Asher's Bakery Case Update

[Sparko]

I'm not at all surprised that the Daily Fail might have spiced up the story a bit - but your article also includes the relevant detail that the order was only refused because of the customer's sexuality, and not because of the cake itself:

Source: ibid

"And when they said it was them, I said, 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages,'"

© Copyright Original Source

you seem to have a hard time grasping the difference between the customer's sexuality and the message they are promoting. "homosexual marriage" is the message and the problem, not the sexuality of the customer. Delorme also said that "even if her gay nephew wanted a wedding cake for his marriage, she would refuse" - I bet she wouldn't refuse any other kind of cake for her nephew without a gay message.

[rogue06]

I think the "rub" is that the left always portrayed itself as 'tolerant', and the right was a bunch of intolerant bigots.

But, it doesn't seem to run both ways.... the left seems quick to use "the hammer of justice", rather than tolerate the beliefs and convictions of others.

It appears that these cases with bakers and photographers seem more to be about "I want to rub it in your face that you have to comply" rather than "I really need this service that I can't easily get anywhere else".

Again, if I, as a uniformed police officer, knew that certain workers at a local restaurant hated cops, I'd choose to eat elsewhere because they could spit in my food, or worse. I could force them to serve me, but, hey.... what's my objective?

That's the point I raised earlier and was ignored by those who think people should be forced to make gay wedding cakes if they object to gay marriage

Why would you want to use a bakery that obviously doesn't want your business in the first place? The baker could accidentally add too much of an ingredient so that the cake wasn't very good, or pull a Jesse Jackson^[1]. Personally, I'd think most people would want everything to go as perfectly as possible on that special day and wouldn't take such a chance. That is of course unless going perfectly for them is defined as deliberately rubbing it into the noses of anyone they think might not approve.

Out of curiosity I made a quick check and found several Halal bakeries in my area who also make wedding cakes. Funny that they aren't forcing the people who belong to a religion that still executes gays in many places to make their wedding cake. It is almost like they are afraid that the cake might blow up or something.







1. For those overseas, Jackson is a famous Civil Rights leader and one time presidential candidate who recounted that while younger and working as a waiter he would habitually spit in white customers food before serving it.

It has nothing to do with wanting a wedding cake (or a photographer to take pictures of the wedding) but with finding people that they can rub their noses into it.

This isn't like some small town in the 1950s where there maybe only one diner or like riding a bus. There are literally dozens of competitors who would be thrilled to do the job. But they don't want that. Instead they hunt for someone who doesn't want to do it and then force them to do it.

[Cow Poke]

This isn't like some small town in the 1950s where there maybe only one diner or like riding a bus. There are literally dozens of competitors who would be thrilled to do the job. But they don't want that. Instead they hunt for someone who doesn't want to do it and then force them to do it.

That's it. The left, pretending to be tolerant, can be incredibly intolerant of others' beliefs and convictions. When the left laughs at anybody who claims there's a "gay agenda", they can't help but to continue to advance it.

[Roy]

no. until he discovered it was for a homosexual wedding.

Exactly. The order was refused solely because of where the cake would be used and by whom, and not because of anything to do with the actual cake.

The message that gay marriage is OK is against what Christians believe.

But the cake itself did not carry that message.

The wedding cake would have been sold to a heterosexual couple but was refused to a homosexual couple. That is discrimination.

[Roy]

you seem to have a hard time grasping the difference between the customer's sexuality and the message they are promoting. "homosexual marriage" is the message and the problem, not the sexuality of the customer.

I'm not having a hard time at all. Homosexual marriage is the problem. Not the cake. They would sell a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple but not to a homosexual couple. That is discrimination.

[Roy]

Instead they hunt for someone who doesn't want to do it and then force them to do it.

That does not seem to be the case in the examples I have cited.

[Sparko]

Exactly. The order was refused solely because of where the cake would be used and by whom, and not because of anything to do with the actual cake. But the cake itself did not carry that message.

The wedding cake would have been sold to a heterosexual couple but was refused to a homosexual couple. That is discrimination.

If a heterosexual couple came in and wanted a cake for a gay wedding, they would be refused. It is the message not the customer.

[Sparko]

I'm not having a hard time at all. Homosexual marriage is the problem. Not the cake.

and NOT the customer. The message that homosexual marriage is ok is the problem.

They would sell a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple but not to a homosexual couple. That is discrimination.

They would not sell a wedding cake for a gay wedding to a heterosexual couple either.

