Oregon bakery closes doors after state investigates over refusal to cater same-sex wedding

posted at 7:21 pm on September 3, 2013 by Allahpundit

A follow-up to the story of the New Mexico photographer who lost her court battle after refusing to take a job at a gay wedding. Different state and a different trade this time but a similar result potentially: The business owners in this case said no when a lesbian couple came into the shop looking for a wedding cake. The latter filed a complaint with the state under the relevant antidiscrimination law and an investigation, which could have taken up to a year, was launched. The bakers, having already been targeted for a boycott by opponents and likely fearing the expense and aggravation of a long court battle themselves, decided to close the shop and move operations into their home, which presumably renders the business “distinctly private” and therefore beyond the reach of the state’s public accommodations law. (Does it?)

Watch the extended interview with them about what they’ve gone through, paying special attention to the bit in the middle about “mafia tactics” by some gay-rights supporters. Two interesting wrinkles to this case vis-a-vis the New Mexico one. First, remember that Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh argued on the photographer’s behalf that, because photography is an art and inherently expressive, forcing her to cover an event to which she’s morally opposed necessarily violates her right of free expression. The same isn’t true, wrote Carpenter, of “more mundane and generic services (like cake-baking).” Presumably he’d agree with the gay couple, then, that the bakers have no right to refuse service. I’m not sure I grasp the distinction, though: In both cases, the business owners are being asked to celebrate an act to which they conscientiously object by producing a beautiful product in its honor. What’s more expressive, framing a shot of a married couple posing or crafting an elaborate cake to glorify the occasion? I’m not sure that there’s more artistry in photography in this case.

Second, note what the guy says in the clip about how they’ve made cakes for this couple before. They don’t refuse to serve gay customers, they refuse to serve gay weddings specifically. The same is true, I assume, of the New Mexico photographer. That’s a potential line of attack for social-conservative pols as they start to push back against cases like this — this isn’t a categorical refusal to serve a minority group, it’s a religious objection to serving at one particular type of event in which that group participates. That may not help them legally but it’ll help in the court of public opinion, where the majority in support of religious exemptions in situations like this is already overwhelming. I’d be surprised if we don’t start seeing legislative hearings about it, whether in Congress or at the state level, sometime next year.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

But if he takes the job, he’s not a Christian, so there are no Christian obligations that inhere.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

So it is a matter of salvation whether or not a christian does due diligence into the sexual orientation of all potential clients?

Murphy9 on September 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I think there’s an important distinction here. Their refusal to do the “wedding” had nothing to do with whether the couple were homosexual, and everything to do with the belief that same-sex marriage is wrong, and that they should not help the celebration of it.

They had done baking jobs for the clients before; they simply refused to bake for their “wedding.”

Not that Justice Kennedy was able to make that distinction. He made a bald and unwarranted assumption that any refusal to condone a same-sex marriage must be because of discrimination against homosexuals. In short, he made an ass of himself.

There Goes the Neighborhood on September 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

The only silver lining I can see here is if cases like this continue to happen and get publicized, that it might invite a public backlash against the militant gay rights forces. Polls may show a slight majority now supports SSM, but polls also show much larger majorities believe that religious conscience should be respected in cases like this. Much of the movement in support for SSM has come from the middle, Americans with libertarian leaning live and let live attitudes. But in as much as these middle of the roaders start to believe that the rights of religious freedom are being trumped by the supposed rights of homosexuals to marry, shift in support for SSM may begin to slow down or even recede. That happened about 5 years ago when some well publicized events like the Carrie Prejean episode happened, and support for SSM actually dipped for a while afterward. Many think that was the result of a small backlash. Americans don’t like witch hunts.

frank63 on September 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Over

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Dang iPad thingy.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I’m sorry but IMO a business has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Cleombrotus on September 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM

This! Doesn’t matter what the service or product. A private business should be absolutely free to determine business relationship and/or contracts and let the market reward/punish accordingly.

AH_C on September 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Dang iPad thingy.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Apple blows.

CW on September 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I’m sorry but IMO a business has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Cleombrotus on September 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM

This! Doesn’t matter what the service or product. A private business should be absolutely free to determine business relationship and/or contracts and let the market reward/punish accordingly.

AH_C on September 3, 2013 at 8:26 PM

^^This-agreed- To bad it ain’t so.

bazil9 on September 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

So, may a Jewish photographer refuse to work at a Christian wedding, or a Christian photographer refuse to work at a Jewish wedding?

Ira on September 3, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Yes, but evidently neither can refuse to work a gay “wedding”.

kbTexan on September 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

It has to be true or we aren’t free to associate.

