Judge Rules Against Bakery Owner Who Would Rather Close Shop Than Serve Gay Couples

The owner of a Colorado bakery faces legal trouble for refusing to provide a gay couple with a wedding cake — and despite his best efforts, his religious beliefs aren’t helping him in court.

Last July, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig approached Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to bake a cake for their upcoming wedding. The owner, Jack Phillips, told them his religious beliefs kept him from supporting their marriage and he refused to provide the cake.

“I am a follower of Jesus Christ,” Phillips said in July. “So you could say it’s a religious belief. I believe the Bible teaches [same-sex marriage is] not an OK thing.”

With the help of the ACLU, Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, according to KDVR. Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In civil court earlier this week, Phillips argued that his religious liberties were being violated, and that his refusal to provide the cake is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

That didn’t work out so well, though; on Friday, Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts found Phillips guilty of unlawful discrimination. In what might be the funniest part of this entire case, Spencer noted that Phillips’s religion argument was invalid because he had previously made a cake for the wedding of two dogs. (Can someone please direct me to the Biblical stance on dog marriages?)

The judge’s decision likely means that Phillips will have to change his shop’s discriminatory anti-gay policy. His lawyer earlier said she would appeal the ruling if Phillips lost in civil court, but it remains to be seen whether she’ll follow through.

Last July Phillips also said he would rather close down shop than serve gay couples:

 “If it came to that point, we would close down the bakery before we would compromise our beliefs so that may be what it comes to. We’ll see.”

No word on whether he’ll hold true to that promise, either, but we can dream. I’ll take my canine cake needs elsewhere, thanks.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a twentysomething working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • islandbrewer

    They were obviously monogamous heterosexual dogs, I’m sure, marrying the way God intended dogs to get married.

    • koseighty

      Dogs, like Christians, are strictly monogamous.

    • mlj11

      Well, you know what they say: “What dogs have joined together, no man shall separate.” Or something like that.

      • jbandsma

        A bucket of cold water will fix that.

    • mdoc

      Doggie style?

    • Darren

      The shop owner should have known the dogs would come back to bite him…

    • OCRazor

      Well obviously, everyone knows that!

  • Aspieguy

    Pathetic. I would much rather have this business closed than continue its homophobic stance. Congratulations to the judge who ruled against this baker.

  • Amor DeCosmos

    “we would close down our bakery before we would compromise our beliefs”

    If there was ever an instance of “we would chop off our nose to spite our face”, then this is it.

    • $9472795

      You miss the point entirely. He is not chopping off his nose to spite his face at all. He is putting actions to his beliefs. He has a backbone unlike almost every politician and other public figures today.
      What is not mentioned here in the article is the gay couple could have been deliberately making this an issue with him to force their agenda down the throats of folks who believe their life choices to be perverted, immoral, and sinful. Surely there were other bakery shops they could have chosen to bake a cake for them. But no, they had to try to force a man to do something that ran completely against his own very deeply held beliefs.
      Perhaps a tad bit of consideration on this might be more productive than writing general cliche’s in judgement of a man actually taking action predicated on his beliefs.

      • God’s Starship

        Discrimination isn’t backbone. It is cowardice. Your bigots lost. Get over it.

        • $9472795

          Thank you for demonstrating a complete failure in your ability to present any cognitive answers.

          • Nate Frein

            I think the word you want is “cogent”

      • Paul Little

        There is a law. What he did was illegal. So what if they chose to go to his business with the intent of producing this result? Looking the other way when someone does something wrong is equal to committing the crime oneself. These two are heroes for helping make the world a better place for all people.

        • $9472795

          Do you actually think that two gay men who deliberately picked on a baker, and tried to force their beliefs upon him made the world a better place? Really Paul?
          And just because something is ‘legal’ doesn’t make it ethically, or morally right. How many babies have been ‘legally’ dismembered, their skulls crushed, because it is ‘legal’ to do so?
          It’s his business, he has the choice to wait on or serve anyone he wants or deny service to anyone he wants. He also has the choice to shut his business down before he serves gays.

          • Kengi

            “…he has the choice to wait on or serve anyone he wants or deny service to anyone he wants.”

            Not in the United States of America since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Come on, get current with the laws in this nation before making claims about them. You just look foolish when you get them wrong.

            • $9472795

              What about those signs that say, ‘No shirt, no shoes, no service?’

              • Kengi

                Your choice of clothing doesn’t make you a protected class which has traditionally been discriminated against. Did you miss that whole Civil Rights thing?

                Honestly, read up on the basics of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how Congress and the courts applied the ability to regulate commerce to protecting certain minority groups from discrimination in public accommodation. If you don’t know the first thing about civil rights laws, then don’t argue about the legality of civil rights issues in the United States.

                Knowing your own rights should be a basic minimum for being a responsible citizen.

              • Alexandrine

                “No shirt, no shoes, no service” is kind of a health and safety/liability thing. You don’t want barefoot people stepping on something, getting cut, and suing. And also not a protected class. And a situation that can be remedied pretty easily by simply putting on those articles of clothing.

              • ZeldasCrown

                If someone goes to a restaurant and doesn’t have a shirt or shoes on, once they put one on, the business will serve them. Clothing regulations are something that applies to every member of the public, regardless of their identity (religious, sexual orientation, race, etc). A person can’t just go home and put on their “I’m no longer Jewish ball-cap” (though a person might convert between religions over time, but that’s not something that’s going to happen in 5 minutes just so that they can be served at some place of business, and being ethnically/culturally Jewish isn’t something a person can change) or their “I’m now white pants”, or their “I’m straight boots”.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            So what I’m hearing is that the African-Americans who went to stores and restaurants and lunch counters, and sat and waited to be served; they were horrible people who didn’t make the world a better place because they nonviolently confronted bigoted people and tried to force their beliefs of racial equality on small business owners (and big ones too, for that matter).

            Do you really think that? Do you really think that one of the most successful tactics of the civil rights movement, sit-ins, was a failure of both ethics and tactics? Not that I think these men did that, mind you, but if they had, I don’t see what’s wrong with it.

            • $9472795

              Well, now, no I don’t think that; and find it abhorrent to think that blacks had to use different restrooms, sit in the back of the bus, etc…
              However, you have confused the issue of civil rights for a race of people with a man being forced to violate his own belief system because two men want to engage in perverted sexual acts. These are two completely different things.
              If we were talking civil rights, I agree with you, but we are not, even though that’s how they try to frame it.

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                Religious belief that whites are better than blacks. Religious belief that gay sex is a sin.

                Why do you think one religious belief is valid and the other is not?

                • $9472795

                  What makes you think that ‘religious belief that whites are better than blacks?’ Bible reference? Factual cross-references for this would be?

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Have you studied Jim Crow at all? Preachers preached segregation, anti-miscegenation, and white people being superior from pulpits across the South, and they justified it with Bible verses and religious exegesis. It was a deeply held religious belief of Bob Jones (yes, that Bob Jones, who founded the university). Liberty University Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until 2000.

                  http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__061001_segregationists_bega.htm
                  http://www.themennonite.org/bloggers/timjn/posts/Looking_at_MLKs_opponents_the_Christianity_of_slave_owners_and_segregationists
                  http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/how-school-privatization-was-hatched-racist-1950s-southern-segregationists
                  http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/

                  And a very telling video: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221013/Video-The-shocking-twist-Missouri-pastors-impassioned-argument-equal-rights-homosexuals.html

                  This is like American History 101 here.

