A Helpful Discrimination Guide for Bigoted Bakers in Indiana

Dear Bakers in Indiana with “Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs:”

Boy, have you been getting a lot of media attention lately. Apparently, unlike people who make their living in any other profession, you alone have to accept good money from people you find sinful. Worse yet, you have to see your offerings become silent accomplices in activities you deem to be wrong. That never, ever happens to anyone else. I’m so glad laws are being developed for you and not for, let’s say, an EMT worker who has to save the life of a convicted child rapist because technically, there are no commonly held religious beliefs to hide behind.

Luckily, a bill being passed in Indiana finally gives you the freedom to refuse services to whomever you’d like based on your “sincerely held religious beliefs.” What a glorious day for Hoosiers. After weeks of having to cater to gay weddings, you can finally protect your religious freedoms and ensure your cakes are only going to righteous celebrations.

But did you know that the Bible deems other unions, ones I am certain you’ve knowingly and happily made cakes for, a sin? Ever make a wedding cake for a woman celebrating her second marriage? Congratulations, you just made an adultery cake (Matthew 5:32). Ever make an adorable baby shower cake for an unwed mother (Deuteronomy 23:2)? That’s a bit of a gray area of course, but certainly food for thought.

You could, of course, change your mind and serve the gays. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that forbids people preparing cakes or any other foodstuffs for gay weddings. Like dinosaurs, gay weddings are not even mentioned in the Bible. However, if you cannot bring yourself to serve food to anyone who has or will surely commit a sin so heinous that it’s punishable by death in the Bible, you should do so across the board. After all, you could lose a lot of income if the locals get a whiff of bigotry.

As a helpful guide, here is a list of sinners that warrant Biblical death sentences. You should avoid doing business with:

* Children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9): Yeah, to hell with those ingrates. Especially if their parents are picking up the tab.

* People who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15): Of course, you should refrain from baking cakes on the Sabbath as well, you perfect, sinless baker, you.

* Girls who have premarital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20): Shotgun wedding? No white dress? No cake for you!

* Disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18): Be sure to interview the groom’s parents before you fire up that oven.

* Worshiping any god but Yahweh (Deuteronomy 17:2-5): Goes without saying. I mean, why would you cater to a Hindu wedding? That’s not a real wedding if it is not sanctified by your one true God (or trinity, or whatever).

* Witches (Exodus 22: 18): Which I suppose would translate into modern day Wiccans? Who cares. Screw those weirdos. No cake for them.

* Wizards (Leviticus 20:27): Perhaps you should avoid making Harry Potter or Gandalf themed birthday cakes just to be safe.

* Slutty daughters of clergy (Leviticus 21:9): That seems fair. They engage in premarital sex and should be sentenced to death anyway. Why should they receive special treatment because of their dad has an “in” with the big guy upstairs?

* Men who rape women, and the women they rape if the women are within city limits and do not cry out for help (Deuteronomy 22:23-25): I would give rape victims a pass, but that’s just me. I totally support you not baking cakes for rapists.

* Blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16): Let’s just hope, at no point do any of your clients say things like “God dammit” or “Jesus Christ, $800 for a cake?!?” during the planning of their weddings. I’m sure that sort of thing is extremely rare.

* Anyone who tries to deconvert yahweh worshipers (Deuteronomy 12:6): Does that include Scientologists? Because I think it would be really cool to make a Lord Xenu wedding cake full of thetans. That order may be too complex anyway. Moving along…

* Men who lie with men (Leviticus 20:13): I think technically you can still bake cakes for lesbian weddings. And maybe transgendered folks if at least one of the men identifies as a woman. I dunno. Consult your clergy.

* Adulterers (Leviticus 20: 10-12): Why would you want to bake a cake for a cheater anyway? They’re just gonna ruin the marriage eventually.

* Men who lie with beasts and beasts who lie with men (Leviticus 20:15): Unless it’s for a wedding between a cheetah and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, because that cake topper would be too awesome not to do.

