NOM BLOG

Video: Oregon Baker Under Attack for Refusing to Bake S-S Wedding Cake

 

The owner cites his biblical understanding of marriage in the interview, while the Department of Justice is examining the allegations made against him by the woman who was refused a cake:

From the segment voiceover:

What Aaron and his wife want to make clear is that he don't hate homosexuals, in fact, quite the opposite: "I have no problem with them I have customers who come in almost on a weekly basis who are homosexual. I have no problem, they can buy my stuff I sell stuff I talk with them I mean it's fine." What's not fine, according to Aaron, is a marriage between people of the same sex. He says he'll always stand by that conviction. "I'd rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believed in then to see him bow down because one person complained."

62 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    This story makes it look like the mother and daughter are getting pseudo-married. I guess that's the next step. The DOJ is involved? I thought they were too busy giving guns to drug cartels.

    But seriously, the First Amendment is sacrosanct. Or at least it should be.

  2. Chris
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    http://sweetcakesweb.com/

    The cake store advertises itself as "cakes for all occasions" not "All occasions but gay marriages". Firstly they are falsely advertising, and secondly they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, as prohibited by Oregon Law.

    Perhaps they should say "All occasions except gay marriages" on their website and at least be upfront about it

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Yet another example of how SS"M" doesn't affect anybody.

  4. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    To SS"M" advocates, Barb, it is homosexuality that is sacrosanct.

  5. zack
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    @chris

    They are operating within the parameters of the First Amendment. They are allowed to run a business according to their beliefs. If the losses otherwise the law is rock and indirect conflict with the First Amendment which protects religious liberty

  6. zack
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Typo: if the law says otherwise then the low is wrong*

  7. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    It says "for all occasions...:; not "for every occasion..."

    SSM is illegal in Oregon. So the way it reads the store owner will be breaking the law no matter what he does; which is why he might as well turn to his 1st Amendment gaurantee of the right to conscience and free exercise thereof.

  8. CRSmith
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    This is outrageous. If the gays put this poor man out of business, how is he going to take care of his family? This whole gay marriage thing causes nothing but problems.

  9. Chris
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Also listed is "for any occasion".

    Is that good enough, Randy E. King?

    Why can't they own their discrimination and advertise it?

  10. Eric S
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    One small point.... Oregon does not permit same sex marriage.

    This i important because it shows that the fundamental issue present in these type of scenarios are anti-discrimination laws, not gay marriage laws.

    If these incidents of refusal to serve gay couples are happening in states without gay marriage (aka Oregon, New Mexico and New Jersey) then its a false narrative to use it these incidents against the legalization of gay marriage. These issues will arise regardless and will be dealt with separately from the issue of whether the state or federal government recognizes gay couples with the title marriage.

  11. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Eric, why don't you just admit that you don't want these religious liberty threats to be advertized because you know it would make SS"M" less likely to be legalized under the lie that it won't effect anyone?

  12. Eric S
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Actually Son of Adam, i support the right of this baker to refuse his services to whoever he wants. I think its outrageous the government can force him to offer his services to anyone he doesn't wish to.

    However, I do support gay marriage and think it should be recognized as equal by both federal and state governments.

    Anti-Discrimination laws and gay marriage are two separate issues and should be treated as such.

  13. Sammy
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    Same sex marriage is legal in every state. Any clergy person whose church solemnizes same sex unions is free to do so in any state. Some states just fail to recognize those marriages.

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    "Anti-Discrimination laws and gay marriage are two separate issues and should be treated as such."

    Except they are not, Eric. When the government legalizes SS"M", they are sponsoring the moral standards of a wealthy and politically influential special interest group who will use the power of the government to penalize anyone who is not in step with their views.

    I think we can agree that the government should not ostracize or penalize anyone for their faith. That is why it is crucial to our constitutional rights that marriage be legally defined as a man and a woman. This is because no faith has any issue with a man and a woman marrying. Therefore, the government will not be called out to punish anybody in any way for not abiding with a legal definition of marriage if the legal definition is something all faiths have in common.