[Cow Poke]

The wedding cake would have been sold to a heterosexual couple but was refused to a homosexual couple. That is discrimination.

Mmmmmm... not so much... it sounds kinda like the principle of the "meat offered to idols".... if I'm unaware that the meat has been offered to idols (1 Cor 8) I'm free to eat it. In fact, I'm free to eat it anyway, unless I'm with people for whom that would be a problem, because of their beliefs and convictions. (it's almost like a 'don't ask / don't tell) (almost)

Anyway, I think it would be more accurate, in this case, to say....

The wedding cake would have been sold to a heterosexual couple unless it was stated that it was for a homosexual wedding.
However, The wedding cake would ALSO have been sold to a heterosexual couple unless it was stated that it was for a homosexual wedding.

[Sparko]

Exactly. The order was refused solely because of where the cake would be used and by whom, and not because of anything to do with the actual cake. But the cake itself did not carry that message.

the cake itself was the message. The idea that gay marriage is OK. It didn't have to have writing on it.

[Carrikature]

Yet in the clip Sparko posted, the person at the gay cookie shop rejected the caller's request on the grounds they were a gay cookie shop so why would they be making cookies which did not reflect their own beliefs.

Ya'll keep asking questions as if I'm defending these sorts of actions. I'm not. I've been pretty clear on this: do it for everyone or don't do it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

In what way is this different from Asher's* bakery which is openly Christian even by its name? Why go into an openly Christian bakery and ask for an individualized product which you know will cause a conflict of interest. Anyone with half an ounce of savvy would accept that they might be denied the service and if their feelings are so delicate go elsewhere.

Let's state the obvious that 'openly Christian bakery' isn't nearly as obvious as you imply. Even Asher's has to specify where their name comes from: "Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr & Mrs Asher." Because, shock, most people won't look at a company name with an apostrophe in it and think it's anything other than the owner's/founder's name.

Unless of course they have an agenda which is what I believe was at the root of this case. It is just persecuting Christians and in effect using gay laws to extort money from Christians.

Yeah, that must be it. Extorting money from Christians is a new one.

I'm ok with anyone being a Christian. They're free to do whatever the rest of us do. That doesn't include active discrimination when it comes to operating a business.

[Carrikature]

Yes and many things change for the worse.

That's pretty irrelevant in the face of "but this is how they used to do it!". Status quo bias isn't a foundation for arguments.

Yes And in this case we are not 'preserving freedom' it is a frontal attack on personal freedom. And I would argue unconstitutional.

It's not, actually. I've seen multiple people claim unconstitutional but no one can actually show it. The First Amendment is pretty clear. No one's stopping your 'free exercise'. No one is establishing a religion.

[Carrikature]

You may be right, but it's still a dangerous precedent IMHO. Are you sure you're 'atheist enough'? One day someone might weigh your actions and decide that you aren't really an atheist, and need a spell in re-education (for your own good,of course). All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others...

The comparison doesn't work. Atheism has a single qualifier: theistic disbelief. We're not the ones fragmenting over who is following the proper creed or playing the right music (or not) in service.

[seer]

It's not, actually. I've seen multiple people claim unconstitutional but no one can actually show it. The First Amendment is pretty clear. No one's stopping your 'free exercise'. No one is establishing a religion.

I'm not speaking of the The First Amendment, though I believe that right does not end just because you open a business, or that you can not run your business according to Christian principles. Heck, would you requite a Muslim or Jewish Deli to sell ham? But I was thinking of Thirteenth Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. And what are we speaking of here but involuntary service?

[Carrikature]

I think the "rub" is that the left always portrayed itself as 'tolerant', and the right was a bunch of intolerant bigots.

But, it doesn't seem to run both ways.... the left seems quick to use "the hammer of justice", rather than tolerate the beliefs and convictions of others.

It appears that these cases with bakers and photographers seem more to be about "I want to rub it in your face that you have to comply" rather than "I really need this service that I can't easily get anywhere else".

Again, if I, as a uniformed police officer, knew that certain workers at a local restaurant hated cops, I'd choose to eat elsewhere because they could spit in my food, or worse. I could force them to serve me, but, hey.... what's my objective?

Should the workers be allowed to continue spitting in food? I agree you could and should go elsewhere, but that just means bad behavior continues unchecked. You'd be perfectly justified at least complaining to the manager. Bad reviews are a thing, too.

The objective isn't forcing them to serve you but to get them to observe proper conduct. Someone who's being harassed at work doesn't want to keep working with that person; they want that person to change their behavior.