Tag Archives: cake
One element to this story (and others like it) that continues to intrigue me is that the customers could have gone to any other cake shop to get their cake. Do they really want to force someone to make a cake for their event under threat of government penalty? Will we next begin forcing artists to paint? Or forcing musicians to sing? What would be the difference between forcing a musician to write and sing a song for your same-sex wedding and forcing a baker to bake a cake? If one can be done, can’t the other?
Those words come from Daniel McArthur, general manager of Ashers Baking Company, as he describes what it is like to have the government demand he and his family of Christians make a cake with a message that violates their religious beliefs.
It all started when a man asked for a cake with the words “support gay marriage” on it. McArthur and the people at Ashers refused to make it citing their religious beliefs. A legal battle ensued and the government sided with the customer saying that Ashers had violated the Equality Act and “discriminated” against the man. Ashers was fined $765 for “injury to feelings” and told to make the cake.
By the way, this all happened in Norther Ireland where gay marriage is illegal.
When a Christian person refuses service to a gay person it is all over the news. Every news outlet in the country carries the story and wags their head at the “shameful” treatment of the poor gay people. By the end of the day everyone has seen the story and knows the basic details of how this innocent gay person (or couple) has been terribly mistreated by the awful Christian person (or couple).
Instances of overblown media attention include the case of the baker in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding; the florist in Washington that refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding; and the printer that refused to print t-shirts for a gay-pride parade. (Just for good measure let’s throw in the pizza shop that refused to provide pizza for a gay wedding.)
In each of these accounts a Christian business owner is exercising his or her right to live and do business according to their faith. They are refusing to provide service – not because they hate the gay people – but because they do not want to show support for gay marriage, something their faith will not allow.
But, have you ever heard the mainstream media (MSM) report on the large amount of support these Christians received from the gay community for doing business according to their faith?
Why is one baker allowed to discriminate but another is not? That’s the question being asked after two separate – but related incidents involving cake and convictions.
In one incident Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a cake for a gay wedding because he said doing so would violate his religious convictions. Phillips sees his business as an extension of his faith, which means participating in a gay wedding by creating a work of art would violate that faith.
Unfortunately, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission disagreed with Phillips and charged him with discrimination under Colorado’s Human Rights Act. He was found guilty and threatened with fines and imprisonment if he continued such practices at his bakery.
In fact, Phillips was ordered to go “reeducation” along with his entire staff and will be monitored to ensure such an incident doesn’t happen again. Does this sound like America – the home of the free – or more like a communist country?
In light of this disturbing account, Bill Jack, just a guy wanting to make a point, asked three different bakeries to make him two separate cakes. Todd Starnes explains the cakes Jack wanted:
I cannot explain the absolute hypocrisy among the liberal media and politicians concerning Christians and wedding cakes any better than this video illustrates. A Christian bakery declines to serve a gay wedding and LGBT activist and media heads explode with every derogatory name and insinuation possible. But, if a Muslim baker refuses…not a peep. The quiet is deafening. Why?
Well, my very uneducated theory is simply that Muslims are a media darling and Christians aren’t. Besides, no one is afraid Christians will come blow them up. That may sound rude but it’s also the truth. While Christians around the world seek peace and try to serve others with acts of compassion, many Muslims are beheading or blowing up people that don’t agree with them. What other possible explanation could there be for ignoring and excusing a “religion” that declares homosexuals should die (and then kills them)?
Watch the video and be enlightened about the culture we face as people of faith. If the video doesn’t appear automatically, please refresh your browser.
I don’t even want to talk about a person calling himself a “Christian” wanting a cake with the words “God hates gays” on it; and what the cake was for. I’m angry at the fact that such a person exists and the damage to the Gospel said person is doing. The fact, however, that the cake shop refused to print the message is another story entirely. That is something we need to talk about.