    That way, there will be no religious liberty conflicts and the 1st amendment will be respected.

  15. Bobby
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    SofA - Should we not ostracize jihadists for their faith and actions taken again infidels that result from their faith? What about faiths that believe women are not equal to men and constitute property for men. Should our civil laws accommodate these beliefs? There is no gay marriage in Oregon. The bakery owner says he has no problems with baking goods that ultimately nourish those wicked gays. He is merely looking for attention by refusing to bake a cake for this client.

  16. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Bobby, comparing natural marriage to terrorism and the oppression of women is apples and oranges, not to mention ridiculous and hateful. And I wouldn't presume to be able to read the bakery owner's mind either. He made it perfectly clear that he was willing to serve gays. He just didn't want to support or celebrate events that conflicts with his moral and religious convictions, which is his constitutional right.

  17. David
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Lovely message this bakery posted on their Facebook page.

    https://www.examiner.com/article/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-posts-racist-rant-on-facebook

  18. Ash
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    When people say, indignantly, that there are so many states where they can be fired "just for being gay," what they are actually mad about is that there are a certain number of states where they can't sue bakers and photographers who refuse to participate in same-sex ceremonies.

    We've seen so many of these stories, but this one is unique in that the Justice Department is getting involved. The question becomes, is sexual orientation discrimination the refusal to provide services for events that are *associated* with certain groups; or is it what people traditionally think about such discrimination (i.e. asking someone when they come in the store if they're gay and then telling them to leave the store if they are)? Which brings up the classic comparison between refusing to do photographs for Black people in general versus refusing to photograph a Nation of Islam event, which is associated with some Black people.

    Alas, the confusion that arises when you give special protections to a characteristic that manifests in the form of behavior (sexual orientation).

  19. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    "Also listed is "for any occasion""

    "Any" is not equal to "Every." I know some are under the impression that words can mean whatever you want them to mean, but that will never fly in a court of law - unless it is a corrupt court looking to legislate via judicial fiat.

  20. Bobby
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    SofA - I don't know how you managed to misread my post. I have nothing against what you call "natural marriage" I take issue with those who say it must be exclusive. I pointed out there will always be restrictions on one's freedom to follow through on one's religious beliefs when such actions will infringe on someone else's freedom and constituional rights. As for terrorism, does your self-hatred prevent you from criticizing the NOMer who refers to those who believe in equality as "marriage terrorists"?

  21. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Bobby - The first amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion "and the free exercise thereof." Killing people for their faith violates that right just like oppressing women violates the 19th amendment. And just like redefining marriage violates a person's right to freely exercise his religious beliefs.

    Also, I think its best that you ignore the "marriage terrorist" guy. I do.

  22. Timothy
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    One compromise could have been that he would bake the cake, decorate it, and the couple could take it home and put whatever else they wanted on it.

  23. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Or that baker could have referred them to some other baker and the couple could have taken their business elsewhere like adults.

  24. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    "Or that baker could have referred them to some other baker..."

    Where's the easy money in doing that?

  25. zack
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    @Son of Adam

    "Or that baker could have referred them to some other baker and the couple could have taken their business elsewhere like adults."

    That makes too much sense and would send a signal that freedom means being able to vote with your wallet...not forcing people to comply with your world view.

  26. John B.
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    From their own website, and I'm quoting them VERBATIM here: "Are you looking for a wedding cake or for ANY occasion?" "We do cakes for all occasions." "Cake is what makes the day special whatever you are celebrating, birthday, baby shower, wedding, bridal shower, anniversary, any and all holidays, or just having a special dinner with special people." "!!!!!Remember we do cakes for any occasion!!!"

    So I guess they were lying? If providing a cake for a same-sex wedding/civil union/domestic partnership is something they simply will not do, why not just state that up front? Anything else--and certainly what they state on their website--is just false advertising.

