Gay baker honors cake request with homophobic message, was worried about potential lawsuit

Faux News ^ | 08/13/2020 | Alexandra Deabler

[Olog-hai]

A gay baker in Michigan is speaking out after she received a request for a custom cake with a homophobic message.

Esteemed baker April Anderson, who has baked for Oprah Winfrey, owns and operates Good Cakes and Bakes with her partner in Detroit. On July 19, she said she received a $40 online order for a custom red velvet cake. A $10 tip was also included, Anderson told the Detroit Free Press.

As Anderson looked at the order, which had the word “Pride” in all caps, she realized it contained a homophobic message.

“I am ordering this cake to celebrate and have PRIDE in true Christian marriage,” the customer said in the order, the Free Press reported. “I’d like you to write on the cake, in icing, ‘Homosexual acts are gravely evil.’ (Catholic Catechism 2357)”. […]

Though stunned, Anderson was unsure if she could legally refuse to make the cake, concerned she could face a lawsuit.

In the end, Anderson filled the order and baked the cake in line with the policy of her shop, which does not permit specialty messages on desserts ordered online. …

[NativeSon]

When the attention-craving victim classes are involved, anything is
possible.

[fwdude]

Anyone know what ever happened with the obscenity spewing “gay” coffee house owner in Seattle how literally kicked a group of peaceful Christians out of his shop a few years ago? That story went down the memory hole pretty quickly.

[Wuli]

The only positive was that she did make the cake as asked. To that alone I can say good for her.

I understand the tactic the person who made the order was trying - to get a refusal of the order and then try to sue over it.

However, I do think the person who ordered it, no matter his motive, was wrong to not pay for it and have it picked up.

[Olog-hai]

Nobody forced her, and their “side” has no problem coercing Christians to do their will or be sued in earnest (in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment).

[Robert DeLong]

Or maybe not. Perhaps they both carried a foul odor. 8>)

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t think she did. The article is not clear, because it includes a line about “they called the store”, but the woman says they do not allow messages, so she would bake a cake, but put no message on it.

So in fact, the article is about how she thought about refusing to bake a cake AT ALL for a Christian, simply because the Christian believed homosexuality was a sin.

But she was afraid (and rightly so) that refusing to bake a cake for a person based on that person’s beliefs would break the law.

And they didn’t pick up the cake, but that could be because they were told that the cake would NOT BE MADE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE REQUEST.

If I’m reading this right, this whole article is:
- A person ordered a cake with a message.
- The shop refused to make the cake with a message
- The shop CONSIDERED not allowing the person to buy a cake.
- The shop filled the “order” without the requested message
- The people did not pick up the cake that didn’t match what they ordered.

[Wuli]

My bad.

I missed the key part: "In the end, Anderson filled the order and baked the cake in line with the policy of her shop, which does not permit specialty messages on desserts ordered online."

Mea culpa.