Why "Just bake the cake!" is wrong


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

When stories first started coming out, after gay marriage was constitutionally legalized across the U.S., of bakers, florists and photographers refusing to participate in them, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs (yes, that's Religious Freedom Restoration Act language), many gave the advice, "Just bake the stupid cake." Even some well-meaning conservatives said this, perhaps believing this would be a silly, symbolic fight of little import. Did it not dawn on us that we were giving up our freedom of religion, speech and association with this cave-in? Here's the update:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/why-jack-phillips-matters/

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record... I agree more with Malcolm X philosophy than MLK about desegregation.  I believe it would have been more beneficial for the black community to fight for equality in entrepreneurship to give them the opportunity to own their own restaurants and compete with white entrepreneurs for black and white clientele than to force white people to accept blacks into white restaurants.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

 You should have the right to deny services to anyone for any reason you wish with few exceptions. Obviously, a cop can't say "You know, I hate Asian people. So I'm going to let a madman shoot you in the head while I watch." Also, an ER doctor should be forced (yes, forced) to treat people regardless of their race or sexual orientation in emergency situations. If you can't handle that, don't be a doctor or a cop.

Having said all that from a real world standpoint, you should keep your mouth shut and bake the cake. I'm sure that many, many, many small business owners don't morally approve of all their customers behavior, but instead of going to war and refusing customers, they just shut up and provide the services requested. If you demand all your customers follow the same morality as you do, you'll last probably 24 hours. Maybe less. 

It also needs to be said that if you have the right to refuse a gay couple-you have zero right to complain when they refuse to provide flowers for your daughters wedding just because you are a Christian. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comparisons between LGBT forcing Christians to engage in artistic efforts that promote anti-Christian messaging and the civil rights struggle of the 1960s is a difficult one. The latter had the state imposing segregation upon businesses. However, it generally gets portrayed as government forcing racists to integrate. The argument then--why not force haters to conform, just like that? I suspect @anatess2 is on to something. Give everyone the right to compete. If some choose to limit their options and miss out on business, let them. As the NRO article pointed out, there are plenty of bakers close to Philips who would have happily made a gay wedding, celebrate transition, or even pro-Satanism cake.

Sadly, I suspect this is about revenge. Also, those who are convinced that same sex attraction is purely biological, will indeed come to hate all religions that oppose homosexual sex. They want us shut up and pushed to the fringes of society. In their minds we are no different than racists. Yet, I keep reminding myself that 70% of Americans still identify as Christian. :pray:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that was explained to me in the early days of the Jack Phillips stuff:  Every artist that works for money, finds themselves forced to draw a line about what they will and won't do, who they will and won't serve.  It's not exactly intuitive, but spend five seconds thinking about it, and it becomes clear.  If they design artistic cakes, someone will want porn or hitler.  If they build houses someone will want a torture room where they can chain victims to the wall.  If they paint paintings someone will want racism or vore (google at your own risk).  If they do hair styling, someone will want their pubic hairs styled.  Songwriters will get hit up by someone with a cool idea about a song about murdering cops.  You can probably figure out who approaches dancers on your own.

One daughter does art online, and a lot of her fellow artists just plain old build what they won't do into their ads.  Here's one random teenager's ad - she won't do NSFW or gore:

ArtistRefusingWork.JPG.43eda068ab458ec9d8f91bb735574547.JPG

Since art is first amendment protected speech, those rights should not be abridged by government.  Meaning, no government agency on any level should force someone to art how they don't want, or ban someone from arting how they want, with dang few exceptions.

Jack Phillips was happy to sell the gay couple a wedding cake, just not one of his artistic custom cakes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 
1. Having said all that from a real world standpoint, you should keep your mouth shut and bake the cake. I'm sure that many, many, many small business owners don't morally approve of all their customers behavior, but instead of going to war and refusing customers, they just shut up and provide the services requested. If you demand all your customers follow the same morality as you do, you'll last probably 24 hours. Maybe less. 

2. It also needs to be said that if you have the right to refuse a gay couple-you have zero right to complain when they refuse to provide flowers for your daughters wedding just because you are a Christian. 