You don’t have a right to freely associate. And your party is doing nothing — absolutely nothing — to return that right to you.

HB3 on September 3, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I have no idea who Hushai is. Please explain. 22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Like I said,, look it up.

He was a spy for David, one of the great heroes of the Bible. Guts on parade.

Are spies illicit biblically? Is camouflage?

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Another case of LessLiberty.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

You don’t have a right to freely associate. And your party is doing nothing — absolutely nothing — to return that right to you.

HB3 on September 3, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I do have the right. No law can take my rights away from me, or grant me new rights; that’s the nature of a natural, inherent right. The only questions I have to answer for myself are ones of price. A law’s been written that abridges my right — asserting it is going to make me a criminal. Am I willing to pay the penalty, or not?

And I’m not a Republican.

Axe on September 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

But if he takes the job, he’s not a Christian, so there are no Christian obligations that inhere.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:17 PM

So it is a matter of salvation whether or not a christian does due diligence into the sexual orientation of all potential clients?

Murphy9 on September 3, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Someone who would take the job without moral compunction is an unbeliever.

Ephesians 5:11, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

It is a Christian’s responsibility to refuse to take the job, and to reprove those seeking to hire him. As these people in question have done. Quibbling about whether or not they should do a good job is farcical.

As for the nonsense that a Christian may not do a poor job if forced to do it, like I said, please consider Hushai. 22044 never hearda Hushai, which is not surprising.

May a Christian not be a spy? Or a double agent?

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

It used to be that way but not anymore in Obama’s world.

Sorry. You can’t blame Obama for this one.

This goes back to LBJ the Civil Rights Act. Motels in the South (or some of them, anyway) refused to rent rooms to blacks. In an effort to end “discrimination,” businesses were deemed to belong to society as a whole. No more private property rights for you!

Now you can’t refuse service to any of the “protected classes” because your business essentially belongs to the State.

kbTexan on September 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

By stereotyping homosexuals, you’re making it a little easier for the Left to stereotype us, my friend. For all I know, he may be abstinent. I hope so, for his sake.

itsnotaboutme on September 3, 2013 at 8:15 PM

He brags about his promiscuity.

Are you new here?

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM

No, & that assertion startles me.
Are you sure he wasn’t being facetious?

itsnotaboutme on September 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Like I said,, look it up.

He was a spy for David, one of the great heroes of the Bible. Guts on parade.

Are spies illicit biblically? Is camouflage?

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Not necessarily, but what’s your point?

We don’t control our own salvation. Trying to call someone an unbeliever because you don’t approve of his choices is not our call.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Full disclosure: I am a libertarian who supports gay marriage. I am also an agnostic.* Here’s my take:

1) I believe the 1st Amendment gives everyone freedom of association. That includes the right to refuse to associate for any reason that doesn’t violate public safety or a previously made contract.

2) I don’t see how the gay couple can claim damages. By declining service, the baker just wanted all parties to leave each other alone. It is impossible to harm some one whom you are leaving alone.

3) Forcing some one to provide a service against their will is involuntary servitude, which is also unconstitutional.

____________
* I am actually an agnostic dyslexic insomniac which means that I lay awake late at night wondering if there really is a dog.

Rich H on September 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Should have given them a mud-pie, and charged them $1K for it.

Another Drew on September 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Not necessarily, but what’s your point?

We don’t control our own salvation. Trying to call someone an unbeliever because you don’t approve of his choices is not our call.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM

St. Matthew 18:15, Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
~
1 Cor. 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:46 PM

They should’ve made the cake in the shape of “Florida”…if you know what I mean.

As most of you knnow, I’m gay (OMG!), but I grew tired of the fag Nazi’s about 10 years ago. There are PLENTY of people who would’ve done the cake, so the lesbians should’ve just taken their business elsewhere instead of suing just to sue.

SouthernGent on September 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Interesting, but you haven’t refuted my point.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM

They should’ve made the cake in the shape of “Florida”…if you know what I mean.

As most of you knnow, I’m gay (OMG!), but I grew tired of the fag Nazi’s about 10 years ago. There are PLENTY of people who would’ve done the cake, so the lesbians should’ve just taken their business elsewhere instead of suing just to sue.

SouthernGent on September 3, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Exactly, you get it. This is now legalized bullying.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM

No, & that assertion startles me. Are you sure he wasn’t being facetious? itsnotaboutme on September 3, 2013 at 8:43 PM

He said, paraphrasing, “I am not even remotely celibate,” while claiming to be a Roman Catholic.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

People need to be ready for an impromptu vacation when situations like this arise.

“Gay wedding next Tuesday? Sorry, I’m on vacation that week.”

