Wednesday, February 26, 2014

"Bake me a cake, boy"

Matt K Lewis has a post on the efforts by gay activists to suppress Christians:
When ‘leave us alone’ became ‘bake us a cake!’

This is really a surrogate battle. A much bigger one is coming.

Opponents of these [religious freedom] bills score points when they argue that florists and bakers aren’t exactly granting their imprimatur when they make a cake or put together a flower arrangement for a gay wedding. Additionally, they are correct in assuming that most Christians, whether they agree with same-sex marriage, or not, would still bake the cake. In fact, this could be seen as an example of Christian love.

But this is another example of how this schism cannot be easily brushed aside like so many wedding cake crumbs. In recent years, libertarian-leaning conservatives have largely sided with the gay rights argument. Proud members of the “leave us alone” coalition were apt to side with a group of people who just wanted to be left alone to love the person they love (and what happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business). 
At some point, however, “leave us alone” became “bake us a cake. Or else!” 
And that’s a very different thing, altogether.

The reason conservative Christians are fighting this fight today is because it’s a firewall. The real danger, of course, is that Christian pastors and preachers will eventually be coerced into performing same-sex marriages. (Note: It is entirely possible for someone to believe gay marriage is fine, and to still oppose forcing people who hold strong religious convictions to participate — but I suspect that is where we are heading.)

Think of it this way. If you were a congregant in a church, wouldn’t you expect the pastor to marry you? Why should you be treated different?

Any pastor — if he or she wants to maintain the church’s tax status, that is — had better grapple with this now.

Whether the analogy is fair, or not, refusing to officiate a gay wedding can just as easily be called “denying service.” And it will predictably also be compared to the bad old days of Jim Crow — where racist Christians opposed interracial marriage (until the courts struck down state laws prohibiting biracial marriage).

Gay rights and religious liberty are on a collision course.

We make a mistake to infer that this campaign on the part of gay radicals to impose gay marriage on American society has anything to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. This is about sandblasting Christianity from our society, nothing else. This rather obvious denial of the human rights and right to free exercise of religion is merely a tactic drawn from Alinsky's rule number four:

“The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

They're making us live up to our faith, and this is going to put us in a position where we are forced to deny our faith or suffer persecution. This is not new for Christians. We've been ordered to "sacrifice to the gods or else" before. They've been doing this kind of crap to us for 2000 years.

You have to give the bastards credit for the audacity and guile. It's an old tactic, but it's working remarkably well. 

We should have no illusions about what gay marriage means or about their motives for imposing it on our society. And don't forget that the bastards imposing it on us-- Progressive Democrats-- are the same scum who wrote the Jim Crow laws a century ago.

"Bake me a cake, boy."


  1. If religious freedom does not extend as far as the right to discriminate, then I guess their assurances that they would never make our church perform their marriages is a lie. That's discrimination too, and religious freedom is no "excuse."

    The free exercise of religion is in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It trumps any state or federal "civil rights" (or civil wrongs as it should be called) statute, any day.

    Those who don't like that should find a nice communist gulag to move to where religious freedom does not exist.


    1. They'll start by making churches that don't perform their weddings pay federal taxes. It's fine if you don't want to perform gay weddings, you'll just have to pay a tax that other churches don't have to. It's called a free exercise of religion tax. Equal protection under the law requires us to discriminate against churches that won't get in line. Bowing down to the government is still "free"!


    2. I've been thinking of the tax issue as it applies to a church group. Am I correct in assuming that the church would be taxed as if it were a for-profit corporation? If that is the case, then would any taxes be due if the church were run at a loss, year after year after year?

  2. I've never understood why homosexuals want to make people unwilling participants in their weddings. Maybe they should find someone who wants their business.

    Military chaplains better watch out. They'll be the first to be forced to perform homosexual weddings, then they'll move outward from there. Forcing people to celebrate their sinful lifestyle is their goal.


    1. Ben:

      Gay radicals don't want to make "people" participate in their weddings. It's only Christians they're after, and it really has nothing to do with weddings or cakes or photographs.

