The cake decorating issue has become so convoluted that the baker at the center of this matter has even been attacked by whackos with a machette trying to kill or seriously harm him all for merely choosing to not artistically express himself on a customer’s cake because God would not allow him to.
I suppose the gay couple or whackos out there would also be offended if he ejaculated on the cake but would of course not be bringing a legal case against him on the bases of alleged inequality as long as he did that to straight couple’s cakes as well.
This entire matter is based in a wildly distorted theme of EQUALITY.
Lambda Legal CEO Rachel B. Tiven released the following statement:
The Court today has offered dangerous encouragement to those who would deny civil rights to LGBT people and people living with HIV. Religious freedom under our Constitution has always meant the right to believe whatever you wish but not to act on your beliefs in ways that harm others. The Court today alarmingly fails to heed that distinction. Lambda Legal will continue to fight the establishment of evangelical Christianity as the official government religion. We will fiercely resist the coming effort that will seek to turn this ruling into a broad license to discriminate.
There is no “broad license to discriminate” here. Declining to express art on a cake is not harming others and “establishing evangelical Christianity as an official government religion” is even more distorted. Where do they get that?
Why don’t these groups get it? The SUPREME COURT gets it and the only way they could get it is because the liberals in the court ALSO GOT IT.
Why can’t they see how this ruling also protects gay men and women who own cake shops and flower shops from being forced to decorate their products with a Nazi symbol on it. Nazi symbols are protected free speech. In fact, the symbol was around long before it was used by Nazis, having an entirely different meaning.
The US Constitution protects free speech but the gay men and women decorators have the right TO NOT BE FORCED TO DO THINGS CONTRARY TO THEIR BELIEFS. He’s not declining service to them because they are gay as they can buy a non-customized cake equally as anyone else.
How much simpler can one explain this?
And Lambda Legal and others that follow their faulty logic are going to fiercely resist?
They make these faulty arguments comparing this matter to equal rights in housing.
Let’s look at this clearly, the black man and woman want to rent an apartment, it’s apartment 273 in a big building of units. The unit is not being decorated, it’s just the same unit for both the black couple and the white couple. The white man and woman are given unit #273 instead because the owner clearly states he prefers whites. He has discriminated illegally regarding IDENTICAL OFFERINGS by business.
Now let’s look at this another way, the apartment owner is asked by the black couple to paint the unit black, every wall black, because they are black, the apartment owner says “No I will not do that”. The apartment does not belong to the black couple, it belongs to the company that owns the units. Then the white couple says “Will you paint the entire unit white”. He says “It’s already white”. He gives the unit to the white couple as he fears the black couple might, when they are in the unit as renters, start painting the unit black irregardless of the owner’s wishes, and the black couple claims discrimination. That would be absurd to do so. The owner has a right to choose colors for the units same as a cake decorator.
Now in contrast we have a cake that the shop owner will gladly sell to anyone as it is, but he specializes in custom cakes and he is being asked to decorate it in a way he finds abhorrent. He’s not discriminating based on providing the exact same product. Cake decorators routinely refuse to decorate cakes in a way they or their corporate values find abhorrent. It’s perfectly legal as expression is protected.
Get it yet? One thing you should notice here is that the cake business owns the cake. He is being asked by the gay couple to decorate WHAT HE OWNS, NOT THEM the way they want. He objects saying it would violate his religious beliefs. He says “You can decorate it any way you want, here’s the tube of stuff, you can even have it at no charge, decorate it somewhere else, I just cannot do that” but the gay couple has a hissy fit. They are wrong.
Again compare the apartment that is not being decorated differently for each couple and the cake that is the same for any customer until it’s asked to be decorated DIFFERENTLY and NOT EQUALLY. If our “gay representatives” are going to claim they are fighting for equality they need to do so with things that are equal.
It’s not that it’s different that is the problem it’s that it violates the business owner’s religious beliefs. His beliefs are more protected than those of the gay couple because he is not offering just batteries and saying “oh I won’t sell batteries to gay wedding couples for their ceremony because I object to gay marriage” he’s offering services that are specialized in expression. He cannot be forced to express himself in a way that he does not want to anymore than the business owner could force the gay couple to accept a cake that only has an opposite sex couple presented on it.
It’s also not like slavery. These gay groups and liberal sympathizers bring that up as a comparison. How ridiculous.
Same sex marriage wasn’t even legally recognized in Colorado when this case started but still, the fact is that gay couples cannot FORCE ON A BUSINESS OWNER to express their beliefs regardless if it’s now legal for them to be married.
Get it YET?
Lambda Legal also presented the groups that joined their misguided efforts were:
The other organizations joining Lambda Legal and the Family Equality Council on the amicus brief were: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; Equality California; Equality Federation; The LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York; Mazzoni Center; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Education Association; PFLAG National; PROMO; The Trevor Project; and, Whitman-Walker Health.
Feature image showing resistance in a circuit party of other resistors who keep claiming they are equal with transistors by Pixabay