NOM BLOG

Video: Iowa Christian Politely Refuses to Bake Cake for SS Ceremony Prompting Couple to Consider Filing Complaint

 

Local KCCI 8 in Des Moines, Iowa reports:

An excerpt from the news report:

"They came in and she introduced herself, and I said, 'Is this your sister?' (She said,) 'No, this is my partner.' I said, 'OK,' and I asked them to sit down and I said, 'We need to talk,'" said Victoria Childress, who runs her cake baking business from home. "I said, 'I'll tell you I'm a Christian, and I do have convictions.' And I said, 'I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not going to be able to do your cake."

"I didn't do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and it's not to discriminate against them. It's not so much to do with them, it's to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for," Childress said.

"They thanked me for being honest with them, and they were very pleasant. I did not belittle them, speak rudely to them. There were no condescending remarks made, nothing," Childress said.

47 Comments

  1. mick32
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    what if she had said " I'm sorry, I'm a christian and I cant bake a cake for N******.

    Same thing......and I don't care how you want to rationalize it......with your religion.

  2. TC Matthews
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    "what if she had said " I'm sorry, I'm a christian and I cant bake a cake for N******."

    Gay isn't race. If she'd said, I don't want to bake cakes for terrorists, that would be something else wouldn't it? Having ssa doesn't make you a different race of people, it makes you human. We all have frailties. I wouldn't ask her to support actions she was morally opposed to. It's the choices you make with your ssa that she disagrees with, not ssa.

  3. Davide
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    brava

  4. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    No one should be coerced to act against their religious convictions, including supporting a same-sex ceremony. No one's "right" to take offense is more important than the right to religious freedom, and its expression, especially where neither life, liberty, nor health is at stake.

  5. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    I agree with TC. Has anyone seen the blog post by United Families International, titled "Does Same-Sex Behavior Meet the Criteria of a Civil Rights Issue?"

    Short answer: No. Same sex behavior (of which getting married is a behavior) is neither immutable nor unchangeable. It does not meet the standard of a civil rights issue.

    link here:

    http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/myth-buster-monday-does-same-sex-behavior-meet-the-criteria-of-a-civil-rights-issue/

  6. Grace
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Well let's not mention race then. What if she'd refused on the grounds that a Christian was marrying a Muslim? Or a mixed race marriage (that's a choice, after all).

  7. leo
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Grace there are good reason to refuse to promote SSM, if the business finds a good reason to give service to a Muslim, thwn so be it! Allow the business to establsh the reason. In the UNITED STATE, we believe in freedom of religion, protection of their beliefs

  8. TC Matthews
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Grace, your whole comment is based on race. If she refused service to a child molester, you'd probably support her. Just because your views don't align with hers on every point doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to conscience with regard to those views.

  9. Grace
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Religion isn't race, TC. It's a choice.

  10. TC Matthews
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Grace, you've skipped the point. Obtuse much?

  11. Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Being a straight person, I love being called that, Im also a Christian and that too is straight. I follow the narrow straight road and so does this business owener and I applaude her decision to stand by her convictions.
    You are not born homosexual. I know that being straight I dont know all there is about the homosexual lifestyle but I have read many stories from http://www.exodusinternational.org and sites like http://www.sbministries.org/members/sbm and NARTH etc and I hear there desires to leave that lifestyle and the joy when they finally break free and that leads me to know that she did the right thing! And Im proud of her!

  12. Kathy Biederbeck
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    It is not against the law to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The baker is a business woman and showed a lot of class by explaining to the couple why she couldn't bake their cake. It is also not against the law to have religious convictions. Taking a moral stand against a lifestyle you disagree with, even when it might be unpopular or politically incorrect, should not be applauded.

  13. Tim
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Ever seen the message on the wall of business establishments: "We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone"? Their business, they have the right to refuse service... Go somewhere else... End of story.

  14. Grace
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Sorry TC, I just found your comment too ridiculous to engage with. Did you seriously just compare two loving, consenting adults in a relationship to child molestation? Because I think you did. And I think that's a disgusting thing to do. Personally, you know. No offence. We just disagree I suppose.

  15. Grace
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Out of curiousity, would you support her if she refused service to a straight couple because the bride-to-be wasn't a virgin? Would you support a constitutional amendment that mandated that that bride-to-be should be stoned to death? That's what the bible says on the matter after all.

  16. Joseph
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Grace, I will address your second question first. Supporters of traditional marriage would not support a constitutional amendment that mandated any kind of religious observance, for that is against the principle of freedom of religion, on which the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance is based.

    As to your first question, how would she know if the bride-to-be wasn't a virgin? There is a deeper question here, but I don't think you have it formulated quite correctly.

