#Tolerance: Small Colorado biz gets death threats after refusal to make “gay” wedding cake

Posted by: ST on July 31, 2012 at 6:46 pm

Another day, another profile in left wing “tolerance”:

LAKEWOOD, Colo. — A Lakewood gay couple may end up having a masterpiece of a wedding, but they won’t have a “Masterpiece” cake to go along with it.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, told the couple they have their sexual orientation to thank for that. It’s an event that occurred on the afternoon of July 19, and it’s sparking national attention, a petition and a boycott of the local bakery.

Phillips said it has also spiked a boom in his business, which he said has doubled since the incident.

It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception, which will take place in Denver this October after their wedding in Provincetown, Mass., which is set for September.

Phillips informed the couple his business does not create cakes for gay weddings. Mullins took to his Facebook page.

Describing the ordeal as an “awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins said he responded by directing an expletive and an obscene gesture at the owner of what he is calling a “homophobic cake shop.”

Phillips said he isn’t a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple — just not a wedding cake.

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say this is a religious belief,” Phillips said. “I believe the Bible teaches that (homosexuality) is not an OK thing.”

The bakery is family owned and operated. Phillips said since 1993, it has turned away about a half dozen same sex weddings.

While this incident has brought about several death threats – the cake shop was forced to call the police Sunday – Phillips said the boom in publicity hasn’t hurt business. Just the opposite, in fact.

“(On Monday) we had about twice as much business as normal,” Phillips said. “There are people coming in to support us.”

As discussed numerous times at this blog and others before, we all have the right to take our business elsewhere if we don’t like the way a business, well, does business.  We also have the right, as American citizens, to organize boycotts against said business as well, especially in the case of a national chain – which is what the left is doing with Chick-fil-A, under the guise of  “discrimination” of course (in reality, it’s religious bigotry being promoted by the Rahm Emanuels of America, but I digress. Sort of.).

But does having “the right” to do something always make it “right” to do? No, it doesn’t. It never has and it never will.

What we have is one small business (Masterpiece Cakeshop) that will do other cakes for gays but will not create a gay wedding cake because of their religious beliefs.  It’s not clear whether the couple knew this before they took to Facebook to express their rant, or if the people who started the petition on their behalf did, but I think it’s safe to say that either way the response would have been the same: The couple would have been branded “homophobic’ and “haters” and been the target of a growing nationwide campaign designed to demean business owners who support the traditional definition of marriage.

Even if the motivations of the shop owners weren’t religious in nature, it’s possible to to be a secularist in opposition to alternative forms of marriage and to want to conduct your business accordingly. Also, secularist or not, you can oppose gay marriage without being “homophobic”, although liberal supporters of it surely don’t mind throwing that word around every chance they get towards anyone who disagrees with them, even if that person  hasn’t demonstrated any hateful nature towards gays.

Liberals will say this cake shop refusing to make a gay wedding cake is on par with a restaurant owner refusing to serve food to a black man back in the segregation days.  That isn’t the case here, because 1) this private business owner is exercising its right to religious freedom as per what the Bible says about homosexuality and 2) this shop didn’t refuse to serve the gay couple full stop – they refused to make a wedding cake for them.  Had they come in and requested a 4th of July cake or the like, the store owners say they would have made the cake without issue.

What would I do in the event I went into a local shop and they refused to provide for me what I asked for based on personal beliefs? I’d be understandably upset, but I wouldn’t react obscenely the way this couple reacted, nor would I organize a nationwide campaign against them.  I’d go home, cool off, analyze what happened, and if I were still upset later I’d tell people I know what happened, and let word of mouth do its thing around town.  Simple as that.

I swear, it is has gotten to the point in this country where  two locals cannot disagree on a hot button issue without it making national headlines, campaigns being organized, etc, especially when it comes to gay marriage.  Yes, there are some people opposed to gay marriage because they “hate gays” but that shouldn’t overshadow the fact that others oppose alternative forms of marriage – including gay marriage –  for various legitimate reasons, including both religious and/or secular.  Some people – like me –  simply believe that the one man /one woman two parent structure is the ideal environment in which to raise  a child.  Others don’t think the government should have a say so in marriage at all. That’s fine. Let the discussions be had. But for God’s sake (and for the sake of the individual rights of private citizens/biz owners across America), stop start respecting religious freedom and stop making every disagreement national issue!

RSS feed for comments on this post.

14 Responses to “#Tolerance: Small Colorado biz gets death threats after refusal to make “gay” wedding cake”

Comments

  1. The bakery is simply following their principles and morals, something the homosexual celebrants gave up already.

  2. Carlos says:

    My youngest one and I have gone round and round about this for some time now. He, or she, is in the process of “transitioning” and is extremely sensitive to what he/she perceives as any slight toward what I perceive as a multitude of sexual deviancy.

    He/she has made me examine my values and the bases for them. I am still trying to get him/her to examine his/her value system, but that’s like butting one’s head against a brick wall.

