Here's another one, in Oregon, who refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. Who knew hipster bakers were such bigoted assholes?
Why Do So Many Homophobes Own Cake Shops?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||09/08/2013|
Post the name of the bakery here. Boycott those Diabetes peddling assholes.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/04/2013|
Only stupid cunts bake cakes.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/04/2013|
There's another thread about that Portland bakery.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/04/2013|
Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes, is making their cake for free, and delivering it to Portland.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/04/2013|
Latent closet cases.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/04/2013|
Probably not a big leap from being a batterer.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/04/2013|
I have never met a cakemaking homophobe that I know of.
I thought cakemaking was kind of a gay profession, actually.
Here's Joshua John Russell, who's won a cakemaking competition or two, or three, on Food Network. I think he's more homo than phobe. He could hardly be one bit more adorable.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/05/2013|
And then there's equally gorgeous Jason Ellis, and his Top Tiers cakes.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/05/2013|
Baking powder and baking soda mixed apparently cause brain death.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/05/2013|
OP, what on earth makes you think any of these people are hipsters?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/05/2013|
Yeah, R10. Hipsters don't hate gays.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/05/2013|
Because cakes are gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/05/2013|
Inhaling them, R9
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/05/2013|
Maybe it's a generational thing. When I was young, many decades ago, lots of bakeries were owned by working-class people. It was a way for someone without a college education to make a decent living.
Then all the yuppies and hipsters got into cooking and baking.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/05/2013|
Why do so many homophobes own cake shops?
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach open up cake shops.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/05/2013|
Ugh, who would buy a cake from him? He looks kinda dirty and sweaty.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/05/2013|
The latest - they don't hate just teh gheys!
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/05/2013|
People are attracted to that which repulses them...or is it that people are repulsed by that which attracts them?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/05/2013|
R17! Freaking incredible! Blatant bitch!
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/05/2013|
Filthy hetero stink shit!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/05/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/05/2013|
Please just stop with the inference that homophobes are closet cases. Most are just straight bigoted assholes. The whole homophobe-as-closet-case meme is sometimes true, but generally, it's based on projecting homophobic self hating.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/05/2013|
Some jackass florist in Rhode Island won't deliver flowers to an athiest 16 yr old
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/05/2013|
R22 Well, not to pile one stereotype onto another, but a cake decorator is not the most masculine of professions.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/05/2013|
R22, I agree with you, but people that actually go out their way to discriminate against gays have a lot more going on than just bigotry. I think it is self loathing.
There are lots of racists in the world, but they don't spend their life going after people of other races. My boss is a bigoted racist asshole, but he'll do business with anyone for money.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/05/2013|
[quote] My boss is a bigoted racist asshole, but he'll do business with anyone for money.
He uses his greed to fake being racially tolerant.
[quote]There are lots of racists in the world, but they don't spend their life going after people of other races.
Lots don't but plenty do. It doesn't mean they are closeted blacks- just racist whites.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/05/2013|
Because of the sweet green icing flooooowing down.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/05/2013|
Because of the sweet green icing flooooowing down.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/05/2013|
how dare you r28!!!! how dare you!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/05/2013|
[quote]Please just stop with the inference that homophobes are closet cases.
Why, when it's often true?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/06/2013|
I don't know, but I seem to see these stories every year.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/06/2013|
In the world I’d love to see five years from now, two—seemingly oxymoronic—things will be true:
• My gay and lesbian friends will be perfectly free to marry the person they love, have kids, and grow old together.
• My conservative Christian friends will be secure enough in their First Amendment freedoms to gripe about that.
It’s very possible we’re about to find out whether I’ll get my two wishes. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this week on a pair of gay marriage cases—and while it would be surprising, it’s entirely possible that gay marriage will be the law of the land by Friday.
Some of my conservative friends are terrified. They don’t share my hope for a future where they and my gay friends both get to exercise their freedoms at the same time—they don’t believe it’s possible for such a future to exist.
So they’re afraid their ministers will be forced by the government to perform same-sex marriages. They’re afraid that Jenny Christian, the cake-maker, will be forced to make gay wedding cakes. They’re afraid that religious schools will be forced to teach respect for gay marriages.