                • Grace

                  I agree with what you’re saying to Fading_Shadow in this post, but — you say Liberty University bans interracial dating? I googled and didn’t find a source that confirmed that. I know people who are currently attending Liberty, and I’m skeptical that there is such a ban there.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  It was actually Bob Jones University, not Liberty. My apologies. I misremembered which highly conservative Christian college had the ban. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University, merely supported it.

                  Fixing it now.

                • Grace

                  Ah, ok. Thanks for fixing it.

                  Of course it’s still messed up that the founder had supported that ban, but it doesn’t disturb me nearly as much as the idea that the school would currently have the ban in place.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Yeah, agreed.

                • Joe

                  I’m bothered by his obvious prejudice, but at the same time I feel that a business should have a right to choose who they serve. If I went in there and asked him to make me a cake blood red to celebrate the Antichrist or something Satanic, why is he forced to make it? He should have the right to say “No, I won’t do something against my beliefs.” I’m an atheist, I don’t have beliefs, but I don’t feel that it’s right to eliminate the right for others to have their own.

                  I wish everyone would get along, and for businesses to help and serve everyone. I just think it’s wrong to force someone to do it. He didn’t make an “I hate Gays” cake, he merely said he would rather not provide the service they are asking for.

                  It’s a tough call, but forcing someone isn’t the right way to fix it.

                • $9472795

                  I agree, and that is essentially what my point is.

              • God’s Starship

                Way to keep reducing human beings down to their genitals. Keep it classy.

              • alconnolly

                Noticed you ignored my comment which addresses this lets see if you keep ignoring it: You replied to others that refusing a person based on their skin color
                would be different. But if your argument is that he should be able to
                act in accordance with his religious belief it should not matter whether
                you think his belief is right or wrong. So if you think it would be a
                misreading of the bible to deny black people service it is irrelevant to
                the argument you actually made which is that he should have a right to
                live out his religious beliefs. To stay consistent you would have to
                support his right to do things you disagree with if he had a religious
                motive for doing do, such as behave completely racist or deny a Muslim
                service or even deny a christian service on the basis of their faith.

                • evodevo

                  If you are engaged in commerce with the public, you give up certain “rights”, at least in this country. You give up the right to discriminate. Sorry.

                • alconnolly

                  Of course you do. I don’t know if you read my comment. It was directed at that stupid fading shadow guy who felt that discriminating against gays was perfectly legal and an important right to religious freedom, but that doing so against black people is wrong because it goes against his religious beliefs. i was trying to get him to see how hypocritacle his blather was. He either believes in the principle that if someone belives something religiously they should be able to do it regardless of consequence or he doesn’t. Of course the law is clear they do not have such a right.

              • Kengi

                You really don’t understand what a civil rights issue is, do you? Any time the government gets involved with restricting the rights of the people of the nation, it’s a civil rights issue.

                The baker has civil rights as well as the customers. When they come into conflict (as rights often do), the government has to get involved to resolve that conflict. That’s a civil rights issue.

                The rights of the baker has nothing to do with “violating” his personal belief system. His rights in question are the ability to choose who to associate with (free association). the customer has a right to free and fair access to commerce in public accommodation.

                Since these rights are in conflict, our government and courts have prioritized the right to free and fair access to commerce above the right of free association for limited protected classes of people who have been traditionally discriminated against.

                We had a huge social upheaval over this particular balance of rights back in the 1960′s. You probably want to read up on it some.

              • Dennis Vander Houwen

                You just made the assumption that being gay is a choice. You have revealed your ignorance. Do not be confused…The right to love another person IS A CIVIL RIGHT! Your opinion of their relationship being about your definition of a “perverted act” is your baggage and ignorance of reality.

                • WingsThree

                  Don’t bother banging your head against the wall with this guy. Like so many others of his ilk, who insist on living 21st century life in the bronze ages, it’s an utter waste of mental energy. I’m sure he’s paying attention to all the Leviticus prohibitions, and no matter what we say here, his mind will never be changed. It’s a sad reality; one can only hope that as time goes by, this trash will subside.

                • Dennis Vander Houwen

                  Thanks… I reached that conclusion too.

              • cary_w

                It stil seems to me that you somehow think these guys wanted the baker to join in their perverted sex act with them. They just wanted cake. Sheesh, get your mind out if the gutter!

              • Oswald Carnes

                Fuck you and whatever ugly old bitch gave birth to you.

                • The Other Weirdo

                  Umm, let’s not go there. There is no need to insult people that have nothing to do with this discussion and, may in fact be lovely people who think just the opposite.

              • WingedBeast

                Shadow, those private business owners back in the civil rights struggle, they also claimed to have religious justification for their actions. The KKK still claims that their racism is a part of their Christian faith.
                -
                So, the difference, really, is no difference.

          • TCC

            Do you actually think that two gay men who deliberately picked on a baker, and tried to force their beliefs upon him made the world a better place?

            Do you actually think that anyone here is gullible enough to fall for this utterly dishonest framing of the incident at hand?

          • cary_w

            They didn’t “force their beliefs on him”, they asked a baker to make them a cake! Huge difference there!!!

          • ImRike

            They never tried to “force their beliefs on him”. As far as I know, neither one of them made a pass at him, or asked him to get married to one of them.
            It looks more like he is trying to force his beliefs on them!

          • tsig

            Do you actually think that two gay men who deliberately picked on a
            baker, and tried to force their beliefs upon him made the world a better
            place?

            They just wanted him to bake a cake.

          • Debora

            picked on? really? He broke the law. He got called on it.

      • The Other Weirdo

        Replace “gay couple” with “Jewish couple,” “Muslim couple,” “Protestant couple,” “Catholic couple,” “Christian Scientist couple,” “Scientologist couple,” “Satanist couple,” “black couple,” “mixed-race couple.”

        • $9472795

          You miss the point as well. By replacing ‘gay couple’ with other denominations you are confusing a lifestyle with denominations. I’ll type slowly here for you. . . you are trying to equate a perverted lifestyle to divergent belief systems. What does a black couple have to to with a gay couple? You are making a false comparison.

          • God’s Starship

            Yes, you want to discriminate against this group, not that group. We get it. You don’t have to constantly explain yourself. You are not a mystery to us, dude.

            • $9472795

              Ah. . . nor are you a mystery to me – you write like an irrational liberal who is incapable of logical reasoning, but resorts to generalizations and name calling. I see you failed to answer my question that I posed above, yet jumped in with an accusation, and use the plural words ‘we’ and ‘us’ as if you are speaking for a group of people on this board. You are not. So answer the question dude.

              • God’s Starship

                What question? You mean “What does a black couple have [in common] with a gay couple?”
                The answer is they are both humans worthy of basic respect and decency, and most people who count themselves among them are probably a better class of human than you.