    If I have a chance to order from this bakery, I will. I think they deserve the support, and the owner seems to have his act together.

  3. foxmuldar says:

    Why not take their business to a gay bakery. It seems today Gay is the in thing. Too bad the Majority in this country and the world are not gay. As an American I salute this bakery for sticking to their beliefs. Its a privately owned business and they are free to stand by their beliefs.

    There’s got to be other bakeries around that would be glad to bake a gay cake. What was that they wanted? Teal and red frosting. Sounds delicious. But is it chocolate or vanilla or maybe both? Save me a slice even if its for a gay wedding.

  4. Great White Rat says:

    The left IS hate and violence.

  5. If this homosexual couple is so stridently determined to be accomodated with something “peculiar” to their circumstances they could go to theknot.com and shop to their little hearts’ content. However, I can see this bakery’s reluctance to be involved; just thinking what the cake topper may look like I think I’m going to be sick.

  6. Mike in Baltimore says:

    The left and minorities really are out of control. How can one group have the right to express their life style and beliefs, and yet another cannot? What went wrong with this country?

  7. Kate says:

    It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception, which will take place in Denver this October after their wedding in Provincetown, Mass., which is set for September.

    This explains a lot…..ordering a cake in Denver for a wedding in Provincetown, Mass. I know there have to be great gay bakers in New England! So I am assuming this was a targeted attack created in order to malign personal religious practices. Very UnAmerican! Very petty! Very gay rights!

    Those who predicate their life by the way they fornicate are limiting themselves to a few moments of orgasmic self satisfaction and forgetting about the other 23.5 hours in the day.

  8. Carlos says:

    “Those who predicate their life by the way they fornicate are limiting themselves to a few moments of orgasmic self satisfaction and forgetting about the other 23.5 23.95 hours in the day.”

    There, Kate, made it more accurate so they couldn’t accuse you of lying…

  9. Phineas says:

    Hmmm… I don’t know if the case is so clear-cut, or at least it has complications that weren’t considered. Let me ask a question:

    In Minneapolis and elsewhere, some Muslims have refused to provide a service because it was against their religion: a cab driver refuses to carry a passenger because she has alcohol on her, while another refuses a blind man because he has a dog with him (dogs being offensive in Islam); a Wal-mart checker refuses to ring up a customer’s goods, because it would require her to handle pork, and pork is regarded as unclean in Islam.

    In each case, it was argued that religious freedom was at stake. The Muslims involved refused to provide a service based on their own religious beliefs; that to provide the service would be in some way facilitating sin. I’ve argued that they were wrong to do so, that a service offered in general could not be denied in particular, barring some sort of illegality. It seems to me the Christian baker was in a similar situation, refusing a service because he believed he would be, in some small way, facilitating a sin.

    Was I then wrong to criticize the Muslims? After all, like the baker, they’re just denying a service — not because of who or what the person is, but because helping that person would force them to violate their religion in some minor way. Do we then allow individual religious exceptions whenever a person denies a service, claiming their religion is being violated? What standard do we use to decide it really is a religious freedom issue, and not just a matter of personal bigotry? This would open the door to a lot of potential societal rancor, I think, not to mention unending court cases.

    For what it’s worth, I believe the baker was wrong to refuse to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, just as the Muslim cabbie was wrong to deny carriage to a passenger who had bought a bottle of booze in the duty-free shop and wanted to take it home. If the cake were for a child-marriage or a polygamous wedding, then, yes, the baker would be justified in refusing, because those acts are against the law.

    But, as I understand it, the couple was legally married in their home state. If so, then I believe he crossed a minor line from right to wrong, here. But I don’t believe he’s a bad person,a “religious nut,” or any other slur that might be hurled at him.

    Postscripts:
    1) The reaction of the gay couple was way out of line. They should simply have told the baker off, refused ever to shop there again, and told their friends why. That’s fair. But boycotts, harrassment, and especially death-threats are way beyond the pale. I hope the terrorists (for a death threat is terrorism) are caught and prosecuted.

    2) For the record, I support allowing same-sex marriage as a form of civil union under contract law. In fact, I think the State should get out of the marriage business altogether and provide civil unions in general, leaving “marriage,” a religious sacrament, to religions.

    3) I don’t think this is all that analogous to the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha. There, the owner of the company was merely expressing his own opinion; no service was denied. They wrath they’ve incurred since then is unjustified and outrageous. It really is a “freedom of conscience vs. fascism” issue.

    4) I know, I know — “RINO!” ;)

  10. Kate says:

    @Phineas…RINO as “religious” in name only?

    The whole argument about marriage was brought about in order to have the rest of us,who are not gay, feeling sheepish and being such louts for not allowing those who are in love get married. Okay, enough of that, it’s not the reason. The reason is because of cultural mores that have lasted through the milleneums that help support social structure and the weakest members of society. No matter the “religious” values, the system was working until now.

    If we like dysfunction…then let anyone marry anyone they please