I hope this helps you explore new and unexpected methods of discrimination against your paying customers. As I always say, if you’re going to be a dick, diversify 🙂

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “A Helpful Discrimination Guide for Bigoted Bakers in Indiana

  1. Almost none of those passages are actually used by Christians for the basis of moral laws today. The passages you cited were part of the ceremonial laws, given to a specific people of a specific time. Nearly all Christian denominations view those laws as having been fulfilled by Jesus. And Jesus not only fulfills the old covenantal laws, but begins a new covenant, a covenant of grace. Heaven won by His perfect life and holy death, for all people. Jesus did, of course, back up certain moral laws (which includes the commandment on adultery), so Christians do try to follow those.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Herman says:

      interesting how the Old Testament was written by an all-knowing God who could see the entire timeline from past to present and it was the pinnacle of truth – until the all knowing God changed his mind and sent Jesus to come up with a new truth

      Liked by 2 people

    • DeAnn says:

      So, shouldn’t that be why Christian’s should follow it? Because Jesus did? Once again, this is a pick and choose what part of the Bible you deem necessary to get your point across. You can’t throw out the “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22 if you’re not going to deem everything else as a worthy argument.
      For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwellings. Leviticus 23:3. Do you follow this? I know a lot of Christians who don’t. There are so many other passages that are obviously meant for specific people at specific times. We can’t continue to use certain Bible verses to defend bigotry. Like this one…. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must ever be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) I believe they outlawed that Bible passage in 1865.
      We all sin, just differently.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Erica says:

      I agree with you. But people still mostly use old verses to make their base points about anti…well, everything they don’t agree with. Most arguments I see people make using Scripture have an old testament verse or reference. Using new testament is harder cause there is so much unconditional love and forgiveness wrapped around the shall nots. Anyway, this person is just trying to make a point using a little humor. I think it’s okay that the verse choices aren’t perfect ones. No one said the bakers had to agree with the person’s choice or lifestyle. They were just asked to bake a cake – with the consequence of not baking it possibly being their reputation as a business, as people and as Christians or worse – losing their livelihood, as the places in Indy and Portland discovered. A cake hardly seems worth it.

      Like

    • You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to use. If Christians are going to condemn whole states to their doctrine, then they need to be responsible for the entire thing or rewrite it, as has been done thousands of times since its inception.

      Like

    • Mistletoe says:

      Is that the same Jesus who said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17)? Now mind I’m no Biblical scholar, but to me that sounds like, “Those laws in the Old Testament? Yeah they still apply, and I’m here to make sure that you still follow them.”

      And, thing is, I have a hard time figuring out what you mean by “well THOSE laws are old and outdated and we don’t follow them today, but THESE laws still totes matter.” Because, I mean, how do you know which ones are the “old ceremonial” laws and which ones are the totally up to date laws? It just kind of sounds to an outsider like one may be picking and choosing the laws that fit with one’s current, personal, code of morals and dismissing the ones that don’t fit as “ceremonial” and fitting only within “a specific people of a specific time”. Which to me ultimately sounds like deciding morals based on one’s personal moral compass, which is something EVERYONE, Christian or not, does.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jaime Donegan says:

      blah blah blah…pick and choose what you like. what works for you.. what allows you to discriminate against whoever you want to. Not everyone believes in all of this.

      Like

    • nick says:

      The point of the article is satire. Many Christians use verses from Leviticus to support anti-homosexual arguments, cherry picking certain verses from that book.

      Like

      • Leviticus clearly states that eating any sea creature without scales or fins is an abomination. I told an old homophobe that and she starting yelling about where it says that. I told her and told her to actually read the Bible if she wants to follow it and not just hate gay people. She went on ranting and I told her if she ever walks into Red Lobster , she will go straight to hell(although personally I do not believe in hell).

        Like

    • Danny Higgins says:

      OR not….

      Matthew 5:17-18

      17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

      18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

      Like

    • Almost none of those passages are actually used by Christians for the basis of moral laws today. The passages you cited were part of the ceremonial laws, given to a specific people of a specific time.

      Yet Leviticus is used 100% of the time when an anti-gay christian opens his/her mouth about their favorite sport. Not only that, there is a whole hoopla going on in California right now because there is a petition to add the death penalty got LGBT people and it quotes, you guessed it, Leviticus.

      You are going to have to forgive me if i am a little skeptical of your point because I see your point being proved wrong on a daily basis.

