[Olog-hai]

Sorry, but that “religious discrimination” trick only works if you are Muslim.

[nathanbedford]

It seems to me that the government has no more right to compel speech than to restrict speech.

The same First Amendment which protects freedom of speech also protects the free exercise of religion but forbids its establishment. By way of corollary, speech should be protected from establishment, that is, compulsion.

So I am opposed to punishing a baker for failing to decorate with anti-gay slogans just as much as I am opposed to forcing a baker to decorate with pro-gay slogans or symbols.

An interesting question arises when we extend the principle: can we permit the telephone company to decline to transport speech it disapproves of on its lines? The telegraph, the Internet provider? Harder question, should we permit Google to discriminate in its search engine based on religious or ideological preferences? May we require the telephone company or Google to discriminate?

The First Amendment, even as applied to the states by the 14th, prohibits the government from restricting speech it does not prohibit individuals from restricting speech. If we are talking about a common provider with monopolistic phone lines etc. we can at least argue that these institutions are if not agents of the government at least entities which could not exist without provision of government and so are somehow subject to the considerations which restrict the government contained in the First Amendment. Does Google's impact on interstate commerce justify regulating how it operates? As a matter of practical reality, there is no longer any activity undertaken (or refrained from) by mankind not subject to control by Congress as part of interstate commerce.

But the question is not what is the current state of departure from the Constitution but what is the right principle?

[samtheman]

Hey, here’s a thought: maybe the government should have no opinion at all on who sells cakes to whom and what’s written on them. Just a thought.

[John O]

Turn about is fair play. Every pro-gay baker (or other business) should be hit with this very same tactic. Lets see how the perverts enjoy it when the shoe is on the other foot.

Also, the so called “civil rights commission” or whatever the pro-gay “regulatory” body there is called should be swamped with cases defending Christianity. Keep them so busy with the junk that they can’t do any further harm to innocent people.

[ExCTCitizen]

Turnabout is fun...I’m glad this bakery is being sued.

[IronJack]

It will be interesting to see how libs distort “equal protection” to deny anti-homos their rights but still preserve the same rights for the pro-degenerate crowd.

[Flick Lives]

With enough government intervention, every small business will be destroyed. I can almost picture an end-game for bake shops. To avoid offending anyone, they will have to offer just one kind of cake, a combination of chocolate and vanilla. It would be covered with a medium gray frosting with no message, to not offend anyone. Basically imagine a soviet-style bakery product and you’ve got the idea.

[a fool in paradise]

One of the baker cases even occurred in a state that itself did not recognize same sex marriage.

The homofascists and gods in black dresses make “a” ass of the law.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-law-is-an-ass.html

[heartwood]

It’s not fair to the poor baker to drag her into the mess. Just because militant homosexuals want to force someone who doesn’t want to decorate THEIR cake out of business, doesn’t mean this guy harassing a baker to prove his point.

What if a baker said, I really, really don’t want to make your cake saying Congratulations Ed and Charlie, I think you’re going to hell if you don’t repent, but I’ll make it anyway because of the law. Would Ed and Charlie really want that kind of karma in their cake.

BTW, a NJ couple lost custody of their children when they tried to get a supermarket to write Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler on the cake for their five year old son, who was in fact named Adolf Hitler.

[MrB]

Everyone needs to keep it firmly in their mind.

The left is anti-CHRISTIAN, not anti-”religion”.

And the homosexual movement is simply a convenient weapon to use to criminalize Christianity.

[Sam Gamgee]

This is the slippery slope they said wouldn’t happen. We were told we would not be required to betray our religious beliefs.

[informavoracious]

It would be better to go to a bakery run by homosexuals and request a wedding cake saying “One Man, One Woman” instead of blatant anti-gay remarks. I would not bake a cake praising Hitler either, so these bakers can say it was just offensive language - period. But ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN is a little more subtle.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Two lesbians named Rachel walk in to a wedding cake shop to plan for their upcoming nuptials. After learning that the cake will be for their own wedding, the baker refuses service. Offended, the couple can’t believe the guy is so opposed to gay marriage we won’t even bake a cake. The baker replies, “No no I’m fine with gay marriage — I just can’t support inter-Rachel marriage.”