Finally, finally, finally – a social conservative guy (Bill Jack) in Colorado had the very bright idea to walk into a homosexual agenda bakery and ask for a few cakes with some anti-homosexual agenda messages on them. He was refused service. He lodged a complaint. Liberals are going bezerk saying that no one should be compelled to bake a cake with a message they don’t like, you must have a right to discriminate! Yes, those liberals that were screaming to fine, jail, and destroy anyone, especially Christians, who would not submit to their nasty homosexuality “wedding” farce and provide their services to this end in other bakeries, wedding photographer services, you name it. Complete hypocritical flip.

Here’s a recap on what I had said before regarding these cases – search my blog for more.

Question of the day:

Two lesbians walk into a Christian bakery and demand that the baker bake a cake saying 2+2=5.

If Winston, the baker, refuses, should he be fined thousands of dollars for not submitting to the demand of the two lesbians? Should the two lesbian women hold up four fingers of their hand and ask repeatedly how many fingers they are holding up? Should Winston be forced to close down his bakery is he refuses to answer 5? Should he be tortured until he replies 5?

In what kind of a society can two lesbians use the power of the state to coerce a decent human being to state that 2+2=5, because  no one can refuse their demands, no matter how deformed, dysfunctional, or unethical?

Wiser social observers in our society have realized some time ago that so-called anti-discrimination laws and rules are being used to shove the liberal homosexuality agenda down the throats of social conservatives in the name of progress and civil rights. I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. Everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. On a completely unrelated note, did anyone get the license plate of that giant truck carrying away all of our liberty?

Lastly, if we are all equal before the law, there is no such thing as special, arbitrary “protected” categories – as when some people have the protection of a law, and others don’t.


The most surprising bit about this case, aside from the fact that finally a socon got up and fought back, is that ADF, yes ADF, is defending Azucar! Hah! I want to see them entangle these stupid “non discrimination” bodies in their decision, whichever way they decide. And hopefully we’ll finally be able to use the outcome to show: a) how destructive and farcical these “sexual orientation discrimination” laws are and push for their repeal, b) how hypocritical liberals are regarding fundamental rights of conscience, religion, and speech.


Update Jan 25, 2015

Look at what a smart set of questions by a commenter elsewhere:

expat_in_exile

Jan. 23, 2015 at 3:19pm

Is it the word “HATE” that makes the message hateful?

What if he wanted a cake that says “God hates Broccoli” ? Would that be hate speak against vegetarians or just agreeing with GHW Bush?

What if the cake said “God does not condone a gay lifestyle” ? Would that be hateful, or just an interpretation of the bible?

How about “God strongly dislikes homosexual behavior practiced by people he otherwise loves” ? Is that hateful?

I support the business owner in both cases to not want to create the cake with the theme as requested. If the offended person wants to raise a stink and call for a boycott, that is okay too, but the government needs to stay out of the cake making business.


Goes right to the heart of the question about “criminal” speech – especially the stupidity from liberals to want to categorize viewpoints they disagree as “hate speech”. Loved it.

And there was this below. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t agree or disagree, but I thought it was interesting as well. If he is right, then this case is looking better and better.

US Navy EOD Vet

Jan. 23, 2015 at 7:27pm

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the message itself is irrelevant. The act is protected. That’s why flag burning and the KKK burning crosses is allowed. Their message is repulsive to most, but it’s still protected. Same for this case. Under the Colorado law, the message doesn’t need societal approval in order for a business owner to have to comply, it’s the act of requesting it that is protected. That’s why I warned people about the first case, the gay couple who sued to have a business owner comply with their request. People who supported them must have thought the law only applies to “approved” messages or symbols. As the Supreme Court has said, it does not. It applies to all.


I would think Vet above is wrong (different issue) because the bakery case is not about the govt censoring an individual. It’s about a person asking another person to say something in a business service transaction. The message is relevant, or it should be relevant if it isn’t.

Advertisements