      It is a program of extermination-- the extermination of public Christian praxis in our country.

    2. So anti-gay bigotry is Christian praxis. Good to know.


    3. Not "anti-gay bigotry" but disapproval of homosexuality, yes. Christianity is crystal clear on that point. Some churches have changed their minds recently, which doesn't mean that Christianity has gray areas on the issue. It means that plenty of churches don't preach Christianity from their pulpits anymore. They've adapted their message to get with the times. The Bible hasn't changed, nor has God. Some churches simply don't care at all what he says.


    4. I'm sure that you perceive of it as anti-gay bigotry, KW. You're wrong but that's besides the point. The point is that it's our religion and in this country we have the freedom to practice our religion, even if you don't like it. That's the point of constitutional protections.

      Are there any parts of the Constitution you actually like? It seems like you just want to violate all of them whenever you feel like it.


  3. Liberals are fond of saying that religious freedom doesn't apply to this, that, or the other thing. They never really explain why. It simply never applies when it impedes their agenda, that's all.

    For once I would like some liberal to explain to me what it does apply to, and how we know the difference. In what scenario, if any, does the First Amendment do what it was designed to do--protect the rights of people of faith against an overbearing government? How do I tell the difference between one of those situations, in which religious liberty legitimately applies, and a situation where it does not apply?


    1. I've been away since this morning. I thought someone would answer my question.


    2. "I would like some liberal to explain to me what it does apply to"

      Do you understand what an established religion is? OK. It's a safeguard against that. What it means is that no branch of the American government can impose one set of religious beliefs on everyone. That there is no state religion, that, to coin a phrase, the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion and so it is not the job of government to force anyone to kow-tow to the whims and prejudices of a subset of a subset of Christianity. Or any other religion. What's to stop children at public schools being forced to pray to Mecca every morning? The First Amendment.

      The - hilariously named - 'cake wars' are about Christian extremists who want the government to exempt them from a law that applies them to everyone else because they think Christians are special magic little snowflakes who should decide which laws apply to them, and which minorities they can discriminate against.

    3. "How about this, Jem. Would you support the right of the local Baptist Church to meet for Wednesday night Prayer Meeting at the local 'gay' bar?"

      Yes. 100%, absolutely. They should be treated like any other patron. And protected like any other patron. If people harass them there, the police should be called and it would be those harassing them guilty of an offense.

      "And how about forcing a black cake baker to bake a cake celebrating the founding of the KKK? You good with that?"

      I've answered this. Again, 100% - the baker should treat his customers equally. The baker should be required to sell a paying customer a cake; the baker is not required to violate his rights to free speech. There's tons of legal precedent that maps out the contours of where free speech ends and obligation to follow the law starts.

      Like so many things, it's a conflicting rights issue. And like so many things, the people crying 'persecution' are the ones demanding a set of additional rights and exemptions that wouldn't apply to the rest of us.

      And, where the Christian fanatics have gained power, they don't set about creating an environment where everyone can live in harmony, they've attempted to force everyone's kids to pray in schools, learn about Noah's Ark in biology classes and to recriminalize sodomy. It would be a lot more convincing that this was about human rights if we hadn't had a couple of decades of attempted theocracy and lurch to the right so profound that *Jan Brewer* now counts as a 'leftist' to such people.

      Your attempt at turnabout shows this. Are you really saying that the problem with race relations in this country is black people refusing to ice cakes for the KKK? And not, for example, that there's still a KKK?

    4. Jem, I have a problem with people thinking they have the right to compel others to participate in their moral failings. Just buying a cake off the shelf is one thing. Making the owner decorate the cake with 'Happy Birthday KKK - Down with Negroes, Catholics and Jews' is quite another thing. Why are you seemingly incapable of distinguishing between them?

  4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 26, 2014 at 7:24 AM

    Remember how "bake me a cake" was described as a "civil rights issue"? Remember how Christians were lectured about lunch counters in Selma?