      Jesus did, of course, back up certain moral laws (which includes the commandment on adultery), so Christians do try to follow those.

      I am not sure you have been paying attention. About 50% of marriages end up in divorce by the 2nd or 3rd year. That means the amount of people that are in their 2nd or 3rd marriage here in the USA is numbered in the millions. There is NO indication that Christians are following that adultery indication very closely.

      Then, there is the amount of extra marital affairs and the sites that carter to the people who have them; plus the amount of people who have open marriages, etc, etc, etc, etc. Sorry, your point is really weak and not factually based.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Roybig says:

      Really? How convenient. Maybe you could explain to the class who the true authors of the New Testament were and why it is all a bunch of man-made crap.

      Liked by 1 person

    • David L says:

      So called Christians use those passages as a means of discriminating. At least they cherry pick the ones that apply to their particular bigotry to do so. Also, need to add wearing clothing made of mixed fibers (Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:11), and eating shellfish (Lev 11:9-12) to the list.

      Like

  2. Herman says:

    excellent article however I must point out the behemoth that is mentioned in the Bible can only be a dinosaur by its description. anyways I agree with everything else. if Christians are not to judge, then what is the big deal?! Silly hypocrites….

    Like

  3. I appreciate your blog post. Being a quasi-conservative-ish person who’s sometimes called too liberal to be a pastor, I enjoy hearing many sides of an issue, even if it’s uncouth musings from an asshole lol. This one issue is particularly tricky though. I try my best to follow the letter of the Bible, in full knowledge that the old covenant (which you covered rather nicely) was complete and made perfect through Jesus. For that reason, I don’t have to kill a goat when I think horrible thoughts about my kids when I step on lego’s in the middle of the night. Nor do I have to kill anyone for any offense they bring to me. We are lucky enough to be living under the grace, mercy, and freedom of Christ. And it’s because of my thankfulness that I devote myself as best I can to showing the world God’s love. As a Christian, I’m fully aware that it’s God’s job to judge, Christ’s job to forgive, the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, and mine is just to love. That’s why the issue is so tricky. My knee jerk reaction to this issue is that it’s just a cake for bakers and just pictures from a photographer. Then, a friend of mine who is a photographer asked the question: how would you feel, as a pastor, if the government told you that you had to perform gay marriages, regardless of how you feel about it? To be fair, homosexuality is no different than having sexual partners outside of marriage or even thinking lustful thoughts about a person you pass on the street. It’s just another form of adultery. But my view of marriage is biblical. It’s not so much a legal or cultural action as a spiritual one. It is between one man, one woman, and God, designed to show the world the way God loves his people – intimately, personally, unconditionally, forever. I love performing weddings for couples who are more passionate about their commitment than their ever-shifting emotions about each other. I don’t so much enjoy doing weddings for couples who are unrealistic about each other and i see red flags. But I have yet to turn them down (granted I’m a youth pastor, so I’m not too often asked). I have yet to be asked to marry two men or two women. And I’m thankful for that. Because all I want to do is love God and people. I don’t desire to hurt anyone. But as a pastor marrying two people, I put my blessing and stamp of approval on each couple. I could not do that with a gay wedding because it would be against my convictions. To me, that is two people not just living in a form of adultery, which we all to some extent do. But this is two people who are embracing their form of adultery. That, I can’t bless. This same photographer friend told me how at weddings, they’re often asked to do much more than just take pictures, but are in some respects organizers that day, intimately involved in the wedding. Is it okay for me to tell another person that they have to be involved in a wedding, while I myself would not? I hope that religious freedom would protect me and my ability to practice my faith. But it seems to me that if we force other people to be involved in spiritual events that go against their faith, we’re not allowing people real religious freedom. We’re actually embracing a theology of modern opinion and pop culture and forcing that theology on all people, regardless of faith. In much the way Islam is the state religion of many eastern countries, modern opinion and pop culture would become the state religion of the US. Granted, that’s a bit dramatic, but I hope you see the point I’m trying to make. That’s why I go back and forth on the issue. I desire to love people through being graceful and generous. I desire to love God by following His will. His will is for me to love all people, through kindness and friendship. But loving people doesn’t have to be doing whatever they want me to do. This comment is wicked long. I’ll stop. But I’d love to hear your thoughts!