The Crux of the Gay Wedding Cake Issue

by Mark Angelides

Once again the story about the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple is in the ages of our newspapers. We are being asked to look at it as though the baker, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was asking for “the right to discriminate” (LA Times) and that their refusal is akin to a sign saying “No blacks.” But their argument is not only flawed, it is disingenuous and moral cowardice.
You see this is not about refusal of service, in fact, Masterpiece did offer the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig service, just not the service they asked for. Those who support the couple suing the bakery are missing a major point…Whether it is a religious objection, an ethical objection, or any other kind of objection, the creation for something should not be compelled under law.
If the bakery had refused to sell them an existing cake, then they should be shut down immediately, because this really is discrimination, but they were asking for a unique creation that was not being “offered.”
The simplest way to argue this is to carry on the line of thinking. Can you go to a Halal butchers and demand that they sell you meat that has not been killed in the Halal method (assuming they do their slaughter on site)? Of course not! But neither can  they refuse to sell you meat that that they have already prepared Halal if you ask for it. If you asked for them to do that, to not slaughter in a their regular method, they would be well within their rights to refuse.
Another example. If you go to an artist who happens to be gay, and his main income source is painting commissioned portraits or artistic posters, and you ask him for a sign that ahs a biblical passage regarding “the sin of homosexuality,” would anyone expect him to actually paint it?
And it is not a question of “protected status” (although the ruling in the case might have been), it is a question of freedom. The freedom to NOT be compelled to create or work towards something with which you disagree. It is the same reason that conscientious objectors are no longer thrown in prison. In a free society, no one should be compelled to deface or devalue their beliefs.
I feel for the people who wanted the cake. It is sad for everyone when your way of life is looked upon as “less” than another’s. But they were NOT refused service, and this was NOT an argument “for discrimination.”

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!
Views:

6 thoughts on “The Crux of the Gay Wedding Cake Issue”

  1. I am a little curious here. If I start a business and pay for that business all by myself, why is it against the law to discriminate? If I paint cars but only paint them red, why is it against the law to refuse to paint cars pink. My point is, if I want to lose business because I hate everyone, is that not my prerogative? Or if I lose business because I don’t want to advertise someone else’s product, is that not a reasonable choice in a “free”society? I wonder if I went to a gay liberal bakery and asked for a Donald Trump MAGA cake, do you think they would make it?

    Reply
  2. I agree with your argument here 100% except for this: “If the bakery had refused to sell them
    an existing cake, then they should be shut down immediately, because
    this really is discrimination.” Please tell me why it should be considered a good thing for the government to force you not to discriminate? Discrimination is a very poor business practice, bigoted, and just plain stupid, but thinking that it is OK for the government to force you is a totally different matter. When the government is allowed to force a business owner to do business with someone he does not want to do business with then the government is taking away the property rights of the business owner. It is this very concept that has brought us to the present situation. The government thinks they have the right to force business owners in whatever way they want.

    Reply
    • Thanks for reading. Actually I agree with you on this. I would have included it it but we have limited space on the articles. I may do another article specifically on this point. As you point out, it is the market that would eventually close down a bigotted business, and as such needs no government intervention (and I see no reason for a government to stick its nose in to private affairs). I had to make a choice about which angle to write and went with this one, but I’ll definitly write from the non-intervention side this week. Thanks for the input. Cheers!

      Reply
  3. Homos ruin society. They are a degenerate, disgusting, selfish, familiyless, non-reproductive, useless, scar on all civilizations, and have been for thousands of years. Keep them in closets, or out at sea. , I find them offensive to the responsibilities endowed through our ancestors, to us, to keep a decent society moving forward. Homos only destroy. Keep them out of your life.

    Reply
  4. Thank you, Mark Angelides! Right on!
    Protecting religious freedom protects everyone. For example: a gay wedding photographer may refuse to photograph an event for Westboro Baptist Church, which espouses ideas hateful to gays; an African-American printer may refuse to print brochures for the Aryan Nation, a white supremacist group; a Jewish caterer need not serve pork, or serve a Christian wedding on Saturday. Public accommodations laws are designed to insure that everyone has access to basic services. Such laws need not compel service providers to sacrifice their own religious freedoms and convictions. The law should strive for a “live and let live” balance that protects the rights of all people.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.