    And if this is some kind of civil right, should they (or anybody else) have the right to turn away interracial couples? Mormons? Catholics? As a business owner, can I refuse to provide any and all service to Christians because I don't approve of their religious beliefs?

  27. Forrest
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    More good people attacked by the self-professed paragons of "tolerance". Shocker!!
    Their bullying tactics will not work. Wallowing in their own status as a victim, whether real or imagined, does not promote open mindedness or tolerance.

  28. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Equating what you do with who you are is the calling card of your A-typical elitist persona.

    Denying service to sexual deviants is no worse than denying service to a drug addict, alcoholic, a felon, or a stray dog.

    If you keep feeding them they will never go away.

  29. John B.
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    How do you know what any same-sex couple does, Randy? Unless you're peeking in their windows, for all you know they are perfectly chaste. Maybe you should extend the courtesy that most of us extend to our families, friends, neighbors and co-workers by not concerning ourselves with what they do behind closed doors.

  30. Steve
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    The baker should rot in prison.

  31. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    Johnny B.; Do you mean to tell these good people that you do not know what it is these miscreants do that they claim makes them a species of man unto themselves?

    So now all you want is for everybody to acknowledge these relationships while simultaneously not concerning themselves with them?

    Which is it; do you want public recognition, or don't you?

  32. Bobby
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    SofA - Discriminating against people for who they love violates the 14th amendment rights of those people. Discrimination is wrong and against the law whether based on sex, race, creed or sexual orientation.

  33. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Bobby,

    Which part of the 14th says you have to equate depravity with morality; I missed that part.

  34. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    The "privileges or immunities" mentioned in the 14th amendment are not defined as anything anyone arbitrarily declares, Bobby. If fundamentalist mormons proclaim that marrying as many women as each man wants is a privilege and immunity, does the government have to honor that? Or are they not wealthy or politically influential enough as a special interest group for their feelings to matter?

  35. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2013 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    When that bakery, or any other business, say they cater to any occasion, they of course mean within reason - that is, in a way that does not violate the law and/or being coerced into compromising their faith. That goes without saying for any reasonable person.

  36. Bobby
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    Randy E - I know you can't seem to get sex out of your mind but I was referring to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which does not make moral judgments on people due to their sex, race or sexual orientation. Having a homosexual orientation is not depravity in the eyes of the law. If that disappoints you may find Saudi Arabia to be a better place for you to live. SofA - You are still saying the bakery is effectvely free to put a sign on the door saying we don't serve gays as that is within reason. When the government limits marriage to 2 persons no one is discriminated against just as the bakery is not discriminating against anyone if it limits sales of cupcakes to 2 per person as long as everyone is limited to 2.

  37. Victoria
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 1:00 am | Permalink

    This baker needs to fight and fight and fight! He should never have to violate his religious beliefs for anyone. Did this couple help him to set up his business? Do they help him to pay his bills? He can bake a cake for whomever he wants and he can refuse to bake a cake if for whomever he wishes to turn away. This is what comes of allowing gay "marriage". The LGBT thugs start ruining moral people's lives and they get away with it.

  38. Son of Adam
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 4:30 am | Permalink

    If the Equal Protection Clause does not make judgements on people doe to their sex or race, Bobby, then why was it necessary to pass the 15th and the 19th amendments granting blacks and women the right to vote? Seems kind of redundant if those things were already covered in the 14th amendment, doesn't it?

    Like I said, immunities and privileges are not anything anyone arbitrarily declares, so until an amendment is passed declaring marriage to be a genderless institution, then marriage redefinition is not covered by the 14th amendment.

    Lastly, defining marriage between a man and a woman is not discriminatory in that it forms a biological unit necessary for procreation and raising children with a mother and father. And biology works the same way regardless of the sexual desires of the participants. Marriage, after all, is about the best interests of children, not about promoting the sexual proclivities of adults.