    The difference between the choice to engage in same sex sexual intercourse is not very different from the choice to engage in consensual sexual intercourse with a minor. There are many situations in which what is legal is not moral, and most people would agree with the immorality of this situation: In Pennsylvania, it is perfectly legal for a 45 year-old man to have consensual sex with a 16 year-old. Would you have a problem with a hotel owner who refuses to give a room to this couple?

    This is a question of freedom to act by your conscience. This baker could not, in good conscience, approve of a same-sex wedding, and so refused to bake a cake for them. No harm done. What would cause harm? This woman being forced to pay damages for her refusal to give up her moral convictions. There are no rights being infringed here but hers.

  17. Marilyn
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    My pastor would not marry my husband and I because he was divorced. It's biblical and those were his convictions. Ultimately we are the ones who answer to God for our actions and we have no right to condemn her for her convictions.

  18. Paul
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Was Victoria Childress the only cake maker around? I seriously doubt it....What is the problem?Why would this lesbian couple want to do business with Miss Childress knowing her beliefs anyway.
    Was it so difficult to locate another cake maker who would appreciate their business?
    Just as customers can choose who they want to business with, business owners should have the right to do business with whomever they want to.

  19. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Grace,

    :You are ridiculous:(

  20. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    It comes down to respect.

    Gay;activists do NOT respect those who disagree with
    them!

  21. Grace
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Yeah P. Edward, and I've been likened to pedophiles and people who practise bestiality - by a Presidential candidate - because of who I love. Respect? How about you first?

  22. Randy
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    It's time Christian business owners get smart about the way they handle these issues regarding their convictions. If she would have told them, "I can't do your cake" without an explanation, (which she is not obligated to give) then they have no legal "leg" to stand on. A business owner can refuse service to anyone without reason. Just as they can fire anyone without reason. If, as she said, "it's to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for," then keep it to yourself and leave the explanation out... you keep in check with your convictions and they move on to a baker that will comply... without a lawsuit.

  23. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    Grace,

    Who said anything about Pedophiles?

    YOU have a problem discriminating against anyone who disagrees with you!

  24. Grace
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    TC Mathews did, a few comments up. And excuse me, how am I discriminating against you?

  25. MG
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Bottom line: She can decide to provide her services or not provide her services to whomever she wants, for whatever reason she wants. If she wants to turn down business, that's her business. Nobody else's. What's to complain about? There are other bakers who might be happy to bake their cake.

  26. Louis E.
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    The bar needs to be set higher before an anti-discrimination law is allowed to infringe the right of freedom of association.Businesses have a right to refuse service to customers,which after all is money out of their own pockets.

  27. Juston
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Do you feel the business owner should be forced to do something she doesn't want to, or the same sex couple be forced to find another baker? If you believe that same sex attraction is acceptable and a person should not CHOOSE to bridle an attraction, you will side against the baker. Acting on same sex attraction is a choice, skin color is not. There are former homosexuals, but not a lot, if any, people who change their skin color. Actions are choices.

  28. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Grace said, "..Or a mixed race marriage..." right after agreeing that race was a non-issue, followed by several straw man arguments.

    Rather revealing.

  29. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Grace, can you please explain to us what the eligibility requirements for marriage are now, what you think they should be, and why? Thanks!

  30. rubo
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for standing up for your values. They want us to stand up for their values but don't allow Christians to stand up for ours. We should all be allowed to live by our Christian values as others are allowed to live without them.

  31. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Grace,

    But you are discriminating against me because I am not gay and I have religious convictions that you don't.

  32. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    This lady is following her conscience. She has every right in the world to do so.

  33. Pat
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    "Eligibility requirements"? I didn't think marriage was a contest, I thought it was a committed union between two people in love. Often recognized legally and/or in a religious institution.

  34. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    "Eligibility requirements"? I didn't think marriage was a contest"

    Eligibility: as in the legal requirements one needs to meet in order to be eligible to receive a marriage license. Another synonym would be "qualifications."

    If one looks at a marriage license application, one will see eligibility requirements such as: age of consent, citizenship or equivalent legal status to be in the country, and sex (except in states where marriage is a neutered union). You'll never find a requirement for: love (nor any emotion), or sexual identity. Those are not at issue in eligibility for marriage.

    "I thought it was a committed union between two people in love.

    Ask yourself, "Does the govt. license and regulate love? And, "Are all same-sex loving relationships legally considered marriage? Even a SSM?" Hint--no. Ask yourself, "Are there any opposite-sexed relationships which do not qualify for a marriage license?" Answer--yes. What does sexual orientation have to do with qualifying for a marriage license?

  35. Leo
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Childress-WE THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP FOR YOUR CONVICTIONS, YOUR SHOW OF STRENGTH IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED...

