"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Judge Orders Baker to Make Wedding Cake

Sure, you have freedom to worship. But it'll cost ya'.

Yes. It's come to this. We have judges ordering bakers to make cakes for a same-sex couple or else pay heavy fines as a punishment.

Land of the free, folks. If you wish to make a living, check that oogedy-boogedy religious stuff at the door pal.


GMA reports:
Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year.

In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
The baker said that he truly believed creating a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding would displease God. But the judge said it's more important that the baker not offend others with his beliefs.

It'll be interesting to see if the HHS mandate lawsuits will effect these kinds of situations.

*subhead*Freedom.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

25 comments:

LarryD said...

This story's made me hungry. Think I'll head down to the Arabic restaurant and ask for a ham sandwich...

LarryD said...

This story's made me hungry. Think I'll head down to the Arabic restaurant and ask for a ham sandwich...

Lynda said...

Tyranny.

Gail Finke said...

If you read the article, you'll find that this baker is one of those people who think Halloween is Satanic, so he won't bake anything for Halloween at all. It is a travesty that this is happening. If you want to know what in our culture is driving it, read this. No relation, just think it explains a great deal:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Inclusiveness-Diversity-Flattening-America/dp/1621380408

Maureen said...

Freedom OF religion should guarantee that I be allowed to make these choices on the basis of what my faith teaches.

Mack Hall, HSG said...

One would like to know what religious tradition Judge Robert N. Spence professes.

Pat said...

This is a travesty. I should be able to practice my religion without government interference. For example, my religion teaches that wives should submit themselves to their own husbands. So, rape laws shouldn't apply to me (and how I treat my wife), any more than public accommodation laws should apply to me (and how I treat newlyweds).

Robert said...

Good job Pat. You managed to get all hitler ad reductio without mentioning Hitler.

Anneg said...

Judge didn't say it had to be a good cake. Extra baking soda and salt. Hmm.

Pat said...

Robert, presenting the extreme gets thinking people to ask themselves "where is the limit to the argument".

TerentiaJ said...

Haven't these people ever heard the saying, "Don't p**s off the person making your food?" People only feel comfortable forcing Christians to do this kind of thing because, ironically, they trust us. They know a Christian won't spit (or other bodily fluids) into the cake, won't poison it and will probably do a good job because of that "whatsoever you do, do as onto the Lord," stuff.

Lynda said...

This is the government literally forcing one to do business with another person. A raft of natural and constitutional rights being infringed.

Pat said...

Lynda, the government forces you to do business with certain people every day.

Wine in the Water said...

Pat,

So, there is no moral difference between raping someone and declining to make them a cake? That's an interesting basis for an argument.

Pat said...

Wine, you're missing the point: The question is, does Citizen A ALWAYS get to claim "this law doesn't apply to me because I declare that obeying it would violate my religious convictions?" Always?

Lynda said...

Logical fallacy.

Pat said...

Logic.

Unknown said...

Pat:

Should a kosher deli be forced to provide a pig roast for neo-Nazis?

Dave P.

77a35f90-24aa-11e3-b423-000bcdca4d7a said...

Unknown, a kosher deli wouldn't be serving pig at all, so your argument doesn't relate to the case at all. And yes, they should provide food for neo-nazis as long as they do not harass others and be respectful of the deli, it's owners, and patrons. If they are being disorderly, then they should call the police/ kick them out of the establishment.

The bakery bakes cakes. They should provide cakes to everyone who orders one. Ornamentation/decoration may be different. If it blatantly displayed anti-Christian texts and others, the case might have turned out differently. However, the baker flat-out denied the couple a cake on the basis that they were gay and getting married.

Unknown said...

The question is this: should a kosher deli be compelled to provide food for a neo-Nazi rally? Should a black-owned barbecue place be forced to provide ribs for a KKK cross-burning? Should anyone be compelled to provide services for an event they do not agree with?

Dave P.

Mary De Voe said...

“Mullins said in statement. "No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are. We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today's decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado."
Mullins is a liar. It is not “who they are” but what they do, which is an abomination. No cake is discrimination against the crime of sodomy. Sodomy is a crime against nature itself, against the good will of the people, against the religious sensibilities of the citizens. Gay so-called marriage is a lie; perjury in a court of law. “…because of who they are.” Lie-perjury. It is because of what they do, or pretend to do. The court legalized sodomy. Let the court bake their cakes.
It is the right of privacy to choose to terminate any contract that makes a person feel uncomfortable. See: Roe v. Wade

Mary De Voe said...

any judge with man parts ought to have recused himself.

Mary De Voe said...

Pat:“Husband” is an office created through the vocation to the Sacrament of Matrimony, as “wife” is an office created by marriage. The Bible does not say “Women be subject to men” The Bible says:”Wives be subject to your husband” after, …AFTER, Saint Paul says: ”Husbands love your wives”. Matrimony is that Sacrament where two people love God through each other. That is why Sodomy is a despicable, disgusting aberration.
That is why Vaughn Walker, an admitted practicing sodomist, as judge sitting on the bench of Proposition 8 ought to have recused himself, he, having a vested interest. Some judges are just to ignorant to speak for “We, the people…”

Pat said...

Mary, you can spin scripture your way, and I'll spin it mine.

77a35f90-24aa-11e3-b423-000bcdca4d7a said...

Great Pat! To Dave P, the situation is different. I know you amended your previous example to try to fit it. The situation you are describing pits two groups in which one dominated/discriminated/persecuted another in the past. I do not know how to handle that situation. However, it doesn't matter. As the judge pointed out, the owner discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. As stated, he refused to even hear about plans for the cake. He denied the couple a cake before even asking about ornamentation/type of cake. I think it would have been reasonable for the couple to provide their own ornamentation (such as wedding cake figures) on their own. However, the owner didn't even allow that discussion to happen. If he had, I believe it would have turned out differently.

Post a Comment