    This is pretty sweet:

    Southern California lawmakers who support legislation to discriminate against gays and lesbians now have one less hotspot to visit in West Hollywood.

    David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

    --- CBS Los Angeles

    Reminds me of lunch counters in Selma back in 1950. Next thing you know, Gay Pride marchers will be wearing rainbow sheets.

    These little Animal Farm piggies have gone insane. I can only hope they do something like that here, where I live.

  5. I love coming here and watching conservatives shoot themselves in the foot day after day. The more you keep riling up the anti-gay bigots in the name of Jesus the more Christianity will suffer. You’re not the victims of a conspiracy; you’re victims of your own douchbaggery.


  6. "We make a mistake to infer that this campaign on the part of gay radicals to impose gay marriage on American society has anything to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. This is about sandblasting Christianity from our society, nothing else. This rather obvious denial of the human rights and right to free exercise of religion ..."

    Now, it's certainly true that ghey "rights" and ghey mirage "has [no]thing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise", but rather is entirely "about sandblasting Christianity from our society, nothing else".

    At the same time, the righteous parties in the cake wars are incorrectly trying to ground their freedom to decline to participate in ghey mirages as a religious rights issue (*), when, in fact, it's a freedom of association issue.

    1. "At the same time, the righteous parties in the cake wars"

      Does it not worry you, as Christians, that with all the poverty and injustice and sickness in the world that you're spending all this time and effort fighting 'cake wars'?

      Gay people exist, some of them want to formalize a monogamous commitment to each other. They don't need the Pope to bless them or to force you to buy them something from the registry. Is the greatest injustice in the world really that they'd like to pay someone to bake them a cake? Is that really the battlefield where you want to dash your religion against the rocks? People are leaving your lot in droves because ... well, you're making fools of yourselves.

      I mean, I don't care. The world won't be free until the last stone from the last cathedral falls on the last priest, and all that. But I presume *you* don't want that to happen. I presume the plan isn't to appear this silly and irrelevant.

      Stop fighting cake wars, start washing feet.

    2. You don't endorse someone's opinions by serving them in a shop, though.

      Do you think someone who owns a gas station should be allowed to refuse service if he thinks his customer is going to use that gas to drive to a gay wedding?

      How many degrees of separation do there have to be? Should Shell have the right to insist that none of their franchisees sell gay couples gas?

    3. "We are talking here about militant homosexuals doing the second thing, which is to involve the proprietor in their moral failings."

      So 'militant homosexuals' have actually done that? They've gone into a shop and asked for an Auschwitz cake? And there's been some change in the law that forces bakers to do that on pain of ... what?


      First of all, this hasn't happened, even a little bit.

      There have been exactly two actual examples of cake shop owners discriminating against gay couples.

      One shop refused to serve a cake to a gay couple saying that his religious beliefs meant he took the definition of marriage very seriously. One of the gay guys then phoned up again and said he was arranging a dog wedding and needed a cake, and the owner said 'no problem'. No legal sanctions on anything there, no one went to jail or got fined, we just had a wry laugh at the raw evil and hypocrisy some Christians are capable of.

      Your nasty brand of religion is dying because we can laugh at you. You're ... silly.

      Another shop lost a lot of business when they refused to serve a gay couple. They weren't fined, prosecuted or shot by Obamatroopers from the black helicopters. People just decided to stop going to such a nasty place.

      Now, unless your proposal is that people should be forced to go to shops run by bigots, you've got nothing.

      Which law, by the way, do you think forces bakers to bake Auschwitz cakes? And what's the punishment if they refuse? The name of the actual law, please.

    4. "Another shop lost a lot of business when they refused to serve a gay couple. They weren't fined, prosecuted or shot by Obamatroopers from the black helicopters. People just decided to stop going to such a nasty place."

      This, Jem, is the proper remedy, if remedy is needed. No lawyers, no courts, just social judgement.

      I agree with you that it is a 'silly place', as Graham Chapman's 'Arthur' said of 'Camelot'. And it is the aggrieved and cake deprived 'gay' couple who brought the lawsuit.