Wrong and wrong. Perhaps you are misreading the issue. None of this litigation involves Christians refusing to serve LGBT clients. Rather, it involves Christian artisans refusing to engage their God-given artistic talents in anti-Christian MESSAGING.

From the article:  A transgendered activist named Autumn Scardina, who had allegedly also asked Phillips to make “an image of Satan smoking marijuana,” “the Church of Satan,” and “a three-tiered white cake” with a “large figure of Satan, licking a [… I won't include the lude item description...],” lodged the complaint.

Again, no one is arguing that Christians refuse to serve LGBT. On the other hand, I agree that I should not expect a gay baker to craft a cake saying that only opposite-sex marriages are real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something that was explained to me in the early days of the Jack Phillips stuff:  Every artist that works for money, finds themselves forced to draw a line about what they will and won't do, who they will and won't serve.  It's not exactly intuitive, but spend five seconds thinking about it, and it becomes clear.  If they design artistic cakes, someone will want porn or hitler.  If they build houses someone will want a torture room where they can chain victims to the wall.  If they paint paintings someone will want racism or vore (google at your own risk).  If they do hair styling, someone will want their pubic hairs styled.  Songwriters will get hit up by someone with a cool idea about a song about murdering cops.  You can probably figure out who approaches dancers on your own.

One daughter does art online, and a lot of her fellow artists just plain old build what they won't do into their ads.  Here's one random teenager's ad - she won't do NSFW or gore:

ArtistRefusingWork.JPG.43eda068ab458ec9d8f91bb735574547.JPG

Since art is first amendment protected speech, those rights should not be abridged by government.  Meaning, no government agency on any level should force someone to art how they don't want, or ban someone from arting how they want, with dang few exceptions.

Jack Phillips was happy to sell the gay couple a wedding cake, just not one of his artistic custom cakes.

 

 It's the same with tattooists. I've been tattooed by many, many people and virtually all of them have told me that there are things they simply won't do. Racist, heavily sexual ones are almost always no-gos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Wrong and wrong. Perhaps you are misreading the issue. None of this litigation involves Christians refusing to serve LGBT clients. Rather, it involves Christian artisans refusing to engage their God-given artistic talents in anti-Christian MESSAGING.

From the article:  A transgendered activist named Autumn Scardina, who had allegedly also asked Phillips to make “an image of Satan smoking marijuana,” “the Church of Satan,” and “a three-tiered white cake” with a “large figure of Satan, licking a [… I won't include the lude item description...],” lodged the complaint.

Again, no one is arguing that Christians refuse to serve LGBT. On the other hand, I agree that I should not expect a gay baker to craft a cake saying that only opposite-sex marriages are real.

Actually, you are the one who is misunderstanding me. I am saying that everyone SHOULD have the right to deny services for any reason they want. So....

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Actually, you are the one who is misunderstanding me. I am saying that everyone SHOULD have the right to deny services for any reason they want. So....

Okay...I was reacting to your real world advice that the baker should shut up and make the cake. The explanation seemed to be that we should not look into the moral lives of our business clients. Jack wasn't doing that. He offered to serve the LGBT client. He just refused to custom make an anti-Christian messaged product.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, prisonchaplain said:

.I was reacting to your real world advice that the baker should shut up and make the cake.

Let me be clear. 

Just like the tattooists I mentioned, there are limits. And yes, I think this Phillps (is that his name?) guy IS being bullied, all that. 

But, and I stand by this 100% (no apologies) sometimes you need to swallow a bitter pill, use common sense, and do something you might not agree with. If you think it's worth a lawsuit, your kids being hungry (because lawsuits are like, expensive man) your home being foreclosed, then go for it. Refuse away. But in the real world, grown ups realize that you need to make some tough choices sometimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, @MormonGator. On the other hand, the point of the article was that Philip's fight benefits all who love our First Amendment. Rather than cave, he stood. I believe he had backing from at least one religious liberty law firm. I am so thankful for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Rutherford Institute, Homeschool Defense League, and other such groups. I remember when one of the Christian dating sites was forced to cave by providing the same services for same-sex dating. The company openly said it did not have the funds to fight. Hopefully, those days are done. We could lose our First Amendment. Many young adults believe "Hate speech is not free speech." Of course, who defines hate? The time to give in and take the moral hit, so the family can survive is past--if people of faith will unite, pray, and back these groups fighting for our freedoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, prisonchaplain said:

Fair enough, @MormonGator. On the other hand, the point of the article was that Philip's fight benefits all who love our First Amendment. Rather than cave, he stood. I believe he had backing from at least one religious liberty law firm. I am so thankful for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Rutherford Institute, Homeschool Defense League, and other such groups. I remember when one of the Christian dating sites was forced to cave by providing the same services for same-sex dating. The company openly said it did not have the funds to fight. Hopefully, those days are done. We could lose our First Amendment. Many young adults believe "Hate speech is not free speech." Of course, who defines hate? The time to give in and take the moral hit, so the family can survive is past--if people of faith will unite, pray, and back these groups fighting for our freedoms.

I'm thankful for them as well. Anyone who defends the rights of the individual is okay by me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often pondered elements of living one's religion.  I have been involved with some myself.  I believe there are some examples in scripture.  One that I have pondered is the story of the angles that come to the home of Lot in Sodom.  There were citizens of Sodom that demanded that the angels perform service for them.   What bothers me personally about this particular story is that the option chosen by the angles were not options I have had.  I mentioned that I have had some personal encounters and I have thought that it would be really neat if G-d would just smite my adversaries.  But such has never happened.

Another example is the story of Shadrach, Meshack and Abendgego.  I really liked this story as a child.  I like it because those that sought to force Shadrach, Meshack and Abendgego from living their religion were punished - there was this revenge factor that I have thought is an important element of divine justice.   But I must say nothing like this story has ever played out in my life either.

At this point I want to pause and add a disclaimer - Whenever I have thought to stand up for a religious principle that I have misinterpreted the whole process has worked out very badly for me and has caused me to suffer the worse for it.

When I have stood firm for a true and right principle - there are most always two things that come of it.  The first is that there is not much fun in going through such experiences - there have been times that I did not think I would live through the experience.  I did not know or think that things would turn out well - but there was hope and perhaps faith that somehow things would be okay.  The second thing is that through a miracle I cannot explain I was protected - not in anyway that I could say to my oppressors, "See!  I told you so!"  Rather it has been a quiet, personal and private thing that quite honestly has left we astonished that it worked out - and my advisories never had a clue - sometimes they thought they had won????

It is my impression that if someone believes in something that they ought to stand for something.  I am more impressed with someone that will stand for a flawed version of a divine principle than to bend with every circumstance.   But I am still confused when my principles conflict with someone else's principles and we each face one another refusing to give any latitude in the matter.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I've been tattooed by many, many people and virtually all of them have told me that there are things they simply won't do. Racist, heavily sexual ones are almost always no-gos. 

“Almost” always?

Been shopping around, have you? 😜 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I keep telling you, if you get a forehead tattoo, you'll be out of the closet like this guy.

image.jpeg.21ce9702ba5f4a7aae945f8a1a1aeed6.jpeg

Oh my. 

My parents don't care about my tattoos, but my dad did say that he would prefer it if I didn't get one the neck/face, etc. I've disappointed him enough in this life, so I feel like I owe him that. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following the Jack Phillip's court case for some time and I am grateful the courts have sided with his first amendment religious rights.  The Bill of Rights lists out many of our liberties and rights and they are every American citizen's rights.  A win for Jack is a win for all Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I should be able to choose with whom I do business.

 

The Civil Rights Act got it half correct.  There should never have been codified any so called Jim Crow laws requiring discrimination.  But the idea of "public accommodation" for business is incorrect.  And this public accommodation is what the LGBTQ groups have been asserting.

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2020 at 2:42 PM, MormonGator said:

 You should have the right to deny services to anyone for any reason you wish with few exceptions. Obviously, a cop can't say "You know, I hate Asian people. So I'm going to let a madman shoot you in the head while I watch." Also, an ER doctor should be forced (yes, forced) to treat people regardless of their race or sexual orientation in emergency situations. If you can't handle that, don't be a doctor or a cop.