Or

“Sorry, I’m booked solid”.

It’s not illegal to not be available. Just don’t refuse. Be busy.

HotAirian on September 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Exactly, you get it. This is now legalized bullying.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:49 PM

The Left has to do that. They intend to force the culture to change instead of letting it happen naturally.

Liam on September 3, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Alright, in the interest of fairness – I have to go offline for a bit. See everyone on another thread soon. Likely too soon. :)

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Interesting, but you haven’t refuted my point.
22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:48 PM

I think I have, clearly. Sometimes refusal to concede a point is refusal to be instructed. You never heard of Hushai, one of David’s most trusted soldiers. Maybe that’s proof that you are biblically illiterate.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Alright, in the interest of not being further revealed as a poseur, fairness – I have to go offline for a bit. See everyone on another thread soon. Likely too soon. :) 22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Bullying works.

CurtZHP on September 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I think I have, clearly. Sometimes refusal to concede a point is refusal to be instructed. You never heard of Hushai, one of David’s most trusted soldiers. Maybe that’s proof that you are biblically illiterate.

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM

OK, now I’m thinking about a proverb about the wisdom of going silent. So I will this time, for sure!

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Arlene’s flower shop in Richland Washington is also targeted for not doing flower arrangements. I think flower arranging is also artist, as frankly cooking is.

I would say fine I can sell you food, but if you want artistic expression I don’t sell that for gay weddings.

Stick the flowers in a vase yourself.

petunia on September 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM

A law’s been written that abridges my right — asserting it is going to make me a criminal. Am I willing to pay the penalty, or not?
And I’m not a Republican.
Axe on September 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Oh. Then you have nothing to worry about, dear.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

A law’s been written that abridges my right — asserting it is going to make me a criminal. Am I willing to pay the penalty, or not?

And I’m not a Republican.

Axe on September 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Oh. Then you have nothing to worry about, dear.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I have no idea what you are saying to me.

Axe on September 3, 2013 at 9:09 PM

kbTexan on September 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Spot-on analysis of and one of the most lasting evils of the Johnson administration.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2013 at 9:11 PM

2. What was the outcome of the case?

The parents dropped the suit after the school district agreed to adopt a policy wherein the name “Jesus Christ” is forbidden to be mentioned at any future graduation exercises…..

As usual, the 1% dictates policy for the other 99%….Is this a great country or what?

repvoter on September 3, 2013 at 9:12 PM

What’s more expressive, framing a shot of a married couple posing or crafting an elaborate cake to glorify the occasion? I’m not sure that there’s more artistry in photography in this case.

This had to be the way it ended. It just had to be.

AUINSC on September 3, 2013 at 9:15 PM

The parents dropped the suit after the school district agreed to adopt a policy wherein the name “Jesus Christ” is forbidden to be mentioned at any future graduation exercises…..

As usual, the 1% dictates policy for the other 99%….Is this a great country or what?

repvoter on September 3, 2013 at 9:12 PM

———————

Ahh freedom.
/

CW on September 3, 2013 at 9:16 PM

As usual, the 1% dictates policy for the other 99%….Is this a great country or what?

repvoter on September 3, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Don’t go too far with that. If the 1% is legitimately having their Constitutional right abridged by the 99% then the 1% has a complaint and they deserve action. That said, hearing “Jesus Christ” at a commencement speech doesn’t abridge the rights of anybody, nor is it in the slightest way offensive (and I’m an agnostic so I’m one of the allegedly offended on this). If you do take offense in something that trivial then you need to be smacked upside the head.

alchemist19 on September 3, 2013 at 9:18 PM

So I think Cindy Sheehan and Media Benjamin should be made to go in front of Congress and make the case for Obama attacking Syria.

Cindy Munford on September 3, 2013 at 9:23 PM

This all opens up another can.

If the G / L couple claims the job ‘Was Intentionally Botched’ and demand a refund, it would make a credible argument for them to legally have their cake and eat it, too.

TimBuk3 on September 3, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Phuck gays.

Why should anyone be forced to support their conduct?

Birthday cake? Bake it.

Wedding cake? Shove it.

BuckeyeSam on September 3, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Then do business with a different company. Why give your money to someone who despises you or what you’re doing?

Thought crime, I know, but it does make sense on the surface.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 3, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Sylvia Weinstock would beg to differ that baking wedding cakes is not an art.

Cakes by Sylvia Weinstock

http://www.sylviaweinstock.com/index_fl4.html

Resist We Much on September 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Akzed on September 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM

OK, I will speak again, briefly. I hope you were happy trolling me from a reply I made to besser that everyone else who read it understood, because that’s the only utility you got from your follow-up posts…
You are not my instructor and I did not give you that license.

