The New Morality: Crying Over Served Cake

In this day and age, why would you be stupid enough to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to deny someone services?

There are plenty of ways to avoid entering into a business transaction without having to appear discriminatory at all. When I worked for a private repair shop and encountered a client who seemed to be more trouble than they were worth for whatever reason, we used to simply say, “I am sorry, but we cannot provide service.” If people questioned why (which they did, very often and with plenty of attitude), we just kept repeating the same phrase: “I’m sorry, we cannot provide the service.” No one interpreted us as being discriminatory, or went as far as attempting legal action. We were simply annoying, so they moved onto a business that was willing to enter into the transaction. No harm, no foul.

That is the beauty of the free market: You have choices. If a bakery simply said “I am sorry, we can’t provide that service,” and left it at that, a gay couple denied service might interpret the owner’s choice as being discriminatory, but they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court. You can’t sue based on an inference. Progressives, however, rely on the courts to push their agenda because Big Government is their god. So the minute you breathe a hint of something that could be misconstrued as an opportunity for a lawsuit, they gain home-court advantage.

By simply saying, “I am sorry, we can’t provide that service,” you may be opening yourself up to some annoying picketing and internet memes, but what’s the worst that will do? Throw you in the same court as Chick fil-A? We all know how well that protest worked out. The bottom line is, you’re letting the free market decide your fate, not the courts.

The primary response I can hear to that is, “But I should be free to express my beliefs!” Yes, you should. But, you haven’t been for a long time. It shouldn’t have taken gay marriage for Christians to realize that the progressive culture of political correctness has been stifling their freedom of expression for a generation. Today’s court battles over gay marriage are rooted in yesterday’s affirmative action victories; a new morality has taken hold and is avidly manipulating the power of the courts and ever-expanding government as the source of its strength.

The bill vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer opened the door to the courts to determine the “sincerity of an individual’s religious beliefs.” The bill would have also “…require[d] that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.”

In other words, Christians and other “religious rights” activists were supporting a bill that would require them to defend the validity of their faith in the courts; courts, mind you, which they don’t particularly trust to begin with. That’s playing into progressive logic, strengthening government power, and generating even more business for an already porky legal system.

Regarding the existing rights of private enterprise, the bill was redundant. Private business owners across most of the United States, including Arizona, already “have the right to deny service to gays” and anyone else they choose:

That’s not discrimination, that’s free enterprise. Stop burying yourselves in cries of “persecution” over wedding cakes and get busy touting the fact that the Constitution and the free market were designed to create a fair and level playing field. Use the laws we already have instead of trying to “perfect” them with even more legislation that is a mere means to a progressive end. Quit your whining and play to win.

"If you are forcing someone to use their artistic skills and talent to do somethign they don’t want to do that is intellectial tyranny."

There's already a precedent for that, as when liberal musicians refuse to let their music be used at Republican events even when the music was purchased legitimately and wasn't being used for commercial purposes. Remember when Heart stopped Republicans from using their song "Barracuda" at events featuring Sarah Palin? I think Neal Young did a similar thing. So the artistic freedom angle might possibly work.

The State has no Right to force any individual or business to conduct business with anyone, in sprite of the last 60-80 years of the Supreme Court’s wild over-reach hiding behind the “Commerce Clause”.

It is obscene that the same institution that can find a “penumbra” to the Right to Privacy that allows the murder of babies AND requires us to pay for these murders can also decide that an individual cannot tell two Fruitcakes to “Go buy your cake elsewhere”! If he does then he either will be fined, imprisoned or become a designated target for “Robbery-by-Lawyers”.

Patterns are hard to establish though, especially with a business that needs run time.

You're right. You are using plain old common sense here. But I'm quite sure that the gay mafia will ignore common sense and force a pattern to appear, even if a pattern doesn't actually exist.

Sadly, in cases like these the businesses will start out guilty, and have the difficult job of proving otherwise.

In this day and age, why would you be stupid enough to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to deny someone services?

Why in the hell should anyone have to lie about not wanting to provide a service to a gay wedding?

Apparently, the author believes those with religious beliefs should have to hide them in public. That is unacceptable in a free nation.