                • $9472795

                  Ah, you still don’t get it do you? This is a false comparison. It is comparing a normal hetero couple to two people who chose to engage in a perverted lifestyle.
                  I almost laughed at your hypocritical inconsistency in your last sentence. Who are you to condemn me because I happen to believe differently than you do? Why does thinking that homosexuality is somehow ‘okay’ when I do not suddenly make you morally superior to me, and give you the ‘right’ to insult me?
                  I’ve never insinuated that gay folks were not worthy of basic respect, and have had friends and family that were gay. So, you see that you have made some rather presumptive comments based upon your own internal bigotry you’ve created against those who do not think the same way you do.

                • God’s Starship

                  Please tolerate my intolerance blah blah blah…..
                  I hope this thread doesn’t break Disqus again. I see lots of traffic here.

                • $9472795

                  Just give it up, you got nothing. Thanks for the entertainment. Read your own posts and see who was being intolerant, doing the name calling, and insulting. I’ll give you a hint. . . it wasn’t me.

                • baal

                  “I’ll give you a hint. . . it wasn’t me.”
                  Hah!

                • The Other Weirdo

                  You mean there was someone else here claiming cerrtain people lived perverted life styles?

                • baal

                  “engage in a perverted lifestyle.”
                  Um, who is throwing around the unmerited insults f_s?

                • cary_w

                  Wait… Who ever said the black couple was hetero? I am sooooo confused :(

                • Raising_Rlyeh

                  You know you sound exactly like the people that went after Mildred and Richard Loving. See they thought a normal heterosexual relationship involved people of the same skin color and how dare that couple be all miscegenate against what god ordered.

                  Really though if you want to go down this road we can. If you want to make it legal to discriminate against LGBT people because you feel it is a choice then it is only fair to discriminate based on the choice of religion. Of course when christianity becomes a minority you would hope that the majority religion would be nice to you.

                  I am morally superior to someone that thinks gay people are perverts and freaks because I am not denying the basic humanity of someone simply because of who they are attracted to.

                  Tell me, do your “gay friends and family” know that you consider them to be practicing a sick and perverted “lifestyle”?

                • http://somaticstrength.wordpress.com/ Tor

                  ….we’re talking about straight people? Because I feel compassion for them and their perverted lifestyle too. So sad. I have straight friends and I think they deserve respect too. But I would never support their perverted lifestyle either.

                • Highlander

                  Anti-Micegenists used to say mixed marriages were perverted lifestyles too, turns out, they were wrong. They used to say that mixed marriages were against god’s law, they were probably right about that since god’s law can be anything the interpreter wants it to be. What you think is icky is up to you, you love what you’re attracted to and not everyone is the same, don’t force what you think is icky on everyone else. You can say that homosexuality is against god’s law and a perversion, but you will find, in the future, you will be considered wrong and bigoted. Why not just walk away from your hate and be noted for being right when so many around you thought otherwise.

                • LWMT

                  What is it like to have friends that lead such a perverted, immoral, and sinful lifestyle?

                • The Other Weirdo

                  As a Jew from the Old Country™, I cannot count the number of times friends of mine claimed not to be antisemitic because they had Jewish friends, and yet said and believed antisemitic things.

          • Kengi

            You are confusing a loving, long-term relationship with “perversion”. You want perversion, just look to people who are in a death cult practicing ritualized cannibalism every Sunday (whose leaders enable child molestation). You know, the Catholic Church.

          • Steve

            You’re right. It is a false comparison. You don’t CHOOSE to be gay or straight, just like you don’t CHOOSE to be a particular race. Religion, however, IS a lifestyle choice and should be open to discrimination. You CHOOSE to follow a certain religion. Your family may force it on you during childhood, but you CHOOSE whether or not to continue believing in fairy tales. Thank you for inadvertently backing us up in your attempt to excuse your bigotry.

            • $9472795

              Lulu,
              1. You are wrong. One does choose to be gay or straight. I’ve known and currently know people who have chosen to abandon the gay lifestyle. So this premise is just incorrect no matter how you may feel about it.
              2. You follow up your false premise by equating it with race. I agree we cannot choose our race; but that has no bearing upon your false premise in item 1
              3. I agree with you about religious choice.
              4. Your conclusion is absolutely unwarranted because your premise was wrong. Since you cannot argue from a fact based position, you to have resorted to assumptive name calling. Not very impressive.

              • Kengi

                Point 1. You are wrong. Only people with a bisexual orientation “choose” to be gay or straight. Most people don’t choose their sexual orientation.

                Point 3. If religion is a choice and a bisexual choosing their partner is a choice, you should realize that if the Civil Rights Act protects people’s choice of religion, it can also protect their choice of partner in a wedding contract.

                Come on. This is logic 101. You can do better.

                • baal

                  (actually, as a ‘bi’, I’m currently choosing to have sex with 2 women and looking for a guy (with their consent); monogamy isn’t for everyone)

                • Raising_Rlyeh

                  Just my opinion, but I disagree about point 1. I’m not bisexual, gay here, but I don’t think you can say that bisexual people choose to be straight or gay. They are still bisexual they just happen to be with one sex or another.

                  Someone wrote before that they didn’t like it when people judged them. The man said that when he was dating a women people judged him to be straight and when he dated a man people judged him to be gay. Neither is right since he is still attracted to both.

                  I get what your point is, but just wanted to chime in.

                • Guest

                  Are you redefining “gay” as “is currently having sex with someone of the same genitals” and “straight” as “is currently having sex with someone with different genitals”?

                  Wow. We have ridiculously different definitions of those words.

                • mucopurulent

                  After the pounding he’s getting, it is pretty clear FadingShadow *cannot* do any better.

                • evodevo

                  He/she doesn’t WANT to do any “better”. It will never change its core beliefs/misconceptions because it doesn’t want to. You are arguing with a brick wall troll.

              • Spuddie

                So when did you chose to be straight?

                It seems you are telling us you might have feelings towards the same sex and just turn it down?

                That tells us more than you are “in the closet”, not that sexual orientation is a choice.

              • WingsThree

                Fading, assuming you are straight, perhaps you can share with your fellow readers when you chose being so?

              • Drakk

                You are wrong. One does choose to be gay or straight. I’ve known and currently know people who have chosen to abandon the gay lifestyle. So this premise is just incorrect no matter how you may feel about it

                I should appreciate some confirmation for this claim. Would you please temporarily change your sexuality to gay, then go out and (consensually) fuck a guy and enjoy it. Extra points if you can show that it is repeatable.

              • Dan Robinson

                Every time you use the “Gay is a choice” argument you dig your hole a little deeper. Have you started a new hole? Just trying to keep up.

              • Alexandrine

                Serious question: Would you support the baker’s using his religious beliefs to deny service to someone based on some other characteristic? (This is assuming that the baker did sincerely believe whatever his reasoning was, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to you or I.) If, for instance, he felt it was immoral for someone to enter into an interracial or mixed-religion marriage (because he felt he had Biblical backing for it), would that be okay? Or if, say, a Muslim baker refused to serve anyone but other Muslims, because they felt their religion required that?

              • Matt D

                When did you choose to be straight?

                Describe the experience to me.