Be well, anyway.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Sylvia Weinstock would beg to differ that baking wedding cakes is not an art.

Cakes by Sylvia Weinstock

http://www.sylviaweinstock.com/index_fl4.html

Resist We Much on September 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM

1. Damn. I didn’t even think of doing that. :)

2. Wow.

Axe on September 3, 2013 at 9:57 PM

A wedding cake provider or photographer is often considered a professional member of the wedding party, based on his involvement to provide the service in a memorable way. This development isn’t about accommodating a different clientele. At all.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 9:57 PM

If you’re a business owner, you shouldn’t be forced to have your name associated with an activity or event unless you choose to do so willingly. If Westboro Baptist had approached them to make a cake, would the State of Oregon get pissy over their refusal to make a special cake for a Westboro event? How about a cake for a skinhead event? Why should any business be forced to enter into a contract they are opposed to.. for any reason?

Wendya on September 3, 2013 at 10:04 PM

You make your standard cake, put a man and a woman on top of it, and if they don’t like it, too bad.

Ronnie on September 3, 2013 at 10:16 PM

What if a gay “marriage” ceremony wants to rent Amish buggies?

And the Amish refuse to cart them?

profitsbeard on September 3, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Not to stir anything up, but about 30 years ago a dentist colleague of mine paid a big judgement for refusing to see a new patient because said patient admitted to having AIDS. This was back when that was a death sentence. BTW, there were about 25 other dentists in the building but this guy wanted to be treated only by my colleague.
So apparently this is not a new tactic

NOMOBO on September 3, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Not to stir anything up, but about 30 years ago a dentist colleague of mine paid a big judgement for refusing to see a new patient because said patient admitted to having AIDS. This was back when that was a death sentence. BTW, there were about 25 other dentists in the building but this guy wanted to be treated only by my colleague.
So apparently this is not a new tactic

NOMOBO on September 3, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Yep, this story, the photographer in New Mexico, the florist in Washington, the B&B in Vermont, these are all deliberately selected.

Thanks for the story about your dentist colleague, I’m sorry he had to go through thatt.

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Homosexuals have reached the point in their campaign that they feel it is now safe to take off the mask. For instance, George Sakai – hail fellow well met of Facebook memes but suddenly salivating preacher of hate on Funny Or Die.

The Thin Man Returns on September 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM

The free market answer to discrimination is to patronize someone who does not discriminate. There seems to be no reason why a bakery and only that bakery has to serve any particular customer for any particular event.

I think the bakery owners would have understood if they were the ONLY bakery within reasonable distance who could provide the wedding cake and told they need to because the gay couple had no alternative, but I certainly doubt that was the case.

As far as I understand it, neither the bakery nor the photographer operating within a monopoly [State or otherwise] where any wedding cake or wedding photographs HAD to come from them or the wedding would be invalid. Then I would say the gay couples would have a good case for requiring them to perform the services their position in a monopolistic situation would require. But not when they have viable alternatives.

Russ808 on September 3, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Maybe if they just shut up about who they are, what they do, and how they do it, then someone would bake a cake for them. They always have to be right out there, signing you up or crossing you off the list.

rlwo2008 on September 3, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Homosexuals have reached the point in their campaign that they feel it is now safe to take off the mask. For instance, George Sakai – hail fellow well met of Facebook memes but suddenly salivating preacher of hate on Funny Or Die.

The Thin Man Returns on September 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM

Are you referring to George Takei?

Dunedainn on September 4, 2013 at 12:04 AM

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 9:55 PM

After following the conversation between you and Akzed, I would like to say this.

I would welcome the opportunity to spend an hour with you discussing your faith, and your philosophy. I sense a humility and generosity which is compelling.

As for Akzed, I would not waste 10 seconds of my time with this hateful, bible-thumping prick.

phxconservative on September 4, 2013 at 12:21 AM

22044 on September 3, 2013 at 9:55 PM

After following the conversation between you and Akzed, I would like to say this.

I would welcome the opportunity to spend an hour with you discussing your faith, and your philosophy. I sense a humility and generosity which is compelling.

As for Akzed, I would not waste 10 seconds of my time with this hateful, bible-thumping prikc.

phxconservative on September 4, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Instead of fighting cake terrorism, this should become the new mode of operation. Why stop with gay weddings? This can be used for anything people don’t agree with. Want to fight abortion? Find the people who are pro-choice and frequent their business, forcing them to create things for you that are prominently pro-life. Want to fight racism? Find your nearest KKK-owned bakery and have them make your bar-mitzva cakes. Have an anti-Obama party and ask your leftist local photographer to take pictures. It might be a bit of an investment, but at some point you’ll find the guy who’ll stick to principles. Then you can make a human-rights case out of it.