    LEO

  36. Louis E.
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Pat,marriage exists to unite males to females,or it serves no useful purpose at all.

  37. Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuals are not a protected class under law. BUT the only permanent safety is a constitutional marriage amendment. It can not get through Congress as it is composed today. It must come from the states. The call for a convention must explicitly state that the convention is to consider this amendment and this amendment only.

  38. Bryan
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    What if a white supremacist group wanted her to make a cake for some special gathering they were having? They are constitutionally protected in that they have a right to assemble and associate with each other and freedom of speech. Should she be compelled to make a cake for Neo Nazis or the KKK?

    At some point, you have to allow people to follow the dictates of their conscience without forcing them to choose between that and owning a business. There are scores of bakers that will be glad to serve the gay marriage market. Support them and tell others about their gay-friendly business practices. Even tell other gay people to not patronize this woman's baking business because of her views? But to try and bring the force of the state down on her? That's hardly a liberal outlook.

  39. Bryan
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Put another way, what if a gay-friendly baker was asked to do a cake for a party being held by the National Organization for Marriage? Being in favor of marriage rights for gay people, the thought of having to make a cake for an organization he or she found offensive or that went against their own personal convictions would be terrible. Would you propose that the baker be forced to provide the cake, or that the baker have the right to turn down their business and NOM find another baker for their party?

    I propose it should be the latter. NOM has no right to force a gay or gay-friendly baker to make a cake honoring an organization they personally oppose. Similarly, this gay couple needs to move on and find a baker who will take their money and do the cake gladly.

  40. Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Even in CA the public voted against SSM. In states where it is possible a ballot initiative should be used to ask the legislature to call for a Marriage amendment convention. Our constituency should put on the pressure. We have much more numerical power on the phone,in mail, in person lobbying and inrally at the state capitol events. To gain even more support we need to point out that the REAL issue is KIDS RIGHTS (to have at least a chance to have a home that approximates having a dad & mom) , not the rights of adults to do what they want to do.

  41. Louis E.
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Les Coomer,for the umpteenth time...
    THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION'S AGENDA TO BE LIMITED.The movement to call a CC on a balanced budget amendment fizzled once it was made clear that language attempting to limit the CC's agenda would be struck down in the courts.

  42. Ash
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    This situation has me thinking about when HRC pressured that law firm to drop its defense of DOMA. Only in the minds of SSMers are law firms obligated to dump clients, and private businesses obligated to provide wedding cake services.

    @Bryan, I love your NOM and KKK examples. Excellent.

  43. Jane Newsham
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    How about seeing in all other people the image of God, of taking such a wonderful opportunity to extend grace to people you may not agree with, by baking the most delicious cake anyone has ever baked for a wedding, of seeing Jesus in them and of being Jesus to them in order that God might be honoured and his Kingdom extended. Just saying...
    Read Philip Yancey' s book 'What's so Amazing about Grace?' for inspiration.

  44. TC Matthews
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Jane, if she'd wanted to, she would have. That's not the point. The point is that she chose NOT to provide that service, and she has every right to do so, whether you agree or not.

  45. Posted November 20, 2011 at 2:03 am | Permalink

    "Put another way, what if a gay-friendly baker was asked to do a cake for a party being held by the National Organization for Marriage?"

    It's very different, I bet a gay baker would jump at the chance to bake NOM a cake, in order to spit in it! No way could they resist the temptation. Remember, if you go to a NOM event, bring your own cake!

  46. Posted November 20, 2011 at 2:09 am | Permalink

    "The point is that she chose NOT to provide that service, and she has every right to do so, whether you agree or not."

    There are some choices that people don't have a right to make, like there is no right to choose not to serve blacks or jews, while serving everyone else. Society arrived at that law, and society has a right to arrive at that law, independently of other laws.

  47. bman
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Grace->Well let's not mention race then. What if she'd refused on the grounds that a Christian was marrying a Muslim? Or a mixed race marriage (that's a choice, after all).

    A major difference is that society already regards conscientious religious objection to participation in SSM ceremonies as reasonable.

    We see it in SSM laws that exempt churches from performing gay marriages, for example.

    While the exemptions in SSM laws may not extend to individuals per se, they still prove that society recognizes SSM as an area where its reasonable to have a conscientious objection.

    Since its reasonable to have a conscientious objection regarding ssm, gays should move the ssm ceremony elsewhere to respect freedom of conscience of others.

    We live in a society that respects freedom of conscience and which grants reasonable accommodation to religious beliefs if it can be made.

    That should apply here as well.

One Trackback

  1. [...] Tuesday KCCI 8 Des Moines interviewed Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers, who said they were “shocked” when a local wedding cake [...]