                • aaa

                  “Describe the experience to me.”

                  Dear Penthouse Forum, you’ll never believe what happened to me…

          • baal

            Perverted Lifestyle? Fading_shadow, I find your brainwashing of children to believe supernatual delusions a harmful lifestyle. My sexual related behaviours aren’t a matter of selecting from a menu any more than your’s are. Regardless, why is it up to you (absent some crim. law or somesuch) what I do in the bedroom or with whom I’m shacking up?

          • Anat

            Membership in a religious denomination is a lifestyle choice. Sexuality isn’t.

          • Anathema

            Why does being gay qualify as a lifestyle but not being Catholic?

          • indorri

            Fuck off.

          • Dan Robinson

            every time you use the phrase “perverted lifestyle” you dig your hole a little deeper.

          • The Other Weirdo

            If being gay is a choice, then so is being heterosexual. I don’t remember making that choice. Do you? Besides, considering how many people pick and choose which church to go to, so is churchiness. In that case, it’s perfectly acceptable for those who make one church choice to discriminate against those who make another church choice. Is that what you’re saying?

          • WingedBeast

            “What does a black couple have to do with a gay couple?”
            -
            Let me rewrite this to “what does a black couple have in common with a gay couple?”. Both have groups that claim it to be a religious belief that they should not get married or enjoy the same services as those couples of which the group approves.
            -
            And, if a prevailing religious belief, mixed in with heavy doses of hegemony, tribalism, and fear of being insufficiently in the culturally dominant group, is allowed to deny services offered to the general public based just on that one factor, anybody in the position of that black couple, that gay couple, that interracial couple, could die from it.
            -
            Think about it, you’re injured in an accident. Could be your fault, could be someone else’s fault, could be no one’s fault, it doesn’t matter. So, you’re being sent to a hospital, but that hospital is a private hospital either run by, dependent upon funding from, or dependent upon the good will of the local culture which is dominated by that same group, and they send you onto the next closest hospital, rather than personally save your life.
            -
            That’s what black people in the 50s had to deal with. Yes, death happened as a result. Also, in that same culture, also happened a denial of the basic structure of upward mobility. And, this isn’t even counting the cases of direct race-based-violence.
            -
            You think calling the couple in question “perverted” changes any of that? You think this is something so small as just a single cake? No, this is the ability to take part in society despite being identified as a culturally acceptable target.
            -
            And, when you focus on the fact that you believe the gay couple to be “perverted”, you show that you’re actually not for civil rights. Civil rights are to protect people you don’t like from being refused a place at the table of society just because you don’t like them.
            -
            That’s why you can replace “gay couple” with “interracial couple” or “different religion”. Because *any* group could be in that place, even Christians. You don’t get to be able to support this discrimination unless you’re ready to be on the receiving end.

      • lulu

        So it is ok to bake a cake for a wedding for dogs? Isn’t that wrecking the “sanctity” of marriage as well? Hypocrite.

        • $9472795

          What are you babbling about? I never once mentioned anything about dogs.

          • God’s Starship

            It helps to read the article, oh master of cognition.

            • $9472795

              Yes, yes it does; however, it also helps to read any responses before you make a fool of yourself. I’ll type slowly for you here. . . As I noted to Lulu’s babbling, I have never once mentioned anything about dogs.

              • Pickle

                But…The article does and that is what the commenters are referring to. Durr.

              • tsig

                That was what was remarkable about it.

      • alconnolly

        You replied to others that refusing a person based on their skin color
        would be different. But if your argument is that he should be able to
        act in accordance with his religious belief it should not matter whether
        you think his belief is right or wrong. So if you think it would be a
        misreading of the bible to deny black people service it is irrelevant to
        the argument you actually made which is that he should have a right to
        live out his religious beliefs. To stay consistent you would have to
        support his right to do things you disagree with if he had a religious
        motive for doing do, such as behave completely racist or deny a Muslim
        service or even deny a christian service on the basis of their faith.

      • Belaam

        Remember when those black people totally just sat down in Whites Only diners and tried to order food? I can’t believe that they would force those restaurant owners to serve them even though it ran completely against their own very deeply held beliefs. Surely there were other diners they could have gone into.

        • Spuddie

          They always seem to forget that segregation had a religious component to it as well. Those Southern Baptists loved to claim that God kept the races separate for a reason.

        • evodevo

          See : Rand, Paul …..

      • Belaam

        Matthew 19:6

        “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

        Does the baker provide cakes to second marriages? Bet he does.

      • AxeGrrl

        He is not chopping off his nose to spite his face at all. He is putting actions to his beliefs.

        Did you miss the part where he made a cake for a dog wedding?

      • WingsThree

        You are completely missing the point. How does baking a freaking cake “interfere” with exercising a religious belief? The guy can keep on doing his religious thing, no matter who he sells his product to. Now, if this baker is choosing his customers based on race, gender, sexual orientation, Muslim, Buddhist, or whether cats or dogs attempt to buy his goods, that’s a problem, and that’s where the law steps in. This is another classic example of personal religious “freedom” somehow trumping the law of the land, and that’s a crock of BS, cooked at 350 degrees. These people didn’t “force” him to do anything against his religious beliefs. I don’t find a single reference to baking cakes in the Good Book. It’s bigoted and hateful to attempt this line of “defense” and I’m personally gratified the judge made the correct call.

      • ImRike

        If these christians want to stop doing business with everybody who sins, more power to them: they will have to do like the guy said: close shop.

        If he wants to feel like a good christian, all he has to do is to refrain from sinning himself, i.e. don’t be gay, or don’t do same sex marriage.

      • Dorfl

        He is putting actions to his beliefs. He has a backbone unlike almost every politician and other public figures today.

        Having principles that you believe in, and acting on those principles, isn’t actually praiseworthy in itself. You first have to make sure that your principles are actually good ones. Otherwise, being ‘principled’ – no matter how positive connotations the word has – ends up being worse than if you’d been completely apathetic and spent your time playing World of Warcraft or something instead.

        • Alexandrine

          “Having principles that you believe in, and acting on those principles, isn’t actually praiseworthy in itself. ”

          Should I use this opportunity to Godwin this thread and bring up how the Nazis “put actions to their beliefs”…? Dare I?

      • LWMT

        Well now the gay couple is putting action to their beliefs. That’s right, it’s not only the Christian who believes they are doing the moral thing in this situation. The gay couple is fighting back because they believe the Christians may deliberately be making an issue with them and they don’t want the Christian agenda shoved down their throat because they believe their religious choices are perverted, immoral, and hateful. Not all Christians have a problem with gay people but these ones do and all I can say is that they are on the wrong side of history and the law.

      • gnostic67

        Just like chrisitans who aer always shoving their agenda down non-believers throat right?? and just like christians who aer always trying to force their beliefs on everyone christians like that aer such hypocrites!!

      • Sven2547

        He has a backbone unlike almost every politician and other public figures today.

        Oh yes. Boldly standing up for the “right” to treat other people like second-class citizens. How very admirable. (/sarcasm)

        Surely there were other bakery shops they could have chosen to bake a cake for them. But no, they had to try to force a man to do something that ran completely against his own very deeply held beliefs.