Phoenician on September 4, 2013 at 12:46 AM

This whole thing is sickening.

dpduq on September 4, 2013 at 12:49 AM

Make the cake out of cow poop.

John the Libertarian on September 4, 2013 at 1:10 AM

Another case of LesbLiberty.

happytobehere on September 3, 2013 at 8:37 PM

FIFY. Look carefully. :lol:

Shy Guy on September 4, 2013 at 2:24 AM

After following the conversation between you and Akzed, I would like to say this.

I would welcome the opportunity to spend an hour with you discussing your faith, and your philosophy. I sense a humility and generosity which is compelling.

As for Akzed, I would not waste 10 seconds of my time with this hateful, bible-thumping prikc.

phxconservative on September 4, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Thanks!

22044 on September 4, 2013 at 7:45 AM

As for Akzed, I would not waste 10 seconds of my time with this hateful, bible-thumping prikc.

phxconservative on September 4, 2013 at 12:34 AM

22044 is a great commenter here I agree. But I wonder that you don’t see the irony in your own comment. I wouldn’t spend 10 second with someone as hateful sounding as you discussing faith.

smoothsailing on September 4, 2013 at 7:54 AM

I’m sorry but IMO a business has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Cleombrotus on September 3, 2013 at 7:26 PM

I’m not saying that I disagree – but you’ll get civil rights exploiters barking about “whites only” restaurants and some such….

Defenestratus on September 3, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Not all business back in the day refused service to black people.
Some did.
Not all whites discriminated toward blacks.
Some did.
What’s interesting is that the governments & the Fed are forcing private businesses to do things they don’t want to do.
It doesn’t matter if any of us disagree with their reasons why.
It’s a PRIVATE business.
When you start forcing private businesses to do things they disagree with, you have opened the door for the govt to tell you what more you can or cannot do.
I don’t agree it’s right for someone to refuse a person service bcs they are black or white or Jewish, etc.
But it happens STILL, even after the Civil Rights movement.
Now I will agree it should not & cannot happen when government $$ is involved.
BUT, if I were a bigot & refused service to blacks or hispanics or Jews etc., in America you should be free to do that.
The only way bigotry disappears is through societal pressures, as in make them pay the price of people not doing business with them, socializing with them in real life etc.
I live not far from Leith ND where that Cobb white supremacist from Canada has set up shop.
He’s nuts. But if he is here legally, then who am I to say he can’t live here?
I CAN avoid him & refuse to do business with him & support his agenda.
Some of you here cannot understand why the bakery doesn’t just shut up & bake the cake for these women when they have before.
Principles are only worth something when you actually stand up for them.
So if you are one of those people who wonders what all the fuss is about, quite likely, you are a person who is weak on any convictions you might personally hold, hence you don’t get what all the fuss is about by selling out your principles to avoid trouble or make a little cash.
I lost a job bcs I stood up for my principles. I’d do it again.
As a side business I do photography. If I was asked to photograph a gay wedding, I would REFUSE. But if a gay person asked me to take photos for their family, I would do so.
I simply do not want to help celebrate such a thing.
But they are still people.
I would also not help celebrate anything I disagree with, like the white supremacist guy, or a member of NAMBLA, gang members celebrating their criminal lifestyle, etc.
The Constitution spells out my rights as per the Creator, not the government.
The government did not give me these rights. They are to stand up for them, not take them away when they don’t agree with us.

Badger40 on September 4, 2013 at 7:54 AM

it’s pretty simple….if you want to live freely, move to Texas. If you’re not willing to move, that’s your problem…don’t whine about it.

olesparkie on September 4, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Full disclosure: I am a libertarian who supports gay marriage. I am also an agnostic.* Here’s my take:

1) I believe the 1st Amendment gives everyone freedom of association. That includes the right to refuse to associate for any reason that doesn’t violate public safety or a previously made contract.

2) I don’t see how the gay couple can claim damages. By declining service, the baker just wanted all parties to leave each other alone. It is impossible to harm some one whom you are leaving alone.

3) Forcing some one to provide a service against their will is involuntary servitude, which is also unconstitutional.

____________
* I am actually an agnostic dyslexic insomniac which means that I lay awake late at night wondering if there really is a dog.