  39. Randy E King
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Bobby,

    You are the one that injected sex into the discussion; as well as you should.

    Nowhere in the 14th does it state that the depravity you pimp as moral must be deemed moral. What the 14th states is that you cannot be denied equal treatment WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

    A duly constituted law that acknowledges the nature of your depravity is not only costitutionaly permissible it also happens to be moral and just.

    Now; until you folks change the definitions of the words Depravity, Morality, Corrupt, Selfish, Decadent, Miscreant, Pdfvert, and the like I will address you and your ilk accordingly.

  40. zack
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    @John B

    "If providing a cake for a same-sex wedding/civil union/domestic partnership is something they simply will not do, why not just state that up front? Anything else--and certainly what they state on their website--is just false advertising. "

    To the average person who exercises common sense, it is obvious the advertisement clearly means male/female marriages. the person in question obviously wanted to start a controversy where there was none. If she was so adamant about getting a cake for a same-sex wedding, then she would have gone to a bakery that was more in line with her world view. But no instead she wants to waste everyones time with her insatiable whining. I hope she feels proud of herself knowing that she forced someone to bake her a cake when there were plenty of other businesses who could have done it.

  41. Ash
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the laugh, David. SSMers know that the term "homophobia" doesn't carry much weight with the public, and that many on both sides of this debate feel that a bakery should be able to decline certain events of their choosing, so someone hacks the bakery's page, or creates a fake screencap, to try and tie the owners to racism.

    Priceless.

  42. Spray
    Posted February 6, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
      You're right, Ash. You're not homophobic. You're a heterosupremacist.
  43. John B.
    Posted February 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Still searching for where Bobby "injected sex into the discussion", either before or after Randy's "sexual deviants" comment.

  44. Chairm
    Posted February 8, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Why would the complainers target this bakery? It is not about a cake.

    SSMers want their cake and eat it too. They demand for themselves what they deny others. And for that they have no justification whatsoever.

  45. Posted February 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Come on, people. NOBODY is treading on this baker's right to freely exercise his religion, nor his right to freely express his opinion. The point in question is how he operates a business of public accommodation. A business open to the public must be exactly that.

    The baker would have done better to simply let his patron know that whatever she needed the cake for, neither he nor the State of Oregon would recognize it as marriage - an opinion he is fully entitled to hold and express.

  46. Posted February 10, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    And for those of you defending this baker, realize that you're lending equal advocacy to the racist baker who only chooses to serve white clients. Any of y'all want to defend that position, let's hear it!

  47. Posted February 10, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Have you all seen the latest from "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" ... from their facebook page?

    F**k the N**gers, Sp*cs, whores, sodimites, fat b**ches, ugly c**ts, hypocritical hoes and overweight hippos on our feed. We try so hard to bake cakes and all you ungrateful bullies hate on me and my beautiful family after these articles were written, shame on you! If you don't like our busineess then don't stop by! More cake for our fellow Christians!

    So according to the virtuous baker, one cannot be overweight and Christian? Nor can one be of African descent, nor can one be hispanic ... and Christian? And apparently one mustn't be physically unattractive?

    I'd say any "sweet cakes" business who doesn't want overweight clients has a short future ahead of him!

  48. Chairm
    Posted February 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    The racist analogue is the SSM advocate.

  49. Posted February 10, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Chairm writes:

    The racist analogue is the SSM advocate.

    Fill in that blank, pal. Advocates for marriage equality are like racists because they do what? Pursuing equal rights and responsibility is not analogous to racism, pops.

  50. Chairm
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    They, not I, assert that Gay is a race-like identity. They, not equality, make their gay emphasis the basis for the special status they demand for SSM. They, not the 14th, demands different treatment based on gay identity.

    The rest of the types of relationships that are not the union of husband and wife are ineligible for marital status (which is a special status) and group identity is not a trump card.