Take Michelle Bauman, writing in April for the Catholic News Agency:
The Danish government recently determined that “gay marriage” includes a right to get married in any church in the country, even if that church objects to such unions. Churches throughout the country will now literally be forced to conduct marriages they believe to be invalid and sinful.
This could happen in the U.S. – government regulations forcing Catholic churches to conduct “gay marriages” with the justification that they are not required to recognize them as sacramental.
Actually, that almost certainly couldn’t happen in the U.S.: European countries don’t really have the same First Amendment tradition of religious freedom that the United States has always had. In this country, the Supreme Court has almost always interpreted that amendment broadly and favorably toward letting individuals make their own religious decisions: It’s impossible to imagine a scenario whereby the court would give the go-ahead to laws requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages.
So take Matthew Franck at The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, who raises a more substantive concern:
There are several well-known cases of bakers, photographers—even a religious nonprofit property owner—facing grave legal jeopardy for their refusal to offer their services or facilities in contradiction of their felt obligations to witness to the truth about marriage as it is taught by their faith.
And indeed, such cases do exist, and I can see why they might frighten my Christian friends. Here’s the assurance I want to offer them: We’re just beginning to figure out the legal ramifications of gay marriage. The end will look probably more favorable than you think.
Yes, we’re in for a few years of lawsuits and litigation—some of it also ending up before the Supreme Court—about how to balance the rights of everybody involved. But I find it hard to believe a country that won’t force a pharmacist to dispense birth control because it goes against his religious convictions is going to ultimately decide that Christian pastry-makers have to whip up a wedding cake for Adam and Steve.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think such a law would be wise. If the pastry-maker—or photographer, or property owner—won’t oblige a gay marriage, the happy couple can in the vast majority of cases take their money down the street to the person who will accommodate them. Everybody can get what they want (maybe with just a little more effort) with no harm done to anybody or their consciences.
That’s not to say there won’t be some tradeoffs for Christians and Christian groups as gay rights become more entrenched. Catholic adoption agencies will have to give up the idea they can shut gay parents out of the adoption process and receive public taxpayer funds to do so. Similarly, Archbishop Charles Chaput can probably either kick the kids of gay parents out of Catholic schools or he can accept public funding for those same schools, but he shouldn’t be allowed to do both. No one is entitled to taxpayer funds. Your rights aren’t being violated if you’re allowed to worship freely but can’t make a little government cash on the side.
Ultimately, though, it shouldn’t have to be the case that we choose to let one group of people have freedom and bring another under the bootheel of the state. Hopefully, in five years, we’ll all be living in freedom—some of us with the freedom to love, some of us with the freedom to worship, and all of us free to pursue the best possible lives for ourselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||06/19/2013|
If you're a fat frau with no chance at a college degree, it seems like you can either become a hairdresser (which IS hard work and takes schooling, but a fraction of what a college degree does) or a baker.
I've seen a million of these shops that are all decorated like an eight year old girl's bedroom and have shitty, oversweetened balls of sugar and fat for sale.
And THESE are always the ones who are all, I can't bake your gay wedding cake because JESUS!
|by Anonymous||reply 33||06/19/2013|
I know of at least 1 high-profile bakery that is owned by a gay couple! The Bread Basket in Camarillo, California. They do a lot of celebrity weddings, parties, and hollywood events/functions. They do of course also do cakes and pastries for the public too. Get your cakes there.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||07/02/2013|
Lesbians, like midgets and gypsies, are known for skipping out on bills. This is an economic decision, not homophobia.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||07/02/2013|
Here's the asshole's facebook page. Lots of pictures of guns and Jesus stuff.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||07/02/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 37||07/02/2013|
Gluten causes homophobia? Or is it sugar?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||07/03/2013|
Or baking powder.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||07/03/2013|
Can Gay Couples, Too, Live and Let Live?
By Barton Hinkle - July 21, 2013
It was a great day when the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and threw out a California case that could have undermined gay marriage in the Golden State. On that day, gay and lesbian citizens won something profoundly important: acknowledgment of the right to live as they choose, without interference from others who think they know better.