Rich H on September 3, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Well said, but you seem to be thinking this is about the constituion. We’ve progressed beyond that old dusty document. Hell we’ve gone beyond the magna carta in some instances. Lean forward to the past! Yes Rich, there is a dog. It is the state.
Debating about something being constitutional at this point is just laughable. And the left love that. Have you read Alinsky? Full disclosure now.

onomo on September 4, 2013 at 8:44 AM

…but, the Lefties are bound to get their panties in a twist over the forcible shaving of Nadal. How conveniently their mental disease is veiled.

socalcon on September 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Behavior like this may help the LGBT community win a few battles – they’ll get their cakes, their pictures but it hurts their end goal – getting acceptance.

There was no real reason they had to use this bakery. There probably were any number of good bakeries that could have filled their order. And now that the bakery has gone private they will never get a cake from them.

Of course they did get high fives from their supporters who gleefully think “we showed those bigots”. Apparently the don’t care that they also showed non-supporters that it’s true – the LGBT community will do anything to shove their odd lifestyle on straight people. So people who thought they were abominations before, still think that. And those who may not have had strong opinions now may think – what a bunch of whiny victim card players.

katiejane on September 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM

I don’t agree it’s right for someone to refuse a person service bcs they are black or white or Jewish, etc.
But it happens STILL, even after the Civil Rights movement.
Now I will agree it should not & cannot happen when government $$ is involved.

Hence, the need for the ‘you didn’t build that’ charade.

socalcon on September 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Part of the problem here is the Civil Rights of the 60′s made a private firms discrimination on the basis race illegal. This was overreach and should be repealed. But I don’t see how it is impossible going forward to distinguish between gays and blacks as victims. I just don’t see gays accepting second-class victimhood status. My preference is for all Americans to stop whining about being victims, but I am not anticipating victory on that front anytime soon.

It is also worth pointing out that the so-called “mafia tactic” of getting other businesses and non-profits to not do business with these people is perfectly legal response. This bakery operated in the Portland area of Oregon and I would guess that a strong majority of people there would approve of a boycott of anti-gay marriage business. There is nothing here that one can reasonably hold a hearing about (beyond the investigation of the Oregon state agency).

In the big picture, younger evangelicals are not interested in Christianity’s historic anti-gay stance. I am sure it will be forgotten in forty or fifty years.

thuja on September 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM

18″If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.”

19″If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” – John 15:18-19

Cherokee on September 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM

…but, the Lefties are bound to get their panties in a twist over the forcible shaving of Nadal. How conveniently their mental disease is veiled.

socalcon on September 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Yeah. It is an incredible disease. Symptoms are ignorance, arrogance, appathy. You know the bakery owners could convert to islam, openly vow to kill all officials that have ruled against them and all that have harassed them, and they’d probably be left alone.
Hell they’d probably get dhs patrols around their store 24/7.

onomo on September 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Waiting to hear from all the SSM fans who scoffed at me when I said people would be sued for refusing service, since the First Amendment is all sacred and stuff and nobody would be this petty.

The Schaef on September 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM

As for Akzed, I would not waste 10 seconds of my time with this hateful, bible-thumping prikc. phxconservative on September 4, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Who left the irony on?!

Akzed on September 4, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Diversity: Shut Up and Embrace It.

Ward Cleaver on September 4, 2013 at 10:06 AM

See? Same-sex marriage hurts nobody. /s

Behavior like this may help the LGBT community win a few battles – they’ll get their cakes, their pictures but it hurts their end goal – getting acceptance.

There was no real reason they had to use this bakery. There probably were any number of good bakeries that could have filled their order. And now that the bakery has gone private they will never get a cake from them.

Of course they did get high fives from their supporters who gleefully think “we showed those bigots”. Apparently the don’t care that they also showed non-supporters that it’s true – the LGBT community will do anything to shove their odd lifestyle on straight people. So people who thought they were abominations before, still think that. And those who may not have had strong opinions now may think – what a bunch of whiny victim card players.

katiejane on September 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Good post. Though I am not even sure that “acceptance” is their end goal anymore. Total glorification and servitude to their lifestyle is.
Gee, and they wonder why people despise them.

Sterling Holobyte on September 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM

bye!

sesquipedalian on September 4, 2013 at 10:31 AM

This is what happens when we let government be run by people in a mission to “remake society” through laws and regulations.

None of this should be legal or proper and at one time in our history, not that long ago, it was the law of the land a private business could pick its customers.

This is our fault. And it won’t stop until we run the people out of office that makes this laws and allows these regulations.

PC is a cancer that will kill our nation.

archer52 on September 4, 2013 at 10:40 AM

22044 I understand exactly what you were saying. Wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr who said even if you were just a lowly street sweeper, be the best street sweeper there is?

Do everything as unto the Lord.

BubbaCluck on September 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM

The Bakery needs to place a clause in its catering contract stating that it is an avowedly Christian business and the avowedly Christian artists who decorate the cakes reserve the right to select a message of their choosing to place on the wedding cake.

