The story may not be new to you.  A Christian-owned bakery is approached by a gay or lesbian couple wanting a wedding cake specially prepared, or maybe just one designed for a special event with phrases like "I Support Gay Marriage" or the like.   The baker refuses to do so, typically on moral and religious grounds, and then lawyers get involved and it usually winds up bad for the baker, particularly in states that allow gay marriages or have anti-discriminatory laws that include sexual orientation.

As a couple of examples, Denver Bakery lost in court against a gay couple who the bakery denied to make them their wedding cake.   Similarly, an Oregon Bakery owner was found to have been discriminatory in denying wedding cake service to another gay couple.  She later lost her business from the scuffle due to the State's actions and activists. 

It even happens across the pond.  In Ireland, a bakery came under intense pressure from progressives all around the Emerald Isle and beyond when they refused to make a cake with the simple message:  "Support Gay Marriage" along with some imagery featuring Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street.  The Irish Equality Commission made the bakers pay dearly for those beliefs, and may find only further persecution in their future (see video below).

Likely, you have an opinion of whether the shops are being discriminatory and acting with unjust arbitrariness or whether they are just keeping true to their faith without compromising their principles to some arbitrary government dictum.  Likely, you won't shake your faith in your position, but let's conduct an experiment where the tables are turned.  For the sake of this experiment, which isn't totally scientific, yet enlightening all the same, I will utilize Theodore Shoebat's research involving calling the prominent and professedly gay-friendly bakeries and ordering a cake (or big cookie) that has a message that might be objectionable to them.

Shoebat in total called 13 bakeries and from each used the same basic script that he was looking for a cake for his traditional marriage appreciation event and asked whether he could get a cake with the phrase "Gay Marriage is Wrong" 

At the beginning of his experiment, he poses the provocative hypothesis:  Christian bakers are being punished for refusing to make gay wedding cakes, what happens when you ask pro-gay bakeries to make cakes that say "Gay Marriage is wrong.

After getting the okay to get a large cookie with his phrase only if it includes a penis on it from the first bakery, he proceeds to get denied or hung up on by the next ten bakeries, as this video shows.  Often the enlightened baker insults and degrades Shoebat for his simple request and his own traditional lifestyle, much like an old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone preacher would do to homosexuals, but without all the swearing and ill-will. 

In part two, two more bakeries deny him, the first saying they would make the cake but he would have to write the words on the cake, the second was an almost immediate hang up. 

If we take Mr. Shoebat at his word, this experiment shows that out of these supposedly tolerant baker's dozen bakeries, none would allow him to get a cake (or cookie) that had the simple message that "Gay Marriage is Wrong" on it.  Isn't tolerance supposed to go both ways?

If a devout Gay Activist, Atheist, Muslim, etc. refuses to bake a cake with an idea he/she finds objectionable on it, are they not committing the same violation that the Christian bakers above are accused of? 

Read more from Shoebat's Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditiona

Views: 329

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree, when the progressives want their agenda accepted by society they are the saints of goodness because they think only they are in the right but when those who are apposed to that agenda and speak up they are labeled as bigots, prejudice, mean, haters, ect. even though those apposed are expressing their religious beliefs. The gentleman, Mr. Alan Keyes, in the following video expresses the logic against gay marriage just about as good as I've heard any argument. The only problem with the video is that Obama is sitting next to the gentlemen who is speaking.

Thanks for the video from back when Obama was only a threat to the State of Illinois, and Alan Keyes was engaged in spirited punditry.  I would have been happy had he won the Republican nomination during the times he ran for office, because he is not only eloquent but explains things in a way that is refreshing, like he did for the debate video with BHO, when he had a solid argument (I wonder what his opponent countered with, since he was not pandering to the LGBT crowd at that point).  When he ran against Obama in 2004, it was the only time Obama was actually a polar opposite of his foe. 

I wondered whatever happened to Keyes since 2008 and found that he is a regular columnist, still putting out insightful http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes

Check them out, he's a great thinker who's not given enough credit for being so.

I know this is not related to this topic but I found this video of Mr. Keyes describing Obama well before most people realized what Obama is all about.

In related news, the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was not railroaded through the system in the lame duck session of MI Congress.  The Act would have 'clarified' what religious freedoms were and allowed some use of objections on religious grounds in situations like are described above.  Even though I have linked to the ACLU site declaring it a victory, I see some use for such a law in the future, but it should be well-debated and passed in a regular session or better yet in an initiative process where both sides can vent their views for the needs of such a measure. 

Always be wary of a bill granting more freedom or rights, because such bills necessarily also grant more responsibilities and duties to the people as well.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service