take it very literally. I have a cousin who believes that the earth is 6,000-some-odd years old. WE know that’s ridiculous, but that is THEIR belief. I even pointed out that dinosaur bones were recovered that were millions of years old. The answer: Those were planted by the devil to make us doubt the word of god. I stopped trying to have a conversation about this with him.

      You and I may know that the Bible was not only written by many men but that it was written hundreds of years after the stories told supposedly happened.

      1. RM says:

        Exactly, Alicia!

        1. b0blf says:

          THE ANVIL OF GOD’S WORD

          Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith’s door,
          And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
          Then looking in, I saw upon the floor
          Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

          ‘How many anvils have you had.’ said I
          To wear and batter all these hammers so?’
          ‘Just one.’ said he, and then with twinkling eye,
          ‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’

          And so,I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word
          For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
          Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
          The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone.
          (Source unknown)

          1. T'Keren Valmaz says:

            Dont forget folks BobLF here has admitted to having a long lasting deep seated yearning to rape his own sister.

            On these very forums he has said this before. so keep that in mind when you see any of his posts.

  29. RevDR says:

    I think religious freedom is and always will be under attack. If this guy was really interested in having a cake made for his wedding, he would’ve chosen a baker he researched. It appears he researched this particular baker, so he could make an example of them. In his attempt to call them out, he ended up looking like the foolish one. I’m glad the court ruled in the favor of the bakers. If someone comes in wanting a picture of a gun shooting someone or, a picture of someone being stabbed or, some other horrid picture, I’m sure they would’ve rejected that also. There should be some discretion left to the owners It’s their business. If they choose not to release work that is representative of them or their beliefs, then so be it.

  30. Rev. Donna says:

    While I don’t beliieve in discrimination, my mother’s advice rings true here.’You’re money’s good anywhere’….if you are not happy with an establishment, take your business elsewhere.

Leave a Comment