“There’s already a precedent for that, as when liberal musicians refuse to let their music be used at Republican events even when the music was purchased legitimately and wasn’t being used for commercial purposes. Remember when Heart stopped Republicans from using their song “Barracuda” at events featuring Sarah Palin? I think Neal Young did a similar thing. So the artistic freedom angle might possibly work. “

Excellent point, they use “Artistic Expression Freedom” to bash us over the head constantly, so why the heck are we not using it as tool in our toolbox to fight these morons?

“Artistic Expression Freedom” is a right that IS protected by the 1st Amendment, we need to start exercising it on behalf of our side befor the other side takes it, makes it their own, then twists it out of existence...

[ The State has no Right to force any individual or business to conduct business with anyone, in sprite of the last 60-80 years of the Supreme Court’s wild over-reach hiding behind the “Commerce Clause”. ]

The Fact that they can contiue to cite a case concerning an illegal ruling about a wheat farmer in Kansas in the 1940’s and use that ruling to screw over individual rights and the rights of people enguaging in voluntary goods exchange is an abomination.

It shows WHY we need an Article V convention to propose new amendments to deal with Judicial Tyranny from the bench including term limits for Federal Judges and the ability for the states to override a ruling based on a 4/5ths majority of the states.

[ In this day and age, why would you be stupid enough to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to deny someone services?
Why in the hell should anyone have to lie about not wanting to provide a service to a gay wedding?

Apparently, the author believes those with religious beliefs should have to hide them in public. That is unacceptable in a free nation. ]

Let me cite an example from the 50’s-60’s.

In the south once STATE ENDORSED/FORCED RACIAL discrimination was ended Private Business discrimination virtually disappeared overnight as these businesses could no longer hide behind the skirt of the state, instead they had to live and die by the free market....

Word would get around and those businesses that discriminated due to race were indeed then just cutting off their nose to spite their face because they were limiting their own customer base, thus the “gods of the copybook headings” were allowed to rule once more.

These businesses need to reverse their tactics. As owner of a Christian Bake shop, I’d simply make it store policy to decorate every item made with a cross. Story policy. Same for all patrons. Anyone can order a cake, but this is how they’re made. Call the homosexual provocateur’s bluff. They don’t want the cake, they want a confrontation so they can continue to chip away and destroy Christianity.

Actually, the artists cannot stop politicians from using their music in public appearances. If the policitian only wants to pay for a single license for one piece of music, the copyright owner has a veto, however, the politician could just buy a blanket license from BMI or ASCAP, and they would still be able to play the song, but they would probably have to pay more money.

I think most politicians get in trouble because they play the songs without bothering to get any license at all.

"Actually, the artists cannot stop politicians from using their music in public appearances. If the policitian only wants to pay for a single license for one piece of music, the copyright owner has a veto, however, the politician could just buy a blanket license from BMI or ASCAP, and they would still be able to play the song, but they would probably have to pay more money."

I got in an argument about this a couple of years ago with someone who claimed artists can refuse to allow their music to be used even when the proper fee is paid. So I don't know the law. Perhaps the Republican Party was just trying to avoid a fight and so backed down, or did not want to spend the extra money to use a particular song.

Yeah, they can refuse, but only if the person is looking for a single-song license. If the politicians decided to play a few songs at their events, and most of them probably do anyway, then they can get that blanket license. The artist can’t do anything then, unless they remove their music from being licensed by that company entirely.

True. It is the flip side of what they complain of...having to hide their “orientation”. If they are now out but another group feels they must hide then nothing has really changed. And this is the point...they seek to impose on others what they experienced.

If the gay mafia so desired, they could show a pattern of denial at a business. All they would need is enough data points.

IANAL either, but those are my thoughts as well. The concept of "Disparate Impact" has legal legs nowadays (I really hate that because it's illogical: It's a deliberate conflating of correlation and causation), so I would not be surprised at all if it were used against somebody refusing service to homo couples. Even a baker in a small town is not immune, because if he refuses once and the couple suspects it's because of religious objection, they'll take it to their friends before they take it to court, and they'll develop that set of data points.

Why not just sub-contract the work out. Take the same sex order for a wedding cake , but turn the actual baking over to your friend who also bakes cake, but is O.K. with same sex.

Kind of like the ordering work done for your house, like roofing, windows, etc. You sign the deal , but the work gets contracted out to actual group of people who do the work.

Just be up-fromt with Mr. or Ms. SameSex about it. They will get their cake baked and you will not be the one who baked it.

Unlike vampires, homosexuals are not allergic to crosses.

Indeed there are gay friendly churches with crosses all over them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.