        The lawsuit is not an attempt to force him to bake them a cake. All they did is file a complaint with the state of Colorado regarding the law the baker broke. That’s that you do when you see a business breaking the law: you report it. The state of Colorado went forward with the suit.

      • Stephen Mahi

        If I’m trying to read my Bible while doing 65 mph in a 25 mph zone and a policeman pulls me over and tells me I’m breaking the law because I’m speeding, is the government really attempting to take away my rights?

  • $925105

    Maybe they’re hatred will keep them warm this winter, their cold ovens certainly won’t. Good riddance bigots.

  • L.Long

    Its nice to know that the religious bigots start learning that this is a secular country and they can celebrate their bigotry in private and not in the public venue.

    • $9472795

      You are wrong. Just because someone differs from you in what they believe, does not instantly make them a ‘religious bigot.’ Character and beliefs matter both in private and in public. One cannot merely shed their personal beliefs in public because you don’t like their stance. That’s called freedom of religion and free speech.
      Contrary to your uninformed statement that ‘this is a secular country’ America was founded by people wanting free exercise of their own conscience and freedom to practice religion the way they saw fit.
      You may celebrate your close-mindedness in private, and not in public. Who gave you the right to judge another’s beliefs?

      • Spuddie

        Using religion to excuse blatant discriminatory behavior is being a religious bigot. You may not like being called one but if you act in such a fashion, it is more than appropriate.

        If your personal beliefs involve treating people as being unworthy of common decency because of some outward characteristic, you are a bigot. Those personal beliefs are unworthy of respect and whatever social sanction comes with them is more than appropriate.

        • God’s Starship

          In other words, the shoe fits.

        • WingsThree

          Spot on. But I’m sure that’s lost on the Mr Fading. After all, people don’t care to be called out for what they are, particularly when it goes against their own interpretation of words written hundreds of centuries ago.

      • baal

        “practice religion the way they saw fit”
        You mean by oppressing the religion of other christians? The eary colonies weren’t always a great place to be a quaker, for example. The calvanists weren’t welcome in europe due to the strife they were causing.

      • Anathema

        Just because someone differs from you in what they believe, does not instantly make them a ‘religious bigot.’

        We aren’t calling the bakery owner a religious bigot just because we disagree with his beliefs. We’re calling him a religious bigot because he is using his religious beliefs in order to treat certain people as if they’re second-class citizens.

        Contrary to your uninformed statement that ‘this is a secular country’ America was founded by people wanting free exercise of their own conscience and freedom to practice religion the way they saw fit.

        How does any of that contradict what L. Long said about America being a secular country?

      • indorri

        Where was this argument when that store was telling someone looking for a menorah that “we don’t serve your kind here”?

        At which point or, to make it more reasonable, within which range of identities and assertions about certain groups of people does it go from “religious conscience” to “bigotry”?

        I will answer that question partly: there is none. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are utterly orthogonal to each other and thus your attempt to characterize it in that form is misdirection.

        Denying their services to gays is bigotry. Denying their services to Jews is bigotry. Denying their services to straights is bigotry. Denying their services to Christians is bigotry. Denying their services to blacks, to whites, to single people, to married people, to cops, to smokers, to asexuals, to myopics, to eagle eyes, to short people, to tall people… all bigotry.

        Even if they all hold any of the above categories is intrinsically immoral by sincere religious beliefs.

        Edit: Never mind, I read your statement below. Fuck off.

  • Guest

    Where the dogs gay?

  • Jeff See

    Were the dogs gay?

    • The Other Weirdo

      Apparently not, because he had no problem making a cake for them.

  • RegularJoe

    So shut it down already. Sure, perhaps Leviticus would support Phillips, but not Thor….Not only did Thor keep the Frost Giants at bay, he’d also bring a cake worthy of a Valhallan celebration, andwould also invite Dionysus and Ninkasi and Jesus to bring along the ale and wine. FSM will bring the food, as well.
    Leviticus was a derp.

  • Chris

    Would you really want this clown to make a cake for you? I think not.

    • more compost

      That’s the way I see it. I wouldn’t give my business to this bigot.

  • Andrew L

    The dogs weren’t gay, but they were bi-curious.

  • cary_w

    Why does it matter what Jesus says about gay marriage? No one is trying to force him to marry another man. It seems like he should only be concerned with what Jesus says about selling cakes. Did Jesus ever say, “don’t sell cake to sinners!”? I don’t think so, but he’s got a kind of wacky version of Jesus, so maybe I’m wrong.

    • cary_w

      And did Jesus ever say it was OK for dogs to get married?

      • Pepe

        Yeah. John 3:16 : “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. And dogs can be married any time they want. Heterosexual or not”

    • $9472795

      If you don’t know the Bible stance on gays, which you obviously do not, then the rest of your post is totally asinine, which it is. Pretty funny that you have no idea what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, yet that doesn’t stop you from passing your own wacky judgement on this man of integrity.

      • Kengi

        I know what the Bible says about gay people, in both the Old and New Testament. The New Covenant says we don’t have to follow the old Hebrew laws of Deuteronomy, and Paul said that you shouldn’t be gay in a society that frowns on it, just like men shouldn’t have long hair in a society that frowns on it.

        Paul’s argument from the nature of society clearly shows that as any culture begins to accept same-sex behaviour as normal, he would be fine with it.

        Anyone can argue to get any answer you want when using a large set of books written across centuries by many different people with conflicting tracts. Most people use the Bible to argue in favor of their personal beliefs, which is why we have so many different denominations and sects of Christianity in the world.

        • $9472795

          So, is this reply an argument based on the Bible, or just a random set of thoughts? You are wrong in your statement regarding Paul somehow being okay with homosexuality if society was okay with it. He was quite explicit in his condemnation of it.

          • Kengi

            Re-read Paul’s comments on both same-sex behavior as well as his similar comments about long hair on men. Then do some reading on the argument from nature of society which was popular in the time that Paul’s epistles were written. Then you will realize why the author used the language and phrases he did.

            Of course, I could also argue against same-sex relationships by using different parts of the Bible and different interpretations. That’s the real point. People only use the Bible as a window on their own preconceptions. You are a bigot, so you see the Bible supporting your bigotry.

      • Spuddie

        A couple lines on the subject none of which actually address the modern notion of consensual same sex relations*. Consensual relations are hardly noted in the Bible in general. Its a lousy source for relationships which do not involve treating one person as chattel property.

        *Yet Christians by and large ignore the page upon page about treating people decently and caring for the poor and oppressed

      • cary_w

        You’re right, I’m not Christian, I’m not well versed on the bible, and with my limited knowledge of Jesus, I thought he was all about love and forgiveness and helping the poor and downtrodden even if they are sinners, but maybe I’m wrong. You’re the expert, so enlighten me, where does the bible say it’s a sin to sell cake to sinners?

      • cary_w

        Please read my post again, I’m not claiming any knowledge about what the bible says about homosexuals, I’m saying it doesn’t matter because the baker wasn’t being asked to engage in or even give his blessing to, a gay marriage. He is being asked to make a cake for two guys. Why is it any of his business what those guys do with the cake? Once they pay for he cake, it’s theirs, they can do whatever they want with it,

        The funny thing is, he’s probably made cakes for plenty of gay couples before and just doesn’t know it!

