‘Gay cake’ appeal: Christian bakers Ashers lose appeal

(( Updated 10/26 with my response to a comment i got from the other persons blog, pasted in the comments section of this post ))

Are we really going to do this again?


I’d like to tell a story this morning of unintentional bigotry and pretended ‘political’ indignation. Its not the story in the article linked from the BBC, but it is very similar. I’d like to tell it because it’s my story from just a few years ago.

In April of 2013, my mom had passed, my sister was here from Washington for the purpose and in the middle of the evening, very Christian me had a conversation with not so Christian said sister about another Christian Bakery in Washington state who also refused service to a gay couple because of the ‘message’ that their participation in their wedding by the request to bake a cake for it as a business.

I, being not only a strong christian at the time, but also very much libertarian and a strict constitutionalist, argued till 6am with my sister that it violates the Baker’s 1st amendment freedom of religious expression and their freedoms of association (or non association) and that according to the 10th and 11th amendment, not withstanding the equal protection under the 14th, the federal government had no rights to tell the Washington couple what to do that Constitution didn’t give it the power to, ot prohibit the states the jurisdiction over.

It was a brilliant political argument and called bs on the 14th amendment’s unconstitutional power grab for the federal government over states rights guaranteed by the original founders’ writing of the Constitution as well as the bill of rights. But…

I was wrong.

The Constitution cannot be used to allow religious liberty to be screwed into constitutional bigotry. If you are business, providing services to the public, you serve ALL the public. No one is asking you to change your beliefs ot practices in private. It’s just a cake. But if your conscience won’t allow you to serve ALL the public… Get out of business to the public. 

Bigotry and discrimination I’d wrong. Don’t try to use the political excuse to cover your very obvious religious reasons for refusing to serve the public. We had enough of that in the 50s and 60s here in the us. Remember the refusal to serve blacks and the separate but equal arguments? They too were religious and ‘tradition’ oriented. But bigotry and discrimination was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

If tradition and religion keep you from serving the public in ‘good conscience’… Get out of business. Nuff said.


AND of course, the wee flea ia blocking my further responses… very  fair and honest of him.

  1. You really need to get your facts before you comment on the basis of your prejudice. They have refused political messages. And why do you think it’s okay for people to be compelled to post messages which go against their most fundamental beliefs?

  2. The court didn’t by the political bs either. They could see right the thin veneer also



14 thoughts on “‘Gay cake’ appeal: Christian bakers Ashers lose appeal

  1. It’s a big person who can say ‘I was wrong’.

    I think one can refuse to serve customers or to work for them if they are rude, abusive, etc. Quite honestly someone’s sexual orientation is the least of our worries. The main one is: Will. They. Pay. Plus we’ve had plenty of gay clients. So what? Who cares?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The idea that equality rights grant legal protection to discriminate against (under the auspice of ‘freedom of’…) is antithetical to the spirit of legal equality and so it’s very strange to me to hear so many people presume this ‘right’ means the ‘freedom to exercise my right to discriminate in the name of…’.

    In many Bills of Rights, we find specific references against exactly this kind of practice, which tells us the intention of equality law is to disallow such discrimination – to make its practice a crime – and so certain prohibited bases are laid out (the usual suspects being race, religion, gender, sexual preference, and so on). This list is often subject to the criticism of being redundant.

    Obviously not.

    The redundancy is necessary to help those people who wish to discriminate (and who claim this legal punishment is ‘against’ their Constitutional rights) need to understand why discriminating on prohibited grounds unquestionably acts contrary to the spirit of legal protection to ensure equal treatment under the law.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Such is the burden of secularism unfortunately. It is always with great reluctance and extreme difficulty that the religious must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the next century, or in this case, even the next decade. No doubt they would prefer to turn back the clock to pre-1967 when homosexuality was still illegal (in the UK). Those troublesome homos would know their place so they wouldn’t have to deal with this kind of thing. Or as they might refer to it – “The good old days.”
    That this kind of thing STILL has to be sorted out by force of law, is an embarrassment to the entire human race.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. My reply to one on the other blog who said the racial and gay discrimination weren’t the same in that gay people aren’t gay by who they are, but by behavior and lifestyle only… (yes, i used to believe that too and it was at least a little bit of the conversation I had with my sister 3yrs ago also)

    “I once thought that too. But even if it were so, why would it be allowable for a baker providing a public service as a business to refuse to bake a cake for someone based in what he perceives to be their behaviour or preferences in their private life?
    Would I then be within my rights to refuse to service say… and ac unit on a home if I perceived the family were broncos fans or vote Democratic? No. People in public business provide services. It’s not their right to discriminate based in personal or religious grounds. This UK baker was very clear that the reason they refused was their own personal religious disagreement with gay marriage. The court made very clear in their ruling that they were illegally discriminating based in their own religious position. A business doesn’t have the right to discriminate in who they will serve based on religious bias. Instead of protecting their religious rights, what they do is violate the customers religious freedom. That’s illegal. If they can’t in good conscience do business that way, they shouldn’t be in business to the public. -kia”
    Hope this clarifies for some people that businesses don’t have a right to discriminate based in religion or what they perceive might be the personal life preferences or lifestyles of their clients. Your can’t use religion to discriminate anymore than people should be able to discriminate against you because of your religion or lack of a religion. It’s bigotry plain and simple. Stop it and stop excusing it, and pretending it’s just about legal and constitutional issues when it’s really about your personal religious objection to someone else’s personal life. -Kia


Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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