It seems wingnuts cannot grasp why a business owner may not refuse to make a standard wedding cake for a gay wedding but may refuse to make a cake with a homophobic message. Â The Colorado Civil Rights Division says so, anyway.
In his complaint, Jack claimed Silva discriminated against him “based on my creed.”
Colorado Civil Rights Division argued in its Friday ruling that Silva did not discriminate against Jack because she offered to bake the cake, and only refused to write the messages by which she was offended.
Jack is the founder of the Worldview Academy, a camp that teaches “Christians to think and live in accord with a biblical worldview.”
Of course he is.
Elsewhere, religionista Rick Santorum recently said:
If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up? Should the government—and this is really the case here — should the government force you to do that? This is about the government coming in and saying, “No, we’re going to make you do this.†And this is where I think we just need some space to say let’s have some tolerance, be a two-way street.
Sally Kohn responds,
There are two problems with Santorum’s reasoning. The first is that a printer doesn’t have to make such signs, under any law, because refusing to do so is not discrimination in any legally prohibited sense. A print shop can also refuse to print a poster that says, for instance, “F*ck Rick Santorum,†either because it disagrees with the language or the sentiment. Both are entirely legally permissible decisions any business can rightfully make.
But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal. The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally.
Josh Marshall is more succinct.
If you ask a baker to bake a cake that says “God hates gays” and they refuse, that’s not an imposition on your religion — unless you’re a complete moron.
Yes, that’s the catch, isn’t it?
If you won’t send the same floral arrangement to a gay wedding as a straight wedding, that’s a problem. On the other hand, if just hypothetically, a lesbian couple wanted an elaborate floral arrangement symbolizing a graphic sex act, yeah, I think the florist can turn you down, just as I imagine it’s obvious the florist could turn down a hetero couple in a comparable situation.
Of course, grasping this requires some skill at critical thinking. So righties will continue to not get it.
If this subject wasn’t such a serious – and stupid/ignorant – one, normal/rational people would find that intolerant people begging for tolerance for their intolerance, and the oppressors acting all so very, very oppressed because of their oppression, would result in pure comedy gold – and endless derision and guffaws!
But, as it stands, with our lazy, cowardly, compliant, and complicit MSM taking
its usual “balanced” “he-said/she-said” approach, the push will be for more tolerance for the intolerant, and to lessen the level and feelings of oppression for the oppressors.
Oy!
I’m waiting for FUCHS NOISE to play “Feelings” every time they cover this “controversy!”
Double OY!!
You can’t fix stupid.
Hm. I must say that the baker showed wisdom akin to Solomon in avoiding discriminating. “I’ll bake the cake, decorate it, and let you write what you want.”
Hasn’t this dumbass learned from O’Keefe? Just keep going to a lot of bakers, until you get a lot of them refusing, and cut from the video anyone who acted reasonably?
Oh, dear lord, people who are stupider (but, I must grant, more *honest*) that O’Keefe are making the rounds?
As for the print shop example: *that* might be an exception. I wouldn’t be surprised if a print shop could refuse to print a message based upon their freedom of the press – that could be construed as the government telling you what to print. I don’t know – and it doesn’t matter, his frothiness cares only for the soundbite. *HOWEVER* if they had machinery for self-service, I’d also bet that they could not forbid someone from using that machinery to print any message. By letting people “rent” the “press” they may well have to abide by other people’s freedom.
PS: I’m kinda proud that I didn’t remember O’Keefe’s name (had to google it) – he deserves to be forgettable, and forgotten.