      • Crystal Bandy Thomas

        I do know the stance of the bible on gays… I just don’t agree with it. And as a former Xtian, now atheist… the bible is a man written set of chapters which are self-proving. So, you can’t prove anything by it. It’s circular reasoning, doesn’t work in the atheist world.

      • Alexandrine

        What the Bible teaches about homosexuality–heck, what it teaches about most things–is pretty open for debate. The way that you interpret the Bible is not the way every other Christian does: http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexd.htm

    • Spuddie

      Its not like Jesus was married (or was he????). He didn’t have exactly had much in the way of first hand knowledge on the subject. So at best it would have been advice from a point of ignorance. Like asking an 11 year old about adult relations.

  • Chris B

    I am not a lawyer, but could someone who is explain to me why someone who is would use the first amendment in a civil case such as this? I am under the impression that the first amendment only applies to government limitation of speech.

    • mdoc

      State law provides that public accommodations like retail establishments cannot discriminate based on sexual preference. He discriminated and those who were discriminated against sued based on this state law. He is arguing that this state law violates his constitutional right of free speech. So he is arguing government limited his speech.

      He is unlikely to win.

      • Chris B

        That was my suspicion, but I found it to be such a horrible argument that it had to be wrong. By that logic, no law could be passed because it would almost certainly fall afoul someone’s religious beliefs.

        • Spuddie

          Well that and these people probably got free legal support from anti-gay religious groups.

          It keeps otherwise unemployable grads of Liberty Law School working.

    • baal

      The First Amendment cases from the SCOTUS of late have been toward granting folks ‘more speech’. The cases on the establishment clause and freedom of religion clause are somewhat squishy and litigated to an end the religious generally don’t like. So if you want to get around unfavorable case law (the freedom of religion cases) and get some new powers for your religion, ‘freespeech’ arguments are the legal way to go.

      Keep in mind that the other part of the case is discrimination law. Here the bakers want to flatly discriminate against gays and presumably against their financial interest (loss of gay and pro-gay folks business). Even without ENDA, the bakery doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of a discrimination case – it’s bad PR.

      I’m sure there is other relevant law to the case but attorneys do this game of trying to figure out which ‘type’ of law to use for a certain fact scenario. Since freedom of religion and discrimination law cut against the bakery, they are trying free speech.

  • keddaw

    Rightly (for reasons* you might not like) or wrongly the SCOTUS might take a very different view of this if it gets that far.

    * No interstate clause, state’s rights etc.

    • Spuddie

      Actually Federal Court would probably either punt claiming there is no federal question, or rule based solely on the CO law. Think the “Prop 8″ ruling.

  • OhioAtheist

    I’m still not sure how selling a cake equates to supporting gay marriage. If he sells a cake to a racist, does that means he supports racism? Of course not. By his logic, he shouldn’t be selling cakes to anyone, because everyone is bound to believe in something he does not support. “Please fill out this form of your beliefs. Based on your responses, I may serve you.”

    • $9472795

      Accessory to the lifestyle.

      Let’s do a thought experiment. . . Assume for a moment that you are a gunshop owner.

      If you owned a gun shop, would you sell guns to known terrorists? And if you did knowingly sell guns to terrorists, does that mean you support terrorism? Would you refuse to sell guns to known terrorists?

      Perhaps you would hand to everyone who enters your store a paper that says, “Please fill out this form of your beliefs. Based on your responses, I may serve you.”

      If you don’t believe in, or want to be an accessory to terrorist acts, then you wouldn’t have anything to do with known terrorists, nor would you help them by selling your guns or services to them in any way.

      I trust I’ve answered your question. And don’t come back with an asinine comment about comparing gays to terrorists because it’s an analogy used to get your attention and explain your question. So there ya’ go.

      • God’s Starship

        Since you yourself have already basically conceded your analogy is stupid, there really isn’t much point in continuing this conversation.

        • $9472795

          I did not concede that, you are simply lying because you apparently are incapable of deductive argument. So, since you actually made the claim, I call you out – show me exactly where I wrote that. Put up or shut up.

          • God’s Starship

            Gay people are not terrorists. You admitted your analogy was crafted just to get attention. It’s inherently worthless. There’s nowhere else to go with it.

            • $9472795

              You were called out, and you failed to stomp me down by showing me that I was wrong. Specifically, So, since you actually made the claim, I call you out – show me exactly where I wrote that. Put up or shut up.
              You are a public school product eh? Both your grammar and spelling are sub-par, not to mention your lack of reasoning ability.
              You have nothing

              • God’s Starship

                Actually I went to Catholic school. Thanks for asking.

                • $9472795

                  Your welcome. I’m going to retire – it’s been fun – Have a good week!

                • bubu

                  ‘You’re welcome’

                • Glasofruix

                  Look who’s failing at basic grammar here.

              • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                Fading_Shadow,

                not to mention your lack of reasoning ability.

                From you, that is priceless.

                .

          • Spuddie

            Your claim was stupid and based on shitty knowledge of the law and shitty analogy.

            If you hold yourself out to the public in a commercial setting, you have to serve the public. You don’t get to discriminate against your customers based on your personal bigotry. The government has a duty to keep commerce flowing without being hamstrung by private prejudices. This is why we have anti-discrimination laws concerning the providing of goods and services. There is no “religious exclusion” to these laws.

            Your hypothetical was inherent bullshit. Show me a shop owner who has perfect knowledge their goods will be used for nefarious purposes. It doesn’t exist. This is why I still have to show ID to get the cold medicine which really works well.

            • $9472795

              Judging by your language, it must have struck a nerve with you however. You have erred in your 3rd statement by falsely equating deeply held religious beliefs based upon very explicit Biblical teachings that homosexuality is a sin with ‘personal bigotry.’
              I think it’s good we have anti-discrimination laws; however, by merely stating that my ‘hypothetical was inherent bullshit’ doesn’t answer it does it?
              And my analogy stated that this particular gun owner did in fact know they were terrorists; just as the baker did fact know that the two men were queers.
              So, try constructing a civil, rational counter-argument instead of the little boy approach you’ve just used.

              • Spuddie

                Not struck a nerve, I am normally a foul mouth jerk. Most of the posters here can attest to that. =) Profanity cuts through pretense and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. I don’t take you seriously nor really have seen a need to do so.

                Tone trolling doesn’t change the criticism of your discussion. One should not bother with loaded questions for irrational points. Your hypo wasn’t worth answering and is a perfect example why analogy is a crappy form of discussion. You spend more time defending your analogy than getting to your point. All it tells me is that you don’t want to argue something on its actual facts.

                Claiming your bigotry is based on the Bible just means you are too much of a coward to admit your beliefs openly. That you are hoping to avoid social sanction by dressing it up as religious. Plenty of forms of bigotry get “supported by the Bible”. It still makes it bigotry.