Also, it should be written into the catering contract that the business only places one male/one female decorations on weddign cakes.

If the gay couples agree to the contract, the business should cater the wedding – with an appropriate message and male/female figures on the cake.

krome on September 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM

younger evangelicals are not interested in Christianity’s historic anti-gay stance. I am sure it will be forgotten in forty or fifty years.

thuja on September 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Your crude, anti-Christian behavior is typical of your usual remarks. A Christian MUST follow Christ’s teachings or they are not Christian. Self-evident, isn’t it. You are not a Christian and have no clue how the rest of us live. We will never accept or condone your sinful behavior.

njrob on September 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Anyone who is defending the bakery should take a look at this first:

http://i.imgur.com/5Sb69Yk.jpg

It was posted in February and then quickly scrubbed. No one was able to prove that it was Aaron Klein who posted it, so he was never held accountable.

ZachV on September 4, 2013 at 10:58 AM

njrob on September 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Right on.

kingsjester on September 4, 2013 at 10:59 AM

22044 I understand exactly what you were saying. Wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr who said even if you were just a lowly street sweeper, be the best street sweeper there is?

Do everything as unto the Lord.

BubbaCluck on September 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Hey Bubba. I completely agree! :)

22044 on September 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Should someone have to cater or bake a cake for a Klan meeting? How about a bakery owned by a member of the N.A.A.C.P.? Should a sign company have to make banners for a Nazi march? Whether it’s a religious objection or something else which is objectionable, private businesses should have the right to refuse work commissioned by individuals or groups for events which offend or contradict their values/principles.

Buy Danish on September 4, 2013 at 11:04 AM

If I was still in the business of videotaping weddings,as a Christian, I would refuse and give them the phone numbers of my competition.

Regardless of what the Trolls here say, that is my right, as an American.

Oh, and once again, homosexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on September 4, 2013 at 11:08 AM

22044 I understand exactly what you were saying. Wasn’t it Martin Luther King Jr who said even if you were just a lowly street sweeper, be the best street sweeper there is?

Do everything as unto the Lord.

BubbaCluck on September 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Romans 3:8, “And why not do evil that good may come? –as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”

Akzed on September 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM

ZachV on September 4, 2013 at 10:58 AM

If the source of that were anyone but you (or LFoD or UE or nonparty), it might have more credibility. Or, if it maybe captured the entirety of the page.

GWB on September 4, 2013 at 11:40 AM

The reality is that anti-discrimination laws are (and should be) unconstitutional, except for ones that apply directly to govt’s and govt agencies.

I understand why we have them and why they were even necessary despite being unconstitutional. I will admit we likely would not have gotten to this point of racial integration, etc., without them.

And, as stated above, the gov’t should never be allowed to discriminate in hiring or providing services based on race, gender (unless a bona fide requirement), etc.

But, private individuals and private companies should be able to discriminate. Here is why:

There is no such thing as freedom of association, freedom of religion, or freedom of expression without the freedom to exclude.

The only way you can chose who you associate with is with the power to exclude some people from the group. If you don’t have that power, you don’t have freedom of association.

Nor can you have true freedom of expression or religion – as can be seen here. Forcing someone to condone something against their religion – and requiring them to cater, photograph, whatever a rite they think is wrong does just that – takes away freedom of religion.

And, the reality is, in today’s world it doesn’t matter. There are enough people and businesses out there that someone will pick up the slack. Someone will want to cater gay weddings. Someone will want to photograph gay weddings. If some business is stupid enough to decide it doesn’t want to sell its products to black people, then some other business will happily pick up those customers. And vice-versa.

so, in today’s world it is not about ensuring everyone has access to goods and services – that is a given even if people were allowed to discriminate – it is about using the power of the state to control us.

The left’s view of “religious freedom” has come to mean “freedom to go to church on Sunday” and nothing else. We are no longer free to have opinions based on religious beliefs, no longer free to make decisions based on religious beliefs, etc. Which, in reality, is the ultimate goal of going after the bakery and others – to force everyone to keep their mouths shut and not be allowed to act on their religious beliefs whatsoever.

People do not have a right to be served by another. I have to right for require Steven Spielberg to make a home movie for me. Yet, the left claims that gay individuals have a right to force a photographer to take their picture or force a baker to bake them a case.

That is involuntary servitude. That is slavery.

Monkeytoe on September 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM

The left’s view of “religious freedom” has come to mean “freedom to go to church on Sunday” and nothing else.

