12 3

Oh for Pete's sake, it's a F&$ing CAKE!!!


I am getting so tired of this. In the Bible Jesus said nothing - NOTHING - about homosexuality or genders. All he said was be a good person and if you're rich you're not going to "Heaven" anyway.

GilbertFreon 5 Aug 15

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


oh THAT bible. well, in the jewish bible, it's a little more iffy, because 1. the christian translations have been numerous and inaccurate and 2. people are idiots. one bit folks take to mean god (not jesus, jesus has no presence in the jewish bible) doesn't want people to be gay is the story of sodom and gomorrah. the story is about inhospitality, but these misinterpreters harp on the fact that the townspeople wanted to have sex with the disguised angels, who are presumably male (i am not sure that is made clear). the problem isn't that the townspeople wanted to have gay sex. it's that they wanted to rape strangers. (note that god's just FINE with lot's offering his daughters to the crowd instead! note too that god's not at all upset that said daughters got daddy drunk and raped him! so taking a moral point from this rather sick story is iffy in and of itself!) so yeah at least in the jewish bible there is something that may confuse the intellectually impaired on the topic of homosexuality. these are the same people that get confused about cakes.



I’d like to know what Jesus said about cakes...


What bothers me more is that SCOTUS ruled that you don't have to follow civil rights law if you're religious. Phillips was clearly in violation of a 50-year-old law to prevent discrimination in public businesses. What's next? We don't serve N****rs here?

Right. The stickiness here is that the range of interpretation of what is meant covers the entire horizon. Here is the Colorado Accommodation Law:


I'm perfectly fine with businesses discriminating against anyone (gay, minority) AS LONG AS THEY ADVERTISE IT. And then let them deal with the consequences.

@nosferatu_cat, that's a relief. I hear he's suing them, now. They should shut down his business until he starts providing service to ALL the public. Following proper procedure, of course.

@Ozman, I used to feel that way years ago. The problem is that it wouldn't work consistently. Let's say you are in a small town with only one bakery and lots of racists. They could put up a "We don't serve N****rs sign and get away with it. It might even be good for business.

@ldheinz there's always a fly in the ointment. Sadly, you are right. There are groups that would welcome their own racist economy, and places where there isn't enough choice in the market to allow them to get away with this.


Sticky wicket, folks. On the one hand it is imperative that the rights of freedom be protected. On the other, where should the boundaries be drawn, and by whom? A posh restaurant in New York refuses entry of a fellow not properly dressed according to the management's opinion of what represents proper dress. Is this acceptable? If a sign is posted in front of the establishment declaring that no one will be allowed to enter if not attired a certain way, is there a difference? Should the restaurant be forced to serve people dressed in tattered shorts, ratty T-shirts, and wearing no shoes? Can a kosher butcher shop be required to carry pork?

Discrimination is something we all do every day. What are the limits? Who is to determine what those limits are and what qualifications must that person or those people have who decide where the lines are drawn?

In other words, the issue is far more complex than merely saying that a baker can or cannot refuse to bake when the customer is a certain type. People are refused service for all sorts of reasons all the time. No shirt? Out! Inadequate credit? You won't get the loan. A person with a gender discrepancy between equipment and feeling? No cake. And on it goes. What is reasonable? What doesn't step on someone's freedom while catering to the other? As is readily apparent, there is no convenient answer that satisfies all. It appears there might not even be a reasonable compromise in most situations.

I would like to live in a world with a thoroughly cooperative society, but I don't think that will happen any time soon. In the meantime, we litigate, protest, plead, and complain. Anyone for tea?

Yup, everyone has the right to be as prejudiced, or as stupid, or fill in the blank as they wanna be. Buy your cake somewhere else. Start your own bakery. Start a chain.

It may sound contradictory, but I agree that in a free society you should have the right to not do business with anyone you don't want to. If I owned a store and a guy comes in being a jerk, treating my staff/employees rudely, I would tell him to get out and not come back. But then you get into the whole issue of African-Americans not being able to go have lunch at a diner. I know, it's a mess.

My point really is that I don't see why it's such a big goddamn deal to make a cake for someone. Yes, I'm sure a just and loving God is going to send you to an eternity of fiery torment because you made a fucking cake for someone.