              • Anat

                Nobody cares what the bible teaches. It is your personal choice to take those teachings seriously. As long as your beliefs affect only yourself, it is none of anyone’s business. When your beliefs cause you to discriminate against protected classes of people the law interferes and tells you there are things that take priority over your beliefs.

                If you can’t run your business according to the law, by all means find yourself a different way to make a living.

              • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

                Fading_Shadow,

                It’s not bigotry if I can find a Biblical source for the bigotry!

                Slavery, rape, torture, murder, genocide, . . . .

                Your God approves of all of those, but he freaks out over gays.

                God needs to grow a set or take some Ativan.

                Perspective is completely missing from the Book of Ultimate Relativity (The Bible).

                .

      • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Rev. Ouabache

        This analogy would make more sense if you owned a gun shop and refused to sell to dark-skinned people because you assumed they were terrorists. That would also be illegal.

        • $9472795

          I didn’t say that I ‘assumed they were terrorists’ The analogy states that ‘he knew they were terrorists’ in the same way the Baker knew the two men were gay.
          I actually agree with you that to refuse to sell guns to dark-skinned people based on an assumption they were terrorists would be illegal. Yes, that would be wrong.
          However, that is not what I wrote as you know.

          • Spuddie

            See this is why analogy and hypos having nothing to do with the facts of a situation are a lousy form of discussion. You are spending all your time trying to tailor the facts in an unrealistic fashion and claim they are similar enough for the discussion.

            All it tells me is that you don’t want to discuss this matter on its own facts and are intellectually lazy.

          • cary_w

            The baker knew they were gay, but how did he know they were commiting, or even intended to, commit the sin of gay sex? It’s not a sin just to be gay, is it? Just because they’re getting married doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll have sex. You Christian seem to have an unhealthy interest in other peoples sex lives!

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            Fading_Shadow,

            I actually agree with you that to refuse to sell guns to dark-skinned people based on an assumption they were terrorists would be illegal. Yes, that would be wrong.

            According to your logical fallacies of retail –

            Would you refuse to sell a gun to a gay person?

            Would you refuse to sell guns to gay couples?

            Would you refuse to sell guns to someone who asks what is the best weapon for killing gays?

            Would you ask if you can ride shotgun? ;-)

            .

      • Kengi

        Terrorists aren’t a protected class of traditionally discriminated against people. Besides, selling anything to known terrorists is, in fact, against the law. Discriminating against known terrorists is fine by law since it’s in the public interest to deny terrorists services and goods.

        In Colorado (and many other states) it’s against the law to discriminate against someone based upon their sexual orientation, which is also in the public interest of free and open access to commerce.

        • $9472795

          I refer you to my last paragraph.

          • Kengi

            I refer you to my first and second paragraph.

            When you use terrorists in a thought experiment as a substitute for gay people, don’t get upset when they logically point out the flaw in such an asinine substituion.

      • Don Gwinn

        Remember, kids, comparing gay couples who want to get married to black couples is ridiculous, because gay people and black people have nothing in common.
        But comparing gay couples who want to get married to terrorists who want guns is the path to wisdom.

        • God’s Starship

          You just won the internets.

      • cary_w

        A known terrorist would not pass the background test, so I wouldn’t legally be able to sell a gun to him. Bad example.

      • Anat

        There is no such thing as a ‘gay lifestyle’. There is a diversity of lifestyles, many of which are shared by people of all orientations. There are straight, gay, bi and ace people with any kind of interest under the sun.

      • Anathema

        When a couple buys a wedding cake, they are not using it as a tool to sign a marriage license. They are not using the cake as a tool to allow them to have sex with each other.

        A terrorist uses a gun as a tool to kill people. If you sold him the gun you would be providing him with the means to harm others.

        The gun is a tool used to commit an act that you deem sinful while the cake is an accessory rather than an essential part of committing a supposedly sinful act.

        Your analogy might work a bit better if you had the terrorist also going to a bakery to buy a cake so that he and his friends could celebrate a terrorist act which they’d just committed.

        Of course, if you changed your analogy in that manner, your argument would fall apart because I don’t think anyone would say that a baker who sold the terrorist a cake would be an accessory to terrorist acts.

        • aaa

          “They are not using the cake as a tool to allow them to have sex with each other.”

          I don’t know, I’ve seen 9 1/2 weeks.

      • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

        Fading_Shadow,

        Are you claiming that it is legal to sell guns to known terrorists?

        You call that a thought experiment?

        Where is the logic in the thought?

        -

        I trust I’ve answered your question.

        Apparently you believe that logical fallacies are true just because you believe!!!11!!!

        And that is believe with all sorts of unicorns and fairy dust all over it.

        Here is a link to an explanation of your logical fallacy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

        .

        • indorri

          He already called gays people living in a “perverted lifestyle”. He was attempting his dog whistle tactics in a forum that knows better, presumably being too fucking stupid enough to realise his meme-bot status.

          • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

            But does he consider known terrorists to be living in a perverted lifestyle?

            Inquiring bakers want to know!

            ;-)

      • Sven2547

        Downsides to selling firearms to terrorists:
        * The probable murder of multiple people
        * Complacency in federal crimes

        Downsides to selling cakes to gay folks:

        (tumbleweed.gif)

      • onamission5

        “gays”
        “terrorists”
        Do please explain what a small group of religious fundamentalists who seek to cause widespread emotional duress to others through threats and violence has to do with the poor treatment of same sex couples who are, by CO law, due the same rights as everyone else.

        It’s your analogy, so defend it. You don’t get let off the hook for making an indefensible analogy just because you state in advance that you know it’s indefensible. Analogies are not for attention getting purposes, they are for comparing like objects, groups, people, or situations. You used terrorists as an analogy for gay folks, ergo you think that gay folks who want their lawful civil rights upheld and terrorists who blow up subways full of innocent citizens are alike in some way. Do tell.

        • Glasofruix

          Um, yeah, you’re trying to use logic on someone who lacks the understanding of the whole concept, do not expect a coherent answer.

          • onamission5

            No worries, I don’t, but sometimes trollies do surprise. It’s not for their or my benefit so much as for the benefit of any lurkers who may have been swayed by such an analogy or who know there’s something wrong with it but can’t put their finger on what, exactly. :)

      • S0l

        In your scenario define “Known Terrorist”?

        In your instance the word is not clearly defined by the person asking the question. In the main article the terms are all specific, justified, labels ; a “Gay couple” can’t be misconstrued as anything other than 2 people of the same sex who are in a relationship.

        Remembering the old saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom Fighter”

      • The Other Weirdo

        Wait! Did you not just a while back bitch and whine that blacks and mixed-race couples had nothing to do with gays? Where’d terrorists come from, then? Who’s comparing gays to irrelevancies now?

      • Matt D

        I’m still waiting for you to explain when you chose to be straight , since until you understand it’s not a choice, your opinion on the subject is worthless.

  • Timmah

    I don’t understand why they would go to court to force this guy to make their wedding cake after all this. I’m all for calling him out for being a bigot, but I sure the hell would not want him making anything food related for me after taking him to court.

    • $9472795

      Good point

      • baal

        Bad point, facts were mistaken.

