Skip to comments.The history and significance of the wedding cake
Posted on 02/01/2018 12:40:54 PM PST by fwdude
Wedding cakes today are in the news and legal briefs, as same-sex couples occasionally conflict with caterers with religious objections who refuse to prepare a cake for their wedding.
The nature and resolution of this dispute is not the subject of this essay, at least not directly; rather, I want to address a question in the conflict which has been largely ignored. For in the same-sex couples desire for a cake, to the point of offense at being denied one, and in the bakers considered refusal, at the risk of fines and sanction, to prepare one, both parties acknowledge the fundamental importance of a wedding cake to a wedding celebration.
Why is it the cake, and not some other element of the wedding celebration, such as announcements, flowers, seating, meals, or music, which is the occasion of conflict? The couple and the baker may disagree about the marriage, but they apparently agree about the cake. If they are like most Americans, neither party could explain fully why they feel it is important, though they sense, correctly, that it is.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercatornet.com ...
I always advise those who are soon to be wed not to eat wedding cake at their reception as statistically 50% of all wedded couples who eat wedding cake at their reception end up divorced.
Note the backward tactic the left now uses, conflating passive refusal (doing nothing) to active behavior in DOING (discriminating) something they don’t like.
We can see where this is going, the criminalization of failure to participate in a host of events characterized by specific speech.
What is it called when someone can force someone else to do things for them? Slavery. Funny thing is that Democrats were pro-slavery 150 years ago, and they’re pro-slavery today. All that’s changed is the type of slavery.
Quite a cake. Every time I see one I think back to my nephew’s wedding. It was in a sort of barn/chapel and the cake sat there for hours collecting fruit flies. I was told no, the black dots are not part of the icing. Sometimes, you just have to eat a few flies.
Sylvia Weinstock made the most fantastic wedding cakes.
She mailed one spectacular sweet to her brother for his wedding day.
As luck would have it, a storm blew in and the airlines were socked under a blizzard of snow.
Did the cake go to waste? No. The airline personnel ate it.
Even worse...100% of those who eat anyone's wedding cake end up dying...
Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece’s owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.:1-2 Craig and Mullins left the store without discussing details of the cake design.:2 The following day, Craig’s mother called Phillips, who told her that he does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.[3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission (emp. mine):
There are too many myths being propagated about the Supreme Court case involving Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. Its time to set the record straight....
First, Jack is a cake artist, something thats become more famous since reality television shows like Cake Wars. He doesnt just bake cakes; he custom designs master cakes. However, from the beginning Jack has seen his business as an expression of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business throughout his career. For example, hes refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and hes turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties.
Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didnt even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the storeincluding cakesbut that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony.
The couple left fuming. Vile phone calls started pouring ineven death threats. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but ordered that if he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples. Then the Commissionbehaving like some communist dictatorship mightordered Jack and his employees to go through a re-education program and provide quarterly compliance reports. - BreakPoint: Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is) http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/11/breakpoint-get-facts-jack-phillips/
Just as Jack would not create custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, as cited, he would not contracting to create a cake for straight people who wanted one to celebrate “gay marriage” or that of btwn a man and his goat.
Was Masterpiece refusing to sell a cake anyone else could buy? No.
Was Masterpiece singling out homosexuals in denying to contract for a cake celebrating homosexual marriage? No (straight couples would also be refused such/”discriminated” against, like as for Halloween and divorce celebrations).
Was Masterpiece acting consistent with his convictions here? Yes.
Was the refusal by Masterpiece to recognize “gay marriage” also that of the state at the time? Yes.
Would Masterpiece be conveying recognition of “gay marriage” by contracting to provide this special and expensive cake? Yes.
Was the state effectively requiring Masterpiece not to have or act upon compelling convictions in this regard by punishing the owners for not recognizing what the state itself historically did not? Yes.
Would the state punish a black or Jewish or Muslim baker for not creating a special cake for a KKK celebration, though they have the right to freedom of speech? Unlikely.
We a paradox. Philips is punished by the state for refusing to contract to create a cake for a wedding that was not not legally recognized by the state at that time.
Seems like the state should not punish Masterpiece not recognizing what it did not recognize, or to be consistent with its punishment of Masterpiece, then the state should be fining itself for sexual discrimination in proportion to how it fined Masterpiece.
The average wedding cake costs $582 [delivery is extra]. Some bakers prefer to charge by the slice. Today, couples pay anywhere from $1.50 to $12 per slice. A wedding with 150 guests could cost you as much as $1,800!...You should order your wedding cake at least a few months before your special day - .Study: Average Cost of a Wedding Cake
Custom cake orders require two weeks notice. Your deposit of 30% is due at the time of ordering. Buttercream flowers and an inscription are the standard decoration that comes with the price of the cake. - Main Street Bakery & Gift Shop | Columbia, SC
Refunds are not provided for any reason. Due to our full schedule and our attention to detail we spend many hours planning and preparing before even beginning on a cake. - How to Establish Policies for Success with A Cake Business
Ping to above.
Oooh....to have a slice of that cake :-)
Thanks a lot of detail. Appreciate this.
I don't think so, at all. When someone give up one's freedom to do the bidding of another, the activity is called "work," and the reason for it is called "a paycheck."
The left-winger wants to keep the "freedom" concept alive by getting a "paycheck" without commensurate "work."
The beauty and symmetry of the whole scheme is that the left-winger can force those who have already given up their freedom to obtain a "wage" to extend his bondage a bit further by taking back a portion of that "paycheck" called "a tax," whereby the one choosing "freedom" can obtain a "paycheck" also, thus preserving a myth called "equality."
The morality of this system is called "social justice."
Yes, you have the concept of forced equality down pat. It’s another kind of slavery. A wage, however, is one service freely traded for another: labor. Each party agrees to its fairness. I differ on your concept of tax. It should directly benefit the taxpayer, because that’s also a service contract between citizen and government. I pay this much for so much protection against that which I can’t guard against singly. Invading armies, ability to travel in relative safety, and so forth. Taxes are not (or should not be) a redistribution of wealth to those who choose not to earn it themselves.
But, I’m also willing to make some allowances. There are legitimate purposes for things like welfare for those who actually need it. I might need it myself some day, so in this sense it at least has potential to directly benefit me.
Wrong. About a third get divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried etc.
All you’ve done here is to provide excuses why the one who has already given up his freedom should not give up more of it, and thus get to the point where he can no longer extricate himself.
Where there is free will, there is freedom. I’ve not given up any of it, or suggested anyone should.
With all due respect, you have given up complete freedom, and in its place have received the right to liberty. Our jails are filled with constituents who confused the two. It is my hope that you can have the liberty to roam about, not interfering with the right of others to do the same.