Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

A story out of Colorado this week demonstrates what many of us have been feeling for a while. When it comes to laws dealing with “gay stuff”, there really is no law. Only the preferences of the person making the decision.

You may have heard a story about Jack Phillips, a Denver baker who runs Masterpiece Cakeshop. After declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) found him in violation of state law and ordered him to undergo sensitivity training. They also ordered him to file quarterly reports with the state to see if he has turned away customers based on sexual orientation.

But there’s another case you may not have heard about.

In an apparent response to the Masterpiece Cakeshop dust up, a man named William Jack from Castle Rock, Colorado approached three bakeries (Azucar Bakery, Gateaux, and Le Bakery Sensual) and asked them to bake cakes critical of same-sex marriage.

In the case of Azucar Bakery, he requested a cake with two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red “X” over the image. The cake was also to include three statements “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7”, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.”

To no one’s surprise, they declined.

In response, Mr. Jack filed his own complaint with the CCRC claiming that their refusal to bake the cake communicating his Christian opposition to homosexuality was discrimination based on creed; specifically his Christian faith.

Denying the charge of discrimination, the bakery claimed it refused to bake the cake because of the message not because of the religion of the person requesting it. They considered the message to be “discriminatory”.

In the end, the CCRC agreed with the bakery and concluded the refusal to bake the cake requested was not discrimination based on creed for three reasons.

First, they said the refusal was not because the person requesting it was a Christian but because the cake “included derogatory language and imagery.”

Second, they cited the fact that they had served Christians before as evidence that they don’t discriminate on the basis of creed.

Third, the bakery would also refuse to bake a cake that was critical of Christians.

If it feels like these are the same arguments that were made by Jack Phillips (and other businesses) who happily serve gay customers but are unwilling to be part of same-sex wedding, that’s because they are.

The CCRC summarized that, “ [T]he evidence demonstrates that the Respondent would have made a cake for the Charging Party for any event, celebration or occasion regardless of his creed. Instead, the Respondent’s denial was based on the explicit message that the Charging Party wished to include on the cakes, which the Respondent deemed as discriminatory.”

So, if the message on the cake is one you don’t agree with, you can decline. However, if the cake itself is a message you disagree with, you cannot decline.

That makes sense…to no one.

It is apparent that the CCRC sympathizes one perspective but not the other.

These arbitrary and contradictory results are the legal equivalent of the middle finger.

We’re in charge and you aren’t. That’s why.

Of course those bakeries should be free not to bake a cake that includes a message they disagree with. The problem is laws which permit people to act on one set of beliefs about a particular issue but deny people with the opposite opinion the same rights.

In fairness, arbitrary application of the laws based on the preferences of the person in power has been the norm not the exception throughout history.

But America has been an attempt to move away from that. It hasn’t been perfect, but despite abuses of power, we have aspired to create a world in which everyone is bound by the same laws in the same way.

As a result, we have worked to create a world in which people who were similarly situated could expect similar results in court.

Clearly, we have progressed beyond that. Because, you know…equality.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

11 replies
  1. Nancy
    Nancy says:

    Logic, reason, and a sense of goodwill toward one’s fellowman are irrelevant to the extreme Left. A major issue that we are up against are the twisted minds of those judges who are exalted by the ultra liberals for doing their bidding. Truth, fairness, common sense, and decency have no place in today’s popular culture. It’s all about me with total disregard for the well-being of others. If things seem “confused”, it’s because the majority of Americans are now living apart from God. Even those who call themselves Christians often have no understanding of the Lordship of Christ. They have abandoned honoring God in favor of listening to the self-serving lies of Satan based on the false belief that the sole purpose in life should be grabbing all one can by whatever means will get one the results one wants.

  2. Tony Williams
    Tony Williams says:

    I am not sure I see the difference. If a baker said he was not going to do something for anyone who asked then that sounds like not baking a cake critical of Christians or any other group. But saying I will do wedding cakes but not gay wedding cakes is like saying I will do cakes critical of one group but not another group.

