Jesus Says, “No Cake For You!”
Spokesmen for Jesus of Nazareth said the Savior approved of the Supreme Court ruling that bakers don’t have to make wedding cakes for gay couples, because he thinks it’s a bad idea anyway. “Changing water into wine because the family didn’t plan ahead is one thing,” said the sandal-wearing miracle worker, “but demanding a homophobe bake a cake for your same-sex wedding is as dumb as sending back your underdone steak with an insult for the chef. Nothing good is going to come of it.”
The Prince of Peace added, however, that florists are another matter entirely, as lots of flowers are self-pollinating.
“ God said to Abraham, kill me your son. Abe said man you gotta be puttin’me on. God said no. Abe said, what? God said you can do what you want to Abe but, next time you see me coming you better run. Abe said, where do you want this killing done and God said out on highway 61.”
Keep your dick out of someone’s shitter… LOL
I say we let him think they outlawed gay.
Tonmy, working blue.
Really. TMI, TK.
Sinners, fornicators, off with your heads lol
That’s it, I’m opening a bakery and I’m not baking cakes for any stinkin bigots. It’s against my religion that I just made up.
Any bakery that refuses to bake a friggin cake, should be put to a test. Have all progressives, gays, bi’s, and everyone in between REFUSE to buy a friggin thing that from bakery. Social media could take care of them in a heart beat.
Would you refuse to bake a cake in the shape of a swastika?
Come on, Liz. What’s your answer?
It wasn’t just for Liz, whose solution shows you why corporate America doesn’t want any part of controversy either way. Chick-Fil-A is an outlier in that regard.
@Paul: There is evidence that the Biblical story of the binding of Isaac was based on an earlier version in which Isaac was indeed sacrificed.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-abraham-murdered-isaac/
We’ll just put some bleachers out in the sun.
But I think I’d enjoy Liz’s answer the most.
While I think no baker should have to bake a cake in the shape of a swastika, I think they should be obligated to bake cakes for homosexuals. The reason for the difference is this. Governments sanction businesses as legal establishments and governments should have the right to forbid exclusionary anti-social speech and require business to not forbid inclusionary speech. Swastikas are anti-social and milatate against social harmony but cakes baked for homosexuals do not.
While I’m all for the wedded couple and hope they got a great cake, a lot of people would think a cake for a gay wedding does “militate against social harmony.” Personally, I would not bake a swastika cake and would be willing to accept the consequences. (I don’t think there would be many.)
“governments should have the right to forbid exclusionary anti-social speech and require business to not forbid inclusionary speech.”
And you would be willing to give, say, Trump the power to determine which is which?
For my part, I agree the distinction you point out exists and matters, but I’m reluctant to wade into matters of conscience, even if I find their claimed motive suspect, because I wouldn’t want them questioning mine.
Then again, I’m prejudiced because I don’t like cake. Sadly, nobody ever has a wedding pie.
The real problem with this ruling is that it will open up a whole bunch of new problems, and new legal cases. It’s basically a new type of Jim Crow that’s just been legalized.
I’m now waiting for the case same sex couple that gets tossed from a restaurant. What’s the USSC going to do about that?
What are liberals going to do about it…YOU gotta plan?
Yea. But not a great plan. My plan is to get out and vote and to also donate a few thousand dollars to candidates of my choice (which is basically what I’ve been doing all along).
Would you refuse to bake a cake in the shape of a swastika?
Really, you see no differnce btn a swastika cake and a wedding cake! C’mon now no comparison.
“Really, you see no differnce btn a swastika cake and a wedding cake! C’mon now no comparison.”
Fail. The question is whether people should be able to refuse service based on their conscience. Otherwise you’re just saying what Dana did — your beliefs deserve government backing, others’ do not.
There is nothing illegal about a swastika. Should a baker have the right to refuse to take such a customer order? Why or why not?
@A “Should a baker have the right to refuse to take such a customer order? Why or why not?”
There’s a huge difference between refusing a customer’s order because of the nature of that order and refusing a customer’s order because of the nature of the customer.
And so I would say that one could refuse to make a swastika cake, but not refuse a customer for wearing a swastika T-shirt. There really is an important distinction.
I find it interesting that so many people are so willing to use government to impose their morality on others, and how thin they’re willing to split hairs to do it.
Given that, y’all really shouldn’t be complaining that others are forcing their morality on you.
Yup. That’s exactly how they justified Jim Crow.
They sure didn’t want the government telling them that had to serve black people.
Do you really see that as “splitting hairs”?? Do you really equate that with pro-religion “conservative” governmental constraints?
Really?
And you see where the civil rights laws got us. They brought the conservatives to the GOP, where they have used white resentment to bring us Trump. Actions have consequences, and not necessarily the ones you want.
Just to be clear, since so many seem incapable of debating positions without impugning others, I’m all for civil rights laws, though I would note that they do nothing to overturn the false concept of race. But they came at a price.
Stop trying to answer the questions by throwing them back on me. If all they prompt is your outrage — and you haven’t been alone — then I’d say the problem is yours.
I’m trying to get people on the left to question their assumptions. From the response so far, you’re no more inclined to do so than people on the right. “Really? Really? We shall now shame you for voicing unapproved thoughts.”
I think most of you just want to demonstrate what good people you are. How dull.
PS: “Splitting hairs” was about Dana’s good thought control/bad thought control proposal.
I have no problem with an individual refusing service based on grounds that he disagrees with another’s belief. the same way i dont have a problem with the eagles not going to the white house or musicians refusing to play at trumps inauguration.
To consider the flip side, state legislatures are passing laws banning their universities from boycotting Israel.
Once you go down the thought-control path, there’s no end to it. You can’t be mostly free.
most universities are already on the thought control path
@a ” I’m all for civil rights laws, … But they came at a price.”
Yea… I agree, but it’s a price that must be paid… just like the price we all paid to get rid of slavery.
I admit that the problem with my distinction above is that it allows awful administrations like Trump’s to define what is acceptable and unacceptable (antisocial) speech. Nonetheless, I am rethinking if total free speech is an absolute good and if, as in some European nations, there shouldn’t be restrictions on hate speech. Some speech is so outrageous and so beneath us that it doesn’t deserve debate. It deserves to be spurned. Nazi speech is an example. Perhaps the only way to keep such a restriction from being completely manipulated by an evil administration is by making the restriction a constitutional amendment. I also think that there is a prime facie distinction between inclusionary and exclusionary speech that can help to make the distinction.
I understand the desire to come up with a policy that would do what you suggest. I just don’t know how to do it in a way that would preclude its misuse.
The problem, IMO, is that certain ideas are evil yet are protected because they are “religious” ideas. If I say I hate gays because I fear them, it’s hate, but if I say I hate gays because God tells me to, it’s protected.
The Founders, Jefferson primarily, were concerned about state-sanctioned religion, but wrote it in such broad language that it was easily weaponized. If the U.S. didn’t privilege religion in general, Scientology, for example, would not have waged a decades-long battle to have itself declared a religion; if churches were taxed, it wouldn’t have bothered.
The fact that the courts will not recognize your personal religion just compounds the error — that is, if God tells me directly to hate gays, that’s still hate. He has to tell me through a preacher for it to count.
Fucked-up rules produce a fucked-up country.