Now the question is: Will gay and lesbian citizens acknowledge that everybody else has the same right? Some certainly will. But others are challenging the notion – and thereby undermining the case for their own hard-won victory.
David Mullins and Charlie Craig, for instance. The gay Colorado couple have filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined for religious reasons to make them a wedding cake. The Colorado attorney general’s office has taken their side. So, regrettably, has the ACLU.
And they have company: Similar complaints have been brought against bakeries in Oregon, Indianapolis, and Iowa; a Hawaiian bed-and-breakfast; a Vermont inn; a Washington florist; a Kentucky T-shirt company; and more. As gay marriage gains ground, cases such as these likely will flourish.
As they do, they will lend credence to the otherwise ludicrous assertion by social conservatives that there is a “homosexual agenda.” It will remain absurd to suggest gay people are trying to turn straight people gay. Changing other people’s sexual orientation has always been a conservative project, not a liberal one. But it will cease being absurd to suggest that requests for tolerance are actually demands for approval – and that those who claim to celebrate diversity actually insist upon ideological uniformity.
Wedding-cake cases also may help resolve one of the buried tensions over homosexuality and gay marriage – support for which flows from two different kinds of arguments.
The first is thee argument from freedom – in particular the freedom to associate with whom we wish. Its goal is to make sure everyone is treated right. It says individuals should enjoy the liberty to do whatever they like, with whomever they like, so long as their activity is consensual and does not harm anyone else. As Jefferson wrote: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” By the same token, what Adam and Steve do in the bedroom or at the altar also neither picks a pocket nor breaks a leg. So leave them in peace.
The other argument – the argument from equality – wants to make sure everyone is treated the same. So if straight people get to marry, then gay people should, too. One problem with this argument: It leaves the door open for the infringement of individual rights, so long as everybody’s rights are equally transgressed.
You could see that flaw in stark relief during the era of South African apartheid: U.S. liberals objected vehemently to apartheid, and rightly so. But some seemed almost blasé about the similarly savage cruelty of communism in Cuba or the Soviet Union. This raised the question of whether it was oppression per se that they objected to, or simply the uneven application of it.
These two arguments are not mutually exclusive. You can support gay rights and gay marriage both because they harm nobody and because people should be treated the same. And because the government should treat everyone equally before the law, which is a different and narrower sort of equality.
But there is another, stronger sort of equality: the equality of authority – which suggests social interactions should be consensual because nobody has the right to impose his will on somebody else. This is the sort of equality most compatible with liberty (including the liberty to marry whom one wishes), and the sort of equality gay-rights advocates should embrace.
They should embrace it not only because it is right, but also because it offers the surest defense against depredations by foes such as Pat Robertson – who said last week he wished Facebook had a “vomit” button he could click for pictures of gay couples kissing. Robertson’s hostility is terrible; but without any authority for him to impose his own will on others, it is also toothless.
Yet if we are to respect the best arguments for gay rights, then we also have to recognize that those arguments also apply to people like Robertson – and to the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and to others like them. They should not have the power to impose their will on gay couples. But gay couples should not have the power to impose their own will on them, either. “Live and let live” cannot be a one-way street. //
|by Anonymous||reply 40||07/21/2013|
NEW YORK (RNS) The rights of religious groups or individuals that object to same-sex marriage continue to clash with those pursued by gay rights advocates. Now, the fight that started at state ballot boxes and in courtrooms has moved to floral shops, bakeries and photo studios.
As churches are concerned about the potential of facing lawsuits, some are changing their bylaws to explicitly reflect their views on traditional man-woman marriage.
A bakery in Gresham, Ore., owned by a Christian family, under investigation by state officials for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, decided to close its doors. “This fight is not over,” they wrote on a sign in the shop window. “We will continue to stand strong. Your Religious Freedom is becoming not Free anymore.”
Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that photographers could not refuse to shoot gay wedding ceremonies even though the state does not officially recognize gay marriage. The court ruled that declining to photograph a gay wedding was similar to declining to work at an interracial wedding, with Justice Richard Bosson saying, “There is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.”
Many of the legal skirmishes are not directly tied to federal recognition of gay marriages after the Supreme Court’s decision striking down most of the Defense of Marriage Act. Instead, the fights largely revolve around state and local anti-discrimination ordinances that include protections for gays and lesbians.