    Also if your sole participation in an event is something someone picks up before the event and you never have to go to the event or even think about it again, I am not sure how that is participation. I feel differently about photographers who have to actually have to participate and be present for the whole event to do their job properly.

    • Timothy
      Timothy says:

      The difference is that the Christians aren’t refusing gay people and serving straight people as the Commission asserts. The only problem comes, is if you assume a marriage is a marriage, is a marriage. They aren’t. That’s a religious ceremony.

      If a straight man walked into a Christian bakery and asked for the caterer to cater a gay wedding he’d get refused. Not because he’s gay, but because of the event. It has nothing to do with the people making the request. All these judges and commissions and attorneys ruling against Christian business owners are simply saying “I disagree with your religious view of marriage – in MY view a wedding is a wedding is a wedding, so your religious view loses.”

      It’s exactly the discrimination they are accusing us of. It’s exactly the discrimination that the Constitution forbids.

  3. Flash
    Flash says:

    Does anyone else find it interesting that the surge in discrimination cases all revolve around business transactions? I can put my faith into practice anywhere but my business. You might argue, “now wait a minute, my kid can’t have any faith expression at the public school either. What’s going on here? Could it be that underlying this obvious shift in our cultural ethos is the notion that we have been essentially reduced to nothing more than consumers and therefore have become property of the State? Think about it. Your business makes money because State allows its consumers to transact with you and you them. Same thing at the elementary school. Who knew that the shoulders of great faith we all are standing on would lift us to this grim conclusion? Cotton Mather did. “Religion begat prosperity and the daughter devoured the mother.” c.1702

    • TXKeith
      TXKeith says:

      It’s the same attitude as that voice by the Metrosexual-in-Chief: “You didn’t build that.”

      Yes, you are correct. The state deems itself the only entity to add value in commerce. If you disagree, you, the true value-adder, will be prevented from adding value.

    • Tionico
      Tionico says:

      Upon WHAT legal or moral basis do the State usurp the authority to decide who transacts business wiht whom? THAT is the underlying issue.

      Definition: FASCISM – government control of private means of production. If I bake cakes, drive tractors, grow tomatoes, operate a hiring hall, THAT operation is a private means of production. And the state have NO authority over that means of proiduction. The FACT they usurp that authority constitutes fascism. The COnstitution declares we have the preeixtant right to free association.
      And before you go off on a sick tangent about lunch counters and drinking fountains in the South, please remember those laws were imposed by GOVERNMENT. Yes, it was GOVERNMENT declared Woolworth’s had to maintain TWO distinct lunch counters. Again ,fascism. Government imposing their demands on FW Woolworth…… it iis THAT form of tyranny needs to go away. A hundred fifty years ago. LIncoln was the one ushered that sickness in…

      Any two persons desiring to have a cake made for some social event have the right to ask whomever they choose to make it to their specifications. But not everyone they ask must be forced at gunpoint to make it to those specs. Gunpoint, you say? Go ask Baronelle Stutzman if she thinks she can safely refuse to surrender her home and business to the State of Washington withiout putting her very life at risk. Her best home, should the charade of the “justice system” continue to dance to our AtG’s hurdygurdy, is that the Shjeriff in her county REFUSE to enforce any orders from any government authority to seize her property and belongs and take her prisoner to force her “reeducation” per the court orders that are nearly certain to come. Trust me, there IS a gun behind all this… but it is held in the wrong hands. Ferguson is a wretch, wants to be vindicated, and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. And HE will not hesitate to hire others with guns to effect his bidding.

      Again, fascism at its ugly worst. On OUR tax dollar.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] has always been to eradicate the belief that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different.  That is why they promote policies that allow someone to decline to decorate a cake critical of same-…  The goal is to create a government that punishes beliefs about homosexuality they disagree with. […]

  2. […] wonder if that would include laws that let one person decline to bake a cake with a message they disagree with but not another person. Doesn’t he understand that these people offend […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.