    But the SSM advocates demand that the race-like gay group identity is a trump card against ineligibility.In this they assert the supremacy of gay identity over and above similarly situated relationship types that are ineligible for special status.

    Each one-sex scenario is one-sex short of the marital relationship. Each is segregative by sex (man-only or female-only), and segregative by sexual attraction (male attraction or female attraction), and segregative bya race-like group identity.SSM advocates insist that this segregative relationship type merits special status BECAUSE it is segregative in the very ways that marriage is integrative.

    They say that inter-mixing group identities is undesirable and even unethical due to the purity of the race-like identity. They talke of inter-racial marriage but support racist-like special status for their favored type of relationship -- their gay emphasis is front and center.

    However, in truth, there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Men and women are not subspecies of humankind. Mixing the sexes is marital not segregative on the basis of sex and not segregative on the basis of sexual attraction. The union of husband and wife unites members of the one human race on the basis of male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction -- the basis of the SSM advocate's complaint. The SSM advocate insists on racist criteria to bring "inter-racial" marriage to mind; and then pushes a contradiction by taking an unreasoned stand against the integrative calling the marriage idea hateful and rascist-like. The SSM idea is pushed with the asserted supremacy of a rascist-like identity politics that would force upon all of society a special status based on a race-like group identity. The imposition of the SSM idea in place of the marriage idea is argued on the premise that the integrative must be treated as the moral equivalent of the segregative.

    The racscist analaogue is the SSM advocate for pursuing special status, and the superirotiy of, a race-like group identity. The advocates actually flee from being held morally accountable and so run away from responsibility for their supremacist identty politics.

    Kid.

  51. Chairm
    Posted February 11, 2013 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Comment in the que.

  52. Posted February 12, 2013 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Chairm,

    That was an interesting post about SSM, having absolutely no relevance to my comments about businesses being required by law to accommodate the public. Expecting to buy a cake at a place that sells cake is not an appeal for special rights. Silly.

  53. Chairm
    Posted February 12, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    The racist analogue was brought up someone -- you. But the SSM advocate is the racist analogue. Someone objected. You.

    But your comments concede the point: the supremacy of gay identity poltics is not merely an expectation about buying cakes. So now you backtrack and hope to pretend otherwise -- to have your cake and eat it.

    Can you say, silly? Yes you can.

  54. Posted February 12, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Objected, Chairm. Hardly. I asked you to explain how a lesbian buying a cake ... the subject at hand and about which folks here are posting ... is racist. You decided to change the subject. Weird.

  55. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 4:46 am | Permalink

    Search you interjected with the following:

    "Advocates for marriage equality are like racists because they do what? Pursuing equal rights and responsibility is not analogous to racism".

    You'd claim that they pursue equal rights when they actually demand favoritism. They do so on the basis of their claimed race-like identity group.

    Of all the types of relationships in the broad non-marriage category, none has a trump card that turns ineligibility into eligibility to marry.

    But the gay identity group? It claims a race-like identity is a trump card. And on that basis they attack the marriage idea and demand that the marriage law be revised (abused) for an openly non-marriage purpose.

    Now, are all members of the gay identity group onside with this pursuit of favoritism? No. But dissenters are not tolerated for they are deemed traitors of their race-like identity. The favorite targets for derision are those who form mixed-orientation marriages and are open about it. And, worse, the SSM idea would not really have the gay type of relationship treated as equal to what it actually is, no, for the demand is to treat it as what it is not. It is not marital.

    Sound argumentation that it is marital requires far more substance than the racist-like assertion of supremacy over marriage and much else. But SSMers do not depend on sound argumentation; they tie themselves into knots trying to use different standards to attack the marriage idea than they use to propound their SSM idea. It all comes down to the priority they demand society place on racist-like assertions on their part.