      I support the right of a shopkeeper to exclude from service anyone he wishes to exclude, for whatever arbitrary reason he cites. Just as I reserve the right to boycott any shopkeeper for any reason whatever. Hell, I refused to shop at Sears for ten years because of the endless runaround I got trying to find an air compressor part. If I can boycott Sears, why can't they decline to serve annoying compressor owners? Yeah, the government says they have to. And I think the government is arrogating to itself power which it should not exercise.

    5. "If I can boycott Sears, why can't they decline to serve annoying compressor owners?"

      They can decline to serve individuals. They can't decline to serve a class of people.

      "And it is the aggrieved and cake deprived gay couple who brought the lawsuit."

      This is the Masterpiece Cakes case, I think. Here's a summary of what they did:

      Here's what the mother of one of the grooms had to say:

      Look ... at first, a group of right wing religious leaders insisted that they would be forced under threat of lawsuit to marry gay couples. It was clear the law said no such thing already, but extra clauses were added in an attempt to accommodate them.

      With their balloon popped, they had to find some other grievance to rally the troops - and this was the idea that religious business owners should be allowed to discriminate. Now, they're smart enough to know that 'discrimination' sounds terrible, so they just rebranded it as 'religious liberty'.

      And, yes, there are people who think that business owners should be allowed to discriminate. But for decades, the law has been very clear on this: no, you can't. You have to serve the disabled. You can't stick up 'No Jews', 'No Coloreds', 'No Catholics' signs. Or 'No Gays' signs. If you want to operate a business, you have to operate within the law, and the law says that you can't discriminate.

  7. Gay marriage was legalized in the Netherlands back in 2001. Just like Egnor, Dutch conservative Christians were whining that their churches would be forced to perform such services, or else. But of course that never happened. Why would it be any different in the US?

    1. Dude, that was only 13 years ago.

      I don't understand. Surely you aren't suggesting that churches have a right to discriminate? That's like the Jim Crow South! And if you defend it you're no better.

      Please explain to me why a Catholic priest can discriminate but a Catholic baker cannot. Does one have rights and the other doesn't?


    2. We've had same-sex marriage in my state since 2004 and it's a nightmare. They now think they need to teach young children about homosexual relationships because, hey, we're got "marriage equality" now. Parents aren't asked to opt in, opt out, or even asked at all.

      If you look at a homosexual the wrong way in my state you're a criminal.

      Oh, and the two women who sued the state to recognize their relationship as a "marriage" were divorced shortly thereafter. Funny how that works.

      Did I mention that the legal foundation that argued their case began life as a pedophile defense fund?


  8. Doctor, would you like to reserve the right to refuse to preform surgery on atheists or gays based on your religious convictions? Or does the right to refuse service only apply to trivial instances for the purpose of making somebody’s life more difficult as a way of showing disapproval?


    1. Your logic is gibberish. There is a difference between moral and legal obligations, and there are differences between the obligations of state-licensed professionals and the obligations of private citizens who are engaged in their personal business.

      Regarding treating gays, I remind you that for 30 years I have operated on patients who are HIV positive on a regular basis, although I understand the risks.

      Professionals engaged in life-saving activities have very different moral and legal responsibilities than private citizens going about their personal business.

      No baker or photographer should be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates their personal moral beliefs, especially if it violates their First Amendment rights.

    2. We’re not talking about private citizens going about their personal business; we’re talking about professionals going about their professional business. If a community wants to make nondiscrimination a condition for doing business, I don’t have a problem with that.


    3. Refusal to participate in a gay ceremony is not discrimination against a gay person, anymore than refusal to participate in Catholic mass is discrimination against Catholics.

      The bakers serve gay customers. They won't participate in ceremonies they consider sinful.

    4. I see, KW. You want the government to inspect cakes, to determine which icings justify prosecution of refusers and which don't.

    5. KW:

      Should a gay atheist baker who believes the Catholic Church is anti-gay be prosecuted for refusing to provide communion wafers to a Catholic Church?