Azucar Bakery in Denver, CO. was asked to print the cake for a man named Bill Jack. Jack also requested the cake to be in the shape of a Bible with an image of two men holding hands with a big X through them. The bakery refused to comply with the request saying the message was “discriminatory, and hateful.”
Who! Wait a minute. I thought business owners had no rights to refuse such requests based on their personal views. I thought “discriminating” against customers because of a business owners core convictions and beliefs was no frowned upon and illegal. Isn’t the idea that business owners are not allowed to refuse such requests at the heart of the Masterpiece Cake Shop story and Jack Phillips, the owner?
Gay people want Christians to bake cakes celebrating their same-sex weddings. Christians want the right to respectfully decline in order to adhere to their religious convictions. Gay people want to sue Christians for refusing saying that it is “discriminatory,” and that business owners should not be allowed to refuse any customers.
Now, what happens when a gay bakery is asked to bake a cake celebrating traditional marriage?
Such a scenario, until now, has been nothing but speculation. Many of us have wondered out loud about this scenario saying that we suspect a gay baker would refuse and the story would be ignored. To this point the tolerance often demanded by many homosexuals is rarely extended to others. The double standards many activists employ is hard to fathom.
Theodore Shoebat decided to turn the tables and see what would happen if he asked gay bakers to bake him a cake with the message “Gay Marriage is Wrong” on it. The videos that follow chronicle his encounters with 13 gay bakers. To say the least, the tolerance many homosexuals demand is not afforded to Shoebat in his request. He writes of his experience:
Laugh all you want. Call me an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist, but what is happening right now in America is nothing short of the redefinition of the Constitution. The new definition includes re-education that would make any socialist or communist proud.
I can only describe the case of Jack Phillips, a baker in Colorado, as jaw-dropping and shocking. Every time I read another account of what is happening to him I shake my head and wonder what America is going to look like in 10 years.
In case you aren’t familiar with Jack’s story, here’s a quick brief. Jack Phillips owns a bakery in Colorado. He has been doing business for 20 years and is highly respected for his artwork in deliciousness. A homosexual couple came in to his shop in 2012 and wanted a cake to celebrate their same-sex union. Jack told them he would be glad to do just about anything else, but that he could not lend his talent and services to celebrate their ceremony. They sued.
A local judge and then the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found Jack guilty of sexual orientation discrimination. But as Jack has said, he isn’t discriminating against anyone:
More stories are cropping up in the news about homosexual couples being denied service from Christian business owners. If you’ve not read about the photographer in New Mexico, florist in Washington, or baker in Colorado, you can do so here. Big names have shared their thoughts on the issue in light of the religious freedom bill vetoed in Arizona.
By now I should be used to reading these stories. Despite that fact I am genuinely shocked by the response of one homosexual couple when they were turned down by a baker in Indiana.
The story goes like this. The couple wanted to celebrate their relationship in April and called 111 Cakery to order a cake for their occasion. They were told by the owner that they could not get a cake because doing so would violate his religious convictions.
At this point we should be hearing about the couple getting mad, hiring a lawyer, alerting the press, and suing the baker. And though a social media firestorm happened over the weekend as a result of the incident, the couple’s response is beautifully shocking. They said:
Note: This article is a follow up to yesterday’s post in which I discussed the article by Kirsten Powers and responses to her article.
Predictably, the pending law in Arizona that would allow businesses to refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious convictions has stirred up controversy around the nation. Proponents of the legislation say it is needed to ensure the religious and conscience rights of Christian business owners are protected from government coercion and mandate. Opponents say the bills are just an excuse for people to discriminate.
What was not predictable in this discussion was how divided Christians themselves would be on the issue. Some Christians are saying no one should have the right to refuse service – not even Christians, and not even when rendering service would violate a person’s convictions. Other Christians are baffled by that position and reiterate that the government should not be allowed to force a person to violate his or her deeply held religious convictions. Dr. Albert Mohler recently said that this was “perhaps the strangest and most disappointing dimension of the current controversy.”