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for writing to me 🙂 I’ve been an executive biographer (resume writer) for many years and have promoted the career achievements of countless Fortune 500 executives and their various underlings. Believe me when I say I’ve taken numerous Crying Game shame showers while furthering the careers of those who strategize mass downsizings while finding ways to cheat fired employees out of severance pay and pensions. HR executives love me because I can effectively spin their achievements of scamming their workers out of insurance or, my favorite, putting up nets in factories to prevent suicide rather than improving slave conditions. Speaking of slaves, I’ve written for lobbyists wanting to stall anti-slave legislation in chocolate production, a particular cause I’m very passionate about. I played an active role in the career advancement of people I found morally repugnant because if I didn’t, I could get sued. Worse yet, my business would get a poor reputation and possibly cost me the jobs I love from remarkable non-profit and even corporate executives who make the world better each day. And frankly, I needed the money. Pastors work in churches who enjoy clear separation between church and state, but in the private sector, It’s understood that we don’t get that option. We pay taxes for the public because we serve the public. So my answer to your photographer friend would be this: “I’m sorry you feel you are compromising your beliefs to perform a service, but most people in the service industry, at some point, have to serve people they really don’t like or agree with. Why should you get a pass because your belief system is rooted in religion, and not just ethics?”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for replying! And by the way, I really enjoy your writing and the way you think. I read your previous post and really liked it. And I’m thankful for a little honest conversation. I love how you’re able to separate religion (often legalism) with faith and relationship. The two can be complimentary, but often religion flies in the face of real faith. Just look at Jesus. He came to earth and spent time in the muck, getting his hands dirty by loving the unloved and spending time with what society thought was filth. Then He goes on to berate and embarrass the religious Pharisees for being so narrow-minded and missing who God is altogether. He doesn’t give them a pass and say “well, your intentions were good”. He speaks clearly and utterly against their acting unloving to uphold their interpretation of scripture. I think Jesus’s tactics would be the same if He were here now. He would come up against pastors and clergy for being bad stewards of the money given to them at church. He would take the picket signs of hate out of people’s hands. He would give us a proper tongue lashing for not being more welcoming or loving or forgiving (insert your own -ing here). He would embrace the downcast. He would sit and eat with the have-nots. He would forgive sinners and tell them to turn away from their sin. We of faith have an embarrassing past of focusing on the don’ts of our faith and ignoring the do’s. That’s why, to be honest, I haven’t spent alot of time thinking about or discussing this topic. Because there’s so much hurt in the world, spending time on this takes time away from meeting needs, guiding the hurt, and showing love. And also taking a note from Jesus, He did not come to politically advance His message, though He could have. Instead, He loved and taught. And that’s what I desire to do. Love and teach. But what do I do when teaching is considered hate by some? Nevermind the homosexual lifestyle. Pick anything. I teach that we shouldn’t get ahead by hurting others. We should lift people up along the way. Gaining personally by hurting others is wrong. I’m sure many of your big corp people would say that’s hateful against them. That I’m a raging socialist and I’m a threat to democracy and capitalism. I think one of the problems that has recently come up is we can’t disagree without taking offense. We can’t love each other if we disagree, and that’s on both sides of the aisle on any argument.

        I’m all over the place right now.

        To the point: to the photographer, you say “I’m sorry you feel you are compromising your beliefs to perform a service, but most people in the service industry, at some point, have to serve people they really don’t like or agree with.” I can totally understand that people have to do business with other people, regardless of their feelings toward them. Before I was a pastor, I ran a bookstore. And in this bookstore, people wanted the Koran, books on building backyard bombs, how to get girls to sleep with you, crazy pastors and their beliefs that I don’t agree with. And I would get them. My place is not to censor the masses. My job is to supply books people want. So I completely agree that sometimes you have to do things you’d rather not. We have to work with people who’s views are different – even jerks I’d rather pummel than help. But I don’t think this is a person issue. The photographer isn’t trying to boycott the person. Matter of fact, if that same person asked for bread because they were hungry, I know with 100% certainty it would be given. If they just wanted pictures of them and their other, I don’t believe that would be an issue either. It’s not the person they’re against. It’s involvement in their religious ceremony. It’s being forced into a faith action counter to their own.