    6. "Should a gay atheist baker who believes the Catholic Church is anti-gay be prosecuted for refusing to provide communion wafers to a Catholic Church?"

      Do you have an example of one of those? No.

      The answer is that the law should apply to everyone equally. Yes, if it's the law that you can't refuse service on religious grounds, then atheists should be prosecuted for refusing to provide communion wafers. You can buy consecrated wafers on ebay and Amazon, though, so that might be easier - I had some with spinach dip once. You could really taste the Jesus.

      It's not 'persecution' to insist that the law of the land applies to everyone. It's, in fact, the exact opposite of persecution. The handful of cake shop owners who actually object are not being singled out, they are being asked to follow the law. That's all.

      Do you not get it? When people walk into a cake shop, they like to be able to walk in, buy a cake and go away and eat the cake they bought. Yes? Presumably in the history of cake shops, cake shop owners have served murderers, adulterers, coveters of oxen, people who've dishonored their parents. Is the argument that if you sell a cake to a murderer you're complicit in murder? No.

    7. 1. You can’t inspect a cake that the baker refused to make.

      2. The Catholic Church isn’t a person. I know Republicans think institutions are citizens, but they’re not. Personally, if I were the gay atheist baker I would leap at the chance to provide communion wafers. I’d even go to church to see if they enjoy my special secret recipe.


    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 26, 2014 at 3:51 PM

      Jem: "You can buy consecrated wafers on ebay and Amazon..."

      Link, please. I've investigated your claim and I think you're lying.

    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM

      Popeye: "Republicans think institutions are citizens, but they’re not"

      The Supreme Court thinks corporations are persons (you really should get your legal concepts straight, Popster)... To wit:

      "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
      --- Wiki: Corporate Personhood

      In light of SCOTUS's opinion, no one really cares what you think, Popeye.

    10. "Link, please. I've investigated your claim and I think you're lying."

      Did you 'investigate my claim' by typing 'eucharist wafers' into the search bar, or was that beyond you?

    11. Jem's problem is not that he's lying, It's that he's ignorant. He doesn't know what the word "consecrated" means. There are eucharist wafers for sale on Amazon, I checked, but they are of course not consecrated.

      Let me help you out, Jem. A eucharist wafer is just that, a wafer. During the mass the priest turns the wafer into the body of Christ. That's called consecration. After consecration, the Eucharist is much more than a wafer.

      It appears that we now have an addition to our anti-Christian bigot family.


    12. "A eucharist wafer is just that, a wafer. During the mass the priest turns the wafer into the body of Christ."

      Sigh. Yes, I know the story you tell yourselves.

      As a matter of interest, how would you test whether a wafer's been consecrated or not?

    13. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyFebruary 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM

      Well, Ben, you're a generous guy. Personally, I don't think Jem is ignorant. He apparently agrees. So he sure as hell was lying.

      Jem: "how would you test blah blah"

      Typical proglodyte rabbit trail: get caught lying, change the subject. :-)

    14. She, by the way.

      'Jem: "how would you test blah blah"

      Typical proglodyte rabbit trail: get caught lying, change the subject. :-) '

      Thanks for your answer, very instructive.

  9. Our host is correct to refer to our enemies as 'scum' and as 'bastards' with specific regard to this issue.

    Our enemies are Bad People and they all know what they are doing (though they do not always know who they serve).

    In conversation I find that telling the truth always has a positive effect on the weak or the undecided or the cowardly.

    For example......

    'Homosexual adoption?
    What kind of scum bastard wants to get hold of children from The State and say 'You have two daddies now. Remember, no-one else wanted you', when they know that to be a lie. They know the Social Workers STOPPED real couples adopting the child. They know no-one has two daddies and they are experimenting with a child's life to attempt their own twisted 'psychological healing'.
    The scum bastards.''

    They are not nice, reasonable or decent. They make children suffer real distress (from my own personal experience in my professional role) and they are in the ascendant.
    Every real Christian is obliged to tell the truth.
    Otherwise we do not deserve the spiritual protection that is otherwise ours by right rightful.