        • Timmah

          They are not mistaken. If you are a gay couple, why would you go to this guy to FORCE him make a cake he doesn’t want to? Nobody seems to be able to explain that. They just wanna downvote that question. It’s actually kinda hilarious.

          • God’s Starship

            You’re not even trying to comprehend, straight privilege guy.

            Why force grocery stores to sell food to everyone? Why force hospitals to heal everyone? Why force insurance companies to cover everyone? Because discrimination is against the law.

            • Timmah

              LOL WUT. I am totaly on the gay couples side. Like 100%.
              My point is what kind of punishment is it that he has to make cakes for everyone (which DUH yes you can’t own a buisness and be a bigot), when no sane gay couple would POSSIBLY want to get a cake there!
              Was he fined? Not that I can see. Was he forced to pay civil damages to the couple? Not that I read? Did the cake union revoke his licence? No because they are imaginary. It was ruled he has to bake cakes for everybody. Which spoiler alert, it’s not going to happen. If another couple comes in and asks, he’s gonna say no. At worst he has maybe lost some customers who would be like “Yeah I’m not buying a cake from that dude.”

              • baal

                Go re-read the replies you already have.

              • onamission5

                It was ruled that he has to follow the law, just like everybody else.
                That’s the funny thing about laws, they aren’t worth jack shit unless the courts uphold them. Had the court not upheld this law, that would be a cue to bigots everywhere that civil rights legislation doesn’t matter, they can go ahead and keep discriminating against their chosen group without impunity because there’s nothing anyone will be willing to do about it.

          • Anat

            Are you even reading the responses people are writing to you? Your facts are wrong, it wasn’t the couple who sued them, it was the state. And the purpose of the lawsuit wasn’t to force the baker to make this couple a cake, it was to enforce the law, IOW to punish him for refusing, so that he (and everyone else) would know that being in the cake business implies baking cakes even for people he disagrees with, if they are in a class protected by the law against discrimination.

            Because if members of a group that is often discriminated against let things like this slide then they risk that in some places nobody serves them.

    • Kengi

      They didn’t go to court to force this guy to make them a cake. The State of Colorado took him to court because he broke the law and deserves to be punished.

    • God’s Starship

      The moment he refuses service, he’s breaking the law, regardless of whether the couple chooses another bakery afterwards.

    • baal

      They put in a cake order, were declined in violation of the law. They didn’t sue for specific performance (bake me the cake).

    • onamission5

      I no longer wanted to rent an apartment from the lady who denied my application for being single and pregnant once she told me the reason I was denied, but I reported her to HUD anyway, because she was breaking the law.

      This is like that.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      The judge’s decision likely means that Phillips will have to change his shop’s discriminatory anti-gay policy.

      Gays may not want to buy wedding cakes from him, but it will be their choice – it will not be the choice of The Anti-Gay Baker to refuse service to those not deemed worthy of his unconditional support by confection.

      .

  • David Miller

    Only concern I’d have is that should the gay couple purchase from those wacky religious assholes, some “secret” ingredient such as doggy poopy doo doo might “mysteriously” find itself in the cake! But as the Lord works in mysterious ways too, I’d advice the couple that any such cake be donated to the church those bakers attend. And as the late Marie Antoinette would have said about the church people, “let them eat cake!”.

  • QuestioningKat

    Just today, I flipped the TV channel and caught some young, stiff evangelist preach about not giving his support and blessing to an engaged straight couple who were previously “living in sin.” He said how he could not attend a wedding when a couple had clearly turned their backs on Jesus. It’s amazing how these people put their rules above loving their neighbor.

    • http://roguemedic.com/ Rogue Medic

      It’s amazing how these people put their rules above loving their neighbor.

      Amazing Grace –

      They just have their own version of reality, which requires that they ignore the Sermon on the Mount.

      .

    • Pitabred

      Authoritarianism, yay!

  • Kenneth Epps

    I’ll reuse an argument the right used after Prop 8: “you lost, get over it.” Doesn’t feel so good with the shoe on the other foot does it? Remember that, the next time you want to spew bile.

  • Michael Harrison

    This is probably an inappropriate observation, but through the whole article, I was thinking about stereotypes regarding men who are in the wedding cake business.

    • cary_w

      Highly inappropriate, but hilarious!

    • The Other Weirdo

      You mean like the stereotype of men in the flower business? I thought Police Academy pretty much blew that one straight into space decades ago.

  • MN Atheist

    Go buy a cake elsewhere and let word of mouth make its way around town about the bigot baker…Not so sure we need the ACLU and lawsuits involved. And don’t get me wrong, what the baker is doing is dumb and I totally support marriage equality. But if a store refused to serve me because I was an atheist? Bye Bye I will spend my money in a different place.

    • Gehennah

      The difference is discrimination is illegal, just as the store couldn’t refuse to serve a black person.

      • MN Atheist

        I know and I get it…but it is such a touchy thing right now that could easily go the wrong way if there is a perceived threat to these bigots. I would just hate to see enough people swayed by this to vote on the wrong side of the issue. Let it be until it is way beyond the tipping point and pretty well excepted nationwide. Sometimes you have to lose a battle or two to win the war. Just sayin…

      • MN Atheist

        I tried to reply but for some reason my post didn’t stick…here goes attempt #2…

        I know and I get it. We are at the tipping point at the national level and don’t need to fuel the bigot fire right now. I totally agree that it is offensive and wrong of the baker to do this. I feel for the victims. But I think that losing a battle or two and winning the war sooner than later is better. Sometimes you have to turn the other cheek, no matter how it stings, knowing that you are on the right side of the fence and will prevail in the end.

        Down vote me all you want I know this isn’t going to be a very popular opinion.

  • Copyleft

    It’s always funny when corporations think they have freedom-of-religion rights. Rights belong to people, not businesses.

  • Sven2547

    Let’s be clear here: this isn’t a debate about same-sex marriage, this is a debate about anti-discrimination law, and the Christians are taking the pro-discrimination side. Don’t let them spin away from that fact.

    • $9472795

      This is not a debate about same-sex marriage; this is a debate about two gay men forcing their perverted views on a man who is no bigot, who doesn’t hate gay people, but believes their life choices are wrong.

      • Sven2547

        forcing their perverted views

        False. Nobody is forcing this man to adopt any “views” whatsoever.

        on a man who is no bigot

        This man is the very definition of a bigot. He refuses to serve these customers for no reason other than who they are.

        who doesn’t hate gay people

        No, he just treats them like second-class citizens…

        but believes their life choices are wrong

        It’s NOT a life choice. Add to that: he exclusively picking on one specific so-called “life choice”. Does he discriminate against non-Christians, too? That’s an even more serious “life choice”, if the Bible is to be believed.

        This flimsy justification for discrimination can be adapted to whatever kind of discrimination people want. The Mormons believe that black folks are descended from sinners who refused to help God fight evil. Would they be justified in discriminating against blacks?

      • Sven2547

        Fading_Shadow’s dad, 1962:
        “This is about two Negroes forcing their savagery on a man who is no bigot, who doesn’t hate them, but believes they have no place in a white establishment”.

      • onamission5

        How is buying a cake from a cake baker a perverted view, and in what way is buying a cake like terrorism?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X