        Your words about “compromising your beliefs to perform a service” bring up an interesting thought though: does perfect freedom exist? Can freedom mean forcing a person to do something against their will?

        Like

    • Diane says:

      The bill that was just signed has nothing to do with churches or organized religions. It is allowing “religious” business owners to lawfully discriminate against people. Churches have always been allowed to legally discriminate.

      Like

      • i wonder how obvious that difference is. to a believer, everything is spiritual. every action we undertake is done as unto God. so if i breed dogs, i breed them as if for God. if i sell clothes, i do so as if for God. everything we do has undertones of our faith in God. so it goes to reason that lending our talents to a spiritual ceremony that is counter to our own faith is a spiritual act that betrays our faith.

        Like

    • John says:

      you shouldn’t be around children if you haven’t read your bible—-multiple wives, concubines, women being forced to marry their brother-in-law etc, One man one woman, really?. You know as well as I do that most of these so-called Christians are really hypocritical, intolerant judgmental bigots. It has nothing to do with their faith. I have been happily married to one woman for 25 years and yet when we were born–our marriage was illegal and considered an abomination by many–especially those calling themselves devout and faithful. Perhaps you are one of those people who do not agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964–perhaps you would refuse to marry us or condone the practice in those that would. The Mormons taught that we were supposed to spontaneously combust on our wedding night (it being such an abomination in the sight of God)–guess what-didn’t happen!
      Perhaps that is why I’m even bothering to write to you. What I do know is that Jesus taught “love one another” “the Greatest commandment is love” “Judge not lest you be judged” Wasn’t it Jesus who embraced and ministered to the outcasts of society. Maybe modern “Christians” should try to be more Christ-like.

      Liked by 1 person

      • look, i didn’t start this conversation to change anyone’s mind. i’m not out to get anyone to believe anything specific about homosexuality. i’m not out to push an agenda on anyone. i’m not trying to persuade anyone that the rfra is good for indiana. and i definitely didn’t start it for someone to somehow conclude that i’m racist. the point that i’m trying to make is that this is a difficult conversation. it’s easy to call others evil and assign a good side and a bad side. it’s much more difficult to take a step back and realize that the issue is much more complicated than that. it does no good to speak hatefully or make accusations. but maybe it will do some good to have honest conversations about it. but obviously i chose the wrong platform. looking through these comments, i can see that no one is on here to talk. it’s all about name-calling and hate (ironic).

        so as my last words: i apologize for those who have been genuinely hurt by “christians”. i hope that you can find forgiveness, peace, and maybe even restitution of the damaged relationships. i’m sorry if you’ve not seen the genuinely great people that i’ve encountered through church and have only seen the opposite. however, i do not apologize for my faith in God. i do not apologize for loving my church and the people in it. and i will not stop trying my best to show God’s love to others, the best way i know how. and i find it odd that i’m saying this to this specific audience, but lets try to find the good in others, not make snap judgements. we should do our best to understand each other. only then will we have a chance to find peace.

        Like

  4. Old Red says:

    I find that I choose not to do business with the florist down the street not because it is run by a gay couple but that Krogers is cheaper. Muat make me a homophobe and intolerant? I choose the Walmart bakey to the Christian bakery down the street for the price. Does that make me into;erant of Christians? I choose to buy my own ribs and chicken to preoare at home instead of visiting a minority owned resturaunt. Does that make me a bigot?? Please, stop trying to remove my right of who I decide to hang with or who I do business with.

    Like

    • Sandy says:

      What are you talking about? You said that you’d rather buy flowers from Krogers instead of from the shop owned by the gay couple because Krogers is cheaper… That makes you thrifty and price conscious. Nobody would call you a bigot for that. It’s not bigotry to NOT buy from gay people or religious people UNLESS your choice was based on those issues of religion and sexuality – AND even then it’s a personal choice as long as you don’t go slagging them or encouraging others to not buy from those groups, it’s not a problem. You’re allowed personal choice.

