Posted on 01/20/2015 2:18:24 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
It was only a matter of time before it actually happened. In Colorado, where Masterpiece Cakeshop has been cited by the state for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples, a man has filed a complaint with the state that a different bakery has refused to make him a cake, violating public accommodation laws. In this case, though, the man claims religious discrimination for a bakery's refusal to make a cake that's not quite so love-affirming.
...."He wanted us to write God hates …" she trails. "Just really radical stuff against gays."
"He wouldn't allow me to make a copy of the message, but it was really hateful," Marjorie adds. "I remember the words detestable, disgrace, homosexuality, and sinners."
The bakery says they didn't entirely refuse him service. They would make a cake for him and provide him a decorating bag with icing to decorate the cake himself. It wouldn't look as good obviously, but as Silva points out, it wouldn't require her to include a "hateful message crafted by her own hands."
Not good enough for this gentleman, who apparently kept coming back and asking over and over, which was a dumb thing of him to do. He eventually left for good, and then filed a complaint with Colorado's Department of Regulatory Agencies, which is now investigating Azucar Bakery just as they did Masterpiece Cakeshop.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it seems to me that making a cake for a celebration of sodomy is a remote participation in the evil of sodomy. It is certainly condoning sodomy and a sodomitic relationship.
It seems to me that it's something a Christian should not do. It seems to me that it's something that "falls short of the Glory of God".
YMMV.
If you knew it was for that, the right thing would be to decline.
Well, it proved a point on the socio-political level. That it did, handsomely.
Did it present the gospel or take advantage of an opening for it. That is “unclear.” (Actually looks a whole lot like no, but not every single detail is spelled out, we could allow a hypothetical yes.)
Yes. I think that's what I said.
Obviously, if the baker doesn't know that the cake is for a celebration of sodomy, he can't be held accountable for that.
Hmmm ...
Yes.
Dear Mr. HiTech Redneck Baker. I'd like to order cake celebrating the wedding of Pat and Chris ...
The gay baker will never be held to the same standard, I think we all know this
Well that’s ambiguous
do Christians have a right to not participate in that? You did say gays don't have to make a cake for non-gays if they don't want to.
I’m confused.
If he wouldn’t allow her to make a copy of the message, how did he expect her to put it on the cake?
I’m also doubtful whether all these affairs even involve sex as odd as that sounds. They now have a high prank, punk value.
But that’s just a detail that doesn’t change the right thing to do, which is if you know it’s about a wrong relationship then don’t.
sounds maybe like he refused... if he had accepted then of course he’d get a copy.
Deliberately ... ;'}
which is if you know it’s about a wrong relationship then don’t.
Yep ... these days I suppose one would have to inquire as to whether that's Patrick or Patricia, Christopher or Christine.
Regarding the Christian business owners that have been denied their constitutional protections in such cases, note that the Founding States accepted the right to refuse to do business as evidenced by language in the Constituton’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I.
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State [emphasis added] in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
Speaking of constitutional protections, and as mentioned in related threads, the states which are forcing Christian business owners to do business with gays are in violation of Secton 1 of the 14th Amendment imo. Section 1 prohibits the states from making laws / policies which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression wrongly being ignored in other cases.
Sadly, pro-gay activist judges are getting away with ignoring the Constitution because citizens are no longer being taught the Constitution, 10th Amendment-protected state powers wrongly being used to trump 1st Amendment protections applied to the states via 14th Amendment in other cases.
Borderline ethical cases are always fascinating. But to God, what mattered was the purpose, not the success or failure.
If the policy was not to ask if it is not obvious, that probably would be enough for conscience’ sake. But people have different consciences.
Part of the difficulty here is that these cases are so new that none have percolated up to a supreme court with a First Amendment argument. So the time and money and aggravation has to be gone through with the lower courts. There’s no way of asking supreme courts for a shortcut ruling on a hypothetical situation, even when it looks like the situation is a travesty.
I hope this does make it to the supreme court and they decide that he cannot FORCE THEM to bake a cake against their beliefs
This would actually be good for us
We need to do more of this
About time. There was another story recently of something similar.
As it should be.
However, since the gay mafia has been misusing the legal system to run Christians out of business by targeting them with these types of suits, this type of case is required to set precedent in order to help curb the abuse of the system.
exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.