  56. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 4:55 am | Permalink

    Search, you showed up with the following comment (so don't try to pretend I changed topics):

    "Advocates for marriage equality are like racists because they do what? Pursuing equal rights and responsibility is not analogous to racism."

    I did not say that pursue of equal rights is analogous to racism.

    Indeed, the SSM campaign is not pursuing equal treatment but rather favoritism for the race-like gay identity group.

    Now, I do not think they are a race or even race-like, but the SSM campaign insists that they are. So you can place that at their doorstep, not mine.

    There is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Gay is not a subspecies of humankind. Indeed, sex difference is vital to the very notion of gay identity. Men and women are not subspecies of humankind, of course, so the race-like status that is claimed for the gay identity group is truly a pathetic attempt to mimic the racist criteria of white identity politics that took shape in white supremacy.

    Anyway, of the all the types of relationships that populate the broad non-marriage category, it is only the gay subset that demands that the claimed race-like identity is a trump card against ineligibility to marry.

    Marital status is a special status. So they demand special status based on a racist-like assertion of superiority -- over the rest of non-marriage and over marriage itself and over much else. For instance, they do not provide sound moral argumentation for what they assert to be true. That concedes quite a lot on the part of the SSM campaign's leading voices.

    No, the fallback position is actually their leading position: gay identity trumps equality, justice, and marriage. Weird, eh, how that echoes racist supremacy, too.

  57. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 4:55 am | Permalink

    couple of comments in the que.

  58. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 5:00 am | Permalink

    The law that places a priority on a racist-like agenda is hardly a just law.

    If white supremacists showed up and demand a white supremacist cake, the baker would be entitled to say, no, thanks, don't want your business.

    A so-called "SSM wedding cake" is a racist-like statement that the baker need not play a part in facilitating. He could, if he had no scruples, but this baker objected on moral grounds. And he was right to do so -- law or no law.

    A just law binds us morally. An unjust law does no such thing.

  59. Posted February 14, 2013 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Chairm writes:

    "the baker would be entitled to say, no, thanks, don't want your business."

    Perhaps thats what the law SHOULD say. But Oregon law prohibits discrimination based on a customer's sexual orientation. Whether it is a just law, and whether one is bound morally are interesting questions ... separate and apart from the question of whether on is bound legally.

  60. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    The discrimination, if anything, was discrimination between marriage and non-marriage. Society may justly discriminate between the two.

    You have now confirmed that, in your view, the complainers depend on force of law to make the baker submit to the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics.

    It is an unjust imposition and so is no law at all. See Martin Luther King.

  61. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Earlier, Search had said:

    "Advocates for marriage equality are like racists because they do what? Pursuing equal rights and responsibility is not analogous to racism".

    He asked and I answered on point.

    Further, they advocate for the SSM idea and against the marriage idea.

    They do not pursue equal rights in marriage law. They assert the supremacy of their self-claimed race-like identity group politics over and above marriage itself. They demand special treatment over and above the rest of the types of relationships that populate non-marriage. The SSM advocates are very open about all of that.

    Search said: "Expecting to buy a cake at a place that sells cake is not an appeal for special rights."

    You have conceded this is not merely about cake.

    The complaint is not an appeal but a demand for special treatment based on their race-like identity politics.

    The baker expects that society may justly discriminate between marriage and non-marriage and that he may justly discriminate between a wedding cake and the racist-like statement of an SSM cake.

    An unjust law is no law at all. See Martin Luther King.

  62. Chairm
    Posted February 14, 2013 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Whether or not one is legally bound is very much a question of whether or not one is bound by an unjust legal imposition.

    This is not about sexual orientation discrimination.

    Society may justly discriminate between marriage and non-marriage. The baker expected he can do likewise.

    The complainers feel that their race-like identity supersedes just discrimination; they favor unjust discrimination against the baker. They have made it clear, now, that the cake they demanded is a racist-like statement. It was just beneath the surface, or the icing, and now they want their cake and eat it, too.

    As do you.