      Like

  5. cfursmom says:

    It is the eve before Good Friday. Obviously that means nothing to a great many. That’s their choice. We HAVE that freedom. If I go to a baker and want a cake for the weekend made in the shape of a cross and want it to say “He Is Risen”, the baker should have the right to deny me. He or she owns that business, and after rolling my eyes and saying “Uh, ok, never mind” I would walk out the door and go to another bakery who would make the cake I want. It’s quite simple. There would be no wasting of oodles and oodles of time and money because I wanted to be a whiney brat Christian who wanted to throw a fit. A few centuries ago people crossed a huge body of water in search of freedom….somewhere along the way history has just become a fictional story that apparently many people have learned nothing from.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan says:

      There’s a difference, though, between refusing to make a specific product, and the person refusing to serve you because of “who you are”. It’s actually even less germane (sp?) because your religion is a choice, and your sexuality, like your race, nationality, or gender is not. If someone was told to make a cake that said “Hail Satan”, there would be no issue. However, if someone refused to serve a person their normal services just because they choose, as people back in the 60s attempted to claim, that blacks were inferior? In the case of the baker, they are simply being asked to bake a cake. They aren’t asked to eat the cake, or toast the couple. They just have to bake the cake. So your example isn’t close to being the same thing. If someone was asked to make a cake that they felt offensive, I would be 100% behind their right to refuse. I make films, and I wouldn’t make a video for a racist group. But when I decide that I don’t have to provide service on the basis of someone’s identity, then that’s an issue. When your civil rights are violated, you aren’t being a “whiny brat”… And btw, those people crossed that body of water for freedom FROM religion, as much as freedom OF religion… (As well as money, property, the right not to pay taxes, etc).

      Liked by 1 person

      • InTheMiddle says:

        I saw this on social media and thought that Marie made a good point, but probably not the one she intended. Business may refuse to serve adulterers or blasphemers or Knicks fans or people with green eyes or even people with poor fashion sense. They can refuse to serve anyone they like for just about any reason they like – except for cases of discrimination against protected classes. You are not allowed to discriminate SOLELY based on race, gender, religion, or disability. You can probably already see the baked-in (excuse the pun) problem. Adulterers and Knicks fans have no legal standing to sue the pants off of bakers – and that is what is driving the legislation.

        Let me pause for a second to acknowledge that the issue at hand is state law, which mimics but can differ from federal law. Nonetheless, the principles are the same.

        The key characteristic of federally protected classes (race, age, religion, national origin, veteran status and disability) is with the exception of respecting religion (which is why we have a country here in the first place), the protected classes are based on immutable traits. Is homosexuality an immutable trait? Some say yes, in which case its on them to prove it. Frankly, there’s a good reason we’re not all intimately familiar with peer reviewed, hard science demonstrating that people are “born that way”. That is because it doesn’t exist. The best you can do is some correlation or some similarities in a small sample size of folks (eg. the hypothalamus in Bay Area AIDS patients).

        Even more problematic is explaining those people that walk away from that behavior and/or lifestyle. Or those that tried it and it didn’t stick. How many same sex encounters does it take before you’re officially gay? One? Ten? None? Once you “go gay” are you gay for life? Are only gay if you self-identify – no matter your behavior? Remember the “hide yo’ kids, hid yo’ wife” flamboyantly gay YouTube star? Now he’s settled down with a lady and a kid. If you want to argue about what it means to be a homosexual, take it up with him or all the other folks that don’t fit a convenient definition.

        I can hear some readers winding up and getting ready to let me have it, but human sexuality is not immutable. That statement is the plain, observable truth. You don’t hate science do you? The assumptions we make and the truths we take for granted are why states can and do take a different approach than the federal gov’t with regards to protected classes and rights (yay for republicanism).

        To recap, it is very problematic to create a protected class that is based on behavior. You can provide liberties for people to be free to behave certain ways, but you can’t compel others to accept, embrace it or even think that it is any better or worse than blasphemy or wearing pajamas outside the home.

        One more point – and I hope it is enough to convince folks to put their high horses back in the barn. I guarantee the bakers in the original case were more than happy to sell the gay/lesbian/whatever couple cupcakes, cookies, pies, etc… they just did not want to participate or contribute to legitimizing a same sex wedding. Remember the OG of protected classes in this country is religion. That’s why Quakers aren’t forced to fight in the army.