    John Richardson

  10. If your hypothesis is true, this is about sandblasting Christianity, we'll see some real tension once Muslims in America find themselves at odds with this sort of legislation. I've always wondered if and when that sort of tension would come out into the public eye.


    1. Why do you imagine The Agenda won't simply find some reason to 'exclude the inclusion' of Islam in it's legal action.
      We could list 10 'reasons' right now.

      Muslims will not 'ride to the rescue' of Christianity by committing violent acts.

      If Christians do not defend their Faith then they deserve their fate.
      Obvious, but scary.


    2. Curio:

      Good question about Muslims and these laws. The answer of course is that these laws will never be used against Muslims. It is only Christians who will be persecuted, because this whole thing is about extinguishing Christianity, and gays, lefties and Muslims are allies on that.

    3. "These laws presumably apply to everyone. The day some Muslim says that he's not complying with them, what are you going to do?"

      This may seem like a radical suggestion, but 'treat that person equally under the law'. So, yes, treat them as you would treat anyone else.

    4. 'Jem'

      Above you write.....

      'The police, I'm afraid, are wasting their time with things that exist in the world, not just in your mind.'

      I'm afraid that you are wrong.
      A few years ago a lesbian Policewoman went into a café here in England.
      She was on duty & in uniform.
      She heard The Holy Bible playing quietly in the background. The owner was a Christian & had played the CD for years in his café.
      She ARRESTED the café owner, closed the café and confiscated the CD as, as she later explained, it was potentially '..offensive in this day and age...' and she was protecting the general public from potential offense as she was aware of certain 'offensive' passages in The Holy Bible.
      It went to Court. Prosecution, won.
      This was years ago.

      google the above terms and see for yourself.

      Lots of people have failed to notice what has happened it once 'civilised' countries.

      I would be interested in your response to the above as it seems from your post that you sincerely do not appreciate what the current situation actually is.


      John R.

    5. "I would be interested in your response to the above"

      That it sounds so deeply implausible that if there's even a kernel of truth to it, there are clearly important elements of this story missing.

      OK ... found it.

      The Christian Institute (a loony evangelical pressure group with a history of lying and nonsense see told the Daily Mail (the British equivalent of Fox News) that a cafe owner had been warned by the police that someone had complained.

      No mention of the sexuality of the police officers involved.

      Here's a report from an actual news organization:

      No arrest, no charges, no prosecution, there was a quick apology from the police. So your 'it went to Court, the prosecution won' is a lie.

      The 'current situation' is that there are some nutjob extremist right wing Christians intent on seeing jackboots and persecution where absolutely nothing whatsoever exists.

      Now that you know there was no court case and prosecution, do you pledge not to repeat the lie that there was?

    6. Hello Jem.

      I'm going to bed.
      Without question I will certainly not repeat any incorrect recollections. I do not tell lies.

      I'll try to post here tomorrow after a little research. If not the weekend.


  11. If you prefer gays saying “leave us alone” over “bake us a cake”, you might enjoy a visit to Russia or Uganda.


  12. Amen to the thread.
    The real agenda is to make North Americans MORALLY consent to the gay identity as normal as opposed to a historic immoral and contempt conclusion.
    Its not about cakes and marriage.
    Once pre marital sex was opposed by a solid majority and not only by a tiny minority. thats what they want regarding homosexuality.
    A collective moral change from rejection to acceptance.
    They demand moral consent from a majority or everyone in most of common civic discourse .
    The answer is NO and NEVER. Homosexuality is immoral and contemptible in all its ugliness wITHOUT being a reflection on the gay person themselves. one should and can segregate on this.
    We can get along as fellow countrymen but not agree on such a important issue of identity, morality, Christianity, humanity.
    I speak for many silent people in Canada and America.

    1. Further, the real issue is NOT actually sexual perversion.
      If they were not deploying homosexuality then they would deploy something else.

      The actual agenda needs to be spelt out loud & clear and decent homosexuals will be able to join us and say....

      ....ahem...clears throat....


      Now I need a drink of water........

      John Richardson.