Upcoming battles include whether religious opposition to same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender and/or marital status; and what happens when a discrimination claim bumps up against an individual’s or institution’s religious freedom.
Many cases are still being resolved:
* The lawyer who represents the owners of a Colorado bakery say they could face a year in prison for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. * A Kentucky county commission sided with a gay rights group in a discrimination complaint last year after a Christian printer declined to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival. * A florist in Richland, Wash., who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding launched a countersuit against the state attorney general, who sued her for violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision against the Defense of Marriage Act applies to federal benefits, but many have been watching to see whether it holds further implications for religious groups or individuals. For instance, employers in states where gay marriage is legal will be required to provide Family and Medical Leave Act leave to employers with same-sex spouses, even if their state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington-based religious freedom law firm, notes that since DOMA was enacted in 1996, six states and Washington, D.C., have adopted same-sex marriage through the legislative process with conscience protections for those with objections to same-sex marriage.
Ahead of the court’s decision, the Becket Fund issued a brief on areas where religious freedom could be impacted by the DOMA ruling, outlining seven areas to watch:
Public accommodation laws
Many religious institutions provide services beyond their congregations that are considered “public accommodation,” such as health care, counseling, child care, education, wedding facilities and adoption services.
For instance, New Jersey’s Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts organization, which does not permit gay leaders, is a place of “public accommodation.” Some fear that a lack of explicit conscience protections could open the doors to lawsuits.
Housing discrimination laws
Courts in some states have required landlords to allow unmarried cohabitating couples as tenants despite the landlords’ religious objections. A federal recognition of marriage would give same-sex couples a strong standing to access housing under anti-discrimination laws.
In a 2001 case, a New York court sided with two lesbians, saying they had a valid claim of discrimination after Yeshiva University declined to provide housing benefits to unmarried couples. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in New York, a similar case could be considered marital discrimination.
Employment discrimination laws
Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; most state laws include an exemption for religious organizations. A federal law to make anti-gay discrimination illegal nationwide has lagged in Congress for 20 years.
Now the question is: If a gay man or lesbian is fired for being gay, and that person’s marriage is now recognized by the federal government, does anything change? Does a federally recognized marriage offer greater protection in discrimination claims?
After the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington stopped offering spousal benefits to any new employees.
Government facilities access
Access to government facilities, such as schools, parks and other spaces, could become challenging for some who oppose same-sex marriage. For instance, the Boy Scouts have lost leases to campgrounds, parks and a government building headquarters and lost the right to participate in a charitable payroll deduction program. Public university student groups could face scrutiny. The University at Buffalo suspended an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship group after it asked a gay member to step down as treasurer.
Maintaining licenses or accreditation
As many governments would require all state marriages to be treated equally, some worry about loss of licenses or accreditation. Many cite the case where Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco shut down adoption services because the agencies refused to comply with anti-discrimination laws and place children with same-sex couples.
Religious colleges and universities also fear loss of accreditation if they oppose same-sex marriage. The American Psychological Association threatened in 2001 to revoke the accreditation of some religious colleges, partly for “codes of conduct that prohibit sex outside of marriage.” It later decided to keep a religious exemption.
Government grants and contracts qualifications and tax exemptions
As many religious institutions seek grants and contracts for services, some see a tension between providing services and receiving government funding. Illinois Catholic Charities shut down rather than comply with a requirement that they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples for foster care or adoption.
Some are also concerned about the possibility of state or local tax exemption challenges, or the ability to apply for government funding. If discrimination standards apply to sexual orientation, religious school leaders fear they could be denied government programs, such as scholarships and grants.
Educational and employment opportunities
The decision could continue to impact government workers and students at public universities.
Julea Ward, a master’s in counseling student at Eastern Michigan University, told her professors that she could not help gay and lesbian clients with their same-sex relationships. She was expelled for violating the school’s anti-discrimination policy and given $75,000 in a settlement.
At least 12 Massachusetts justices of the peace have resigned because they declined to facilitate same-sex marriage
|by Anonymous||reply 41||09/08/2013|