        So ask yourself, why do you want to use the power of the law to coerce someone to make a cake if it violates their conscience? What are you really seeking? Who is being the bully here?

        Like

    • R. Denning says:

      Quite simple. If the baker won’t make my cross cake, I just go to another baker. So if I am gay, all I have to do is find someone in my small “Christian” community who is not offended by my orientation to bake my cake. Many Christians believe they are a persecuted minority in this country. That blinds them to the challenges faced by those who really do belong to persecuted minorities.

      Like

  6. David678 says:

    This seems of particular importance to a baker of cakes in mid-Amerca:

    “Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.” Proverbs 23:2

    Like

  7. Sandy says:

    Great post! I was very entertained. BTW I love when religious women quote Leviticus because he clearly adored women, with all our uncleanness, and blood issues, and sickness, and apparently uncontrollable attraction to farm animals.

    Like

  8. Matt says:

    The freedom to refuse services to whomever you’d like based on your “sincerely held religious beliefs.” means that Muslims can refuse service to Christians or Jews, Atheists can refuse services to anyone who is religious at all.. Hindi can refuse services to… I think you get the point. They do not realize that their bigotry goes both ways– I think they will undo the law once the repercussions begin to take place because they will be denied services just as much as anyone in the GLBT community.. And I look forward to hearing their complaints

    Like

  9. Willie Needham says:

    Wow, I guess only people who hate Christians are allowed to be bigoted. That article was so full of hate that I can’t take it seriously.

    Like

    • Mercedes Sweazy says:

      Not true. With Christianity standing at the fore-front of the “American” ideals, (kinda snuck itself in there around 1954) Christians have been exceedingly outspoken and bigoted against any, and everything, that they perceive as a threat….even if it’s not. Of course this only encompasses those who are the crass, vocal “minority” of Christians…but the truth remains that very few of the other Christians step up to actually STOP the demoralization and bigotry that has rooted itself into their own communities. After decades of Christian (typically protestant) being the “correct” way of life, with all others being seen as Satan-driven mongrel cults of adultery and sin…America is finally stepping up and putting a heel in it, even if those in power try and force that very heel up and out of that gnarly black heart of corruption. We aren’t the only ones to be allowed to be bigoted, but we sure deserve it after all this time. We don’t need another era of supreme Christianity, so if anti-christian sentiments helps keep the (crass, vocal minority that is causing these issues) Christians in check, then we are all for it.

      Like

  10. WOW…must be a hell of alot of bakers out there who believe this as it is in 19 other states and the federal government adopted and passed a federal version in 1993…so if you want to be a smartass…be an intelligent,knowledgeable smartass please !

    Like

  11. Anonymous Miss says:

    Look in the mirror. The intolerance goes both ways.

    Find another bakery, find another photographer.

    I don’t agree with your lifestyle and you probably don’t agree with mine. We can’t force each other to agree with one another.

    You don’t understand, although I’d like you to, and vice versa.

    Why don’t you love me? I love YOU.

    Like

  12. Ronnie J Kimsey says:

    So if I disagree with you I am a bigot. If my religious views preclude me from participating in your lifestyle choice I’m homophobic. If I go to a Christian church I’m judgmental and if I exercise my right of free speech in opposition I’m intolerant. The Constitution guaranteed me and you both all of those rights. It allows us to live and love whom we choose to. It guarantees the individual the right to choose with who they do business. It if guarantees you the right to attack my views if you choose. What it does not allow is the government or judicial system to force anyone to participate in any business or activity that violates the rights laid down in the Constitution.

    Neither the Federal or State Governments have the right to ban gay marriage or force any privately held business or individual to participate in any activity to which they find objectionable for any reason. FREEDOM belongs to each of us. If you choose to be bigot or self-serving as most groups who petition the Government to control the thoughts and actions who oppose them. Or you can choose the path of the many gallant men and women who served with me, before me and after me to create uphold and protect those Constitutional rights that you seem so willing to usurp for your own agenda.

    Ronnie J Kimsey

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s