Having said all that from a real world standpoint, you should keep your mouth shut and bake the cake. I'm sure that many, many, many small business owners don't morally approve of all their customers behavior, but instead of going to war and refusing customers, they just shut up and provide the services requested. If you demand all your customers follow the same morality as you do, you'll last probably 24 hours. Maybe less. 

It also needs to be said that if you have the right to refuse a gay couple-you have zero right to complain when they refuse to provide flowers for your daughters wedding just because you are a Christian. 

Here's the difference between an ER doctor treating a patient who lives "an objectionable" lifestyle vs. a baker baking a cake.

1. One is life and death.  The other is a completely arbitrary luxury.
2. One requires a doctor to do a noble thing (save a person's life) while the patient simply receives the service.  The other requires the baker to personally participate in an act that he finds objectionable, while the one receiving it can gloat at victory.

Saving a person's life is saving a person's life.  It doesn't matter whose life we're talking about.  It could be Adolf Hitler.  And the doctor should save the guy's life.

Writing something down with one's own hand in celebration of an act is ok or not depending on what is being written.

It is interesting that you say "don't be a doctor or a cop."  The judgment has actually been handed down that a cop has no responsibility to protect your life or your property.  If I were to ask about who has the greater moral responibility to show benevolence to someone with whom they disagree, I'd think that the cop would be the fist on the list, followed by the ER doctor.  The baker would rank about 81 on that list of 3 people.

 

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Carborendum said:

Here's the difference between an ER doctor treating a patient who lives "an objectionable" lifestyle vs. a baker baking a cake.

1. One is life and death.  The other is a completely arbitrary luxury.
2. One requires a doctor to do a noble thing (save a person's life) while the patient simply receives the service.  The other requires the baker to personally participate in an act that he finds objectionable.

Saving a person's life is saving a person's life.  It doesn't matter whose life we're talking about.

Writing something down with one's own hand in celebration of an act is ok or not depending on what is being written.

It is interesting that you say "don't be a doctor or a cop."  The judgment has actually been handed down that a cop has no responsibility to protect your life or your property.  If I were to ask about who has the greater moral responibility to show benevolence to someone with whom they disagree, I'd think that the cop would be the fist on the list, followed by the ER doctor.  The baker would rank about 81 on that list of 3 people.

 

Right, that's why I said (twice now) that the baker has every right to deny whoever they want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Right, that's why I said (twice now) that the baker has every right to deny whoever they want. 

They have the right to deny, but they should just shut up and bake the cake?  I don't see how that's any different than saying their right doesn't mean squat.  You're essentially saying that this right is so small, that it isn't worth fighting for -- or worth protecting.  If that's the esteem we give it, then by preponderance, we're basically saying, the right doesn't exist (in a real world scenario).

Listen, I know you want to walk the fine line of balance.  And I commend you for that ideal you try to achieve.  But there are some bigger things at work here.

You want us to just "bake the cake."  But it's more than just the cake.

What do you think the "cancel culture" is really about?

It is the mark of the beast.

  • If you don't do what we want you to do and believe what we want you to believe, and bow down to the idolatrous god of materialism, abortion, moral depravity, & licentiousness,  then you shouldn't have the right to do business in America.
  • If you don't have the mark in your hand (actions) and head (beliefs) then you cannot buy or sell here. 
    • Boycotts, lawsuits, shoutdowns on social media
    • Conservative public forums with specified formats for open dialogue with opposing points of interest are being overrun by liberals who simply want the conservatives to stop speaking.
  • All of Hollywood can't make a blockbuster movie without some SJW theme anymore.

The mark of the beast is all around.  And you want us to just "bake the cake"?  It's more than just the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

but they should just shut up and bake the cake?  I don't see how that's any different than saying their right doesn't mean squat. 

It's a huge difference. I'm saying "They have the right not to be forced to bake the cake." I have said that, now, four times. 

But, what I'm also saying, and what I'm right about, is that they should bake the cake. Should is not the same as "forced". So there's a huge difference. 

You should wear a seat belt. I will make fun of you for not wearing one. But you shouldn't be forced to wear a seat belt. Same thing. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share