You know, what I can't figure out is exactly HOW these people think what they're doing is okay?
They're citing their religious beliefs, but nowhere in their "holy" book does it say anything about using their beliefs as an excuse to be discriminatory.
They're hypocrites.

Here's my greater point to all this. When anyone purchases a business license, they are agreeing to serve the public. That means ALL the public.
If your religion is going to preclude you from serving everyone, don't go into business.

That's what the law used to say but doesn't anymore.


The thing in this guy's case, as wrong as he might be, is that it is not just gays, etc. He will not decorate a cake for Halloween, he will not decorate a cake with anything relating to booze or drugs. He will sell cakes to anyone, he simply refuses to decorate any in a way he believes violates his faith. He is consistent, and although I am an Atheist I am also a radical civil-libertarian -- this seems to me to be a matter of free speech (Or more correctly not being compelled to create speech he disagrees with.)

If he can't serve ALL the public, then he shouldn't be in business.
His religious beliefs are irrelevant.

@KKGator Businesses make decisions about what products/services to sell all the time. Sometimes those decisions are based on business reasons, and sometimes they're based on personal reasons (including religious beliefs).

In this case, Phillips refused to bake and decorate a custom cake that celebrated something he found religiously objectionable. It's like suing a kosher deli for refusing to sell you a ham sandwich. The deli isn't discriminating against ham-lovers, you've asked for something they don't offer. I'm willing to bet that if Ms. Scardina had asked for a birthday cake, Phillips would have provided it, and that tells me that he's not discriminating against the person, he's choosing not to offer a certain product.

@cmadler I do not agree with your "argument".

Like I said in my other reply above, I hear you. I think it should be my right that if I owned a business and some guy comes in wearing a New York Jets jersey, I should be able to tell him to take a long walk off a short pier. But then that can be used to deny service to minorities... it's a mess.

@GilbertFreon See I disagree. You should be able to deny him a Jets Cake but still be required to make him a cake.

@GilbertFreon, @KKGator He is serving the public, he is willing to sell to them. Just not to do special messages.


At this point it seems obvious that Phillips is being targeted due to political disagreement with his religious beliefs. Especially given the SCOTUS ruling that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated hostility to religion, its pretty obvious that this is eventually going to be decided in his favor too.


These are the same people who have no issue making wedding cake for a second marriage. The first ended in divorce for both the bride and groom. If we are talking Bible here it's very specific about one spouse for life. So again they are far from Biblical in their actions. Most people know how they feel towards the LGTB community is wrong. If they apply religion as the reason they can continue to be atrocious individuals without much backlash.

Right?! When a straight couple comes in, you really have no way of knowing if they are "sinners" without asking a lot of nosy questions. But if a gay couple comes in, it's right there in the open. So the dude should really be asking a lot of nosy questions to EVERYONE he does business with.


The fixation with breeding comes from organised religion, not from the teachings of Jesus (if, indeed, he existed.) It's all about putting bums on pews, and exponentially expanding the following with each generation. And so sexual pleasure must only take place within a sanctified union of man and woman (sanctified so that, traditionally at least, they won't raise the children with conflicting faiths) and must carry at least some risk of pregnancy.

They want you to believe that God owns your genitals, and that you're not to obtain any pleasure from them unless you're doing something towards producing the next generation of followers. It's only when you look at it like this that religious objections to contraception, masturbation, homosexuality and gender confirming surgeries begin to make sense.

Of course there's a liberal dose of parents with expectations of being grandparents thrown into the mix. I think this bolsters the push for 'traditional' relationships and the rejection of any kind of dynamic that can't 'bear fruit.'

What I want to know is why a god who can make a virgin pregnant can't do the same for lesbian couples.


I am torn here. I support the freedom that allows them to be jerks.

What saddens me is the number of people who are cheering them on instead of boycotting them.

Actually, I agree that people should be allowed to be assholes, as you can't outlaw stupidity. However, our society decided 50 years ago that anyone offering services to the public has to provide them to everyone, and Colorado civil rights law specifically states that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal.


Case pending in the UK.


Love one another. Judge not lest ye be judged. So simple, right? This barefoot homeless Jew who got himself executed by an occupying force in the Middle East. It's amazing, right? How wrong it all goes when the corporate church tries to make him a God?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:156334
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.