Monkeytoe on September 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Oh, come on, now! The left allows us much more latitude than that. We can go to church on Friday or Saturday or Wednesday, too! Heck, for now, you can go to church any day of the week that your little heart desires!

GWB on September 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Kind of getting back to the point about making people do what they don’t want to – my husband and I are Orthodox Christians who got married in the Orthodox Church. Our photographer and the lady who did the flowers for the occasion are also Orthodox. This was a huge help because this meant that they were already familiar with the services, knew what we would need, and knew the “high points” of the service (and so, also knew what to focus on etc).

In the same area, there are only a couple of funeral homes that take care of most of the Orthodox Christian funerals, although there are many, many around. We’ve noticed, though, that when people do choose those places that aren’t accustomed to Orthodox funerals, they tend to get in the way a LOT because they don’t know what is going on in the services or what they are expected to do.

Contracting with people for these types of services really requires a “match” of skills and what is being sought in the services. If a photographer – for whatever reason (maybe they’re missing the commercials during the Superbowl, I don’t know) – doesn’t seem like they really want to do your wedding, for the sake of everybody’s sanity, it’s much better just to go somewhere else.

Katja on September 4, 2013 at 12:39 PM

I’m not sure I grasp the distinction, though: In both cases, the business owners are being asked to celebrate an act to which they conscientiously object by producing a beautiful product in its honor. What’s more expressive, framing a shot of a married couple posing or crafting an elaborate cake to glorify the occasion? I’m not sure that there’s more artistry in photography in this case.

This has always been my thinking.

Second, note what the guy says in the clip about how they’ve made cakes for this couple before. They don’t refuse to serve gay customers, they refuse to serve gay weddings specifically. The same is true, I assume, of the New Mexico photographer. That’s a potential line of attack for social-conservative pols as they start to push back against cases like this — this isn’t a categorical refusal to serve a minority group, it’s a religious objection to serving at one particular type of event in which that group participates. That may not help them legally but it’ll help in the court of public opinion, where the majority in support of religious exemptions in situations like this is already overwhelming.

The cases I’ve heard of have been a refusal to serve gay weddings specifically. In the case of Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts mentioned above. The two men are long-term customers of the owner Barronelle Stutzman, so she obviously had not discriminated against them as people. Her refusal as a Christian was without animus and notable by her gentle explanation.

He said he decided to get married and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.

INC on September 4, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Homosexuals have reached the point in their campaign that they feel it is now safe to take off the mask.

The Thin Man Returns on September 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM

The moslems in this country will soon follow suit. The Progressives and their confederates have been working towards this for a long time. Christians and Conservatives have now reached “Dhimmi” status in America. Obama has certainly exacerbated things but in the end, this will not stand.

“Independent self-reliant people would be a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future where people will be defined by their associations.” 1896 ~ John Dewey, educational philosopher, proponent of modern public schools.

SpiderMike on September 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Anyone who is defending the bakery should take a look at this first:

http://i.imgur.com/5Sb69Yk.jpg

It was posted in February and then quickly scrubbed. No one was able to prove that it was Aaron Klein who posted it, so he was never held accountable.

ZachV on September 4, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Right there shows the bigot gay mindset of ZachV.

No one was able to prove that the person the bigot ZachV claims did it actually DID do it, but the bigot ZachV wants them held accountable anyway.

Sort of like how no one was able to prove that George Zimmerman stalked or murdered Trayvon Martin, but the bigots wanted him held accountable anyway.

This is sick. It also shows you the fascist mentality that exists in the mind of people like ZachV. We already know that liberals and LGBT supporters deliberately fake hate crimes and hate speech in order to smear conservatives. In the depraved and sick minds of the fascist ZachV, anyone who opposes them has no rights and can be destroyed by whatever malicious lies they can create.

So ZachV, since you support making unproven accusations and demanding that people be “held accountable” even when you can’t prove they did anything, I want you held accountable for raping children and giving them HIV.

Is this the way you want to play, sicko? Is that the game you want? Because it is time conservatives started realizing that bigots like you have no morals, no decency, and no intention of following the law. You will say or do anything to get what you want, and we need to follow suit.

northdallasthirty on September 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM

northdallasthirty on September 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM

It doesn’t even matter if the guy had written that. Just because someone is racist does not mean the state should be able to compel someone to do something against their religion.

this goes back to the mindset that liberals have – we must control what people think. “thought crimes”.

The baker could be the most vile racist ever imagined and would still have the right not to be forced by the state to do something against his religion.

Granted, it’s always easier to make these arguments in both the court of public opinion and actual court if the person in question is otherwise sympathetic and likeable, but that is not a requirement to have rights. “thought crimes” don’t invalidate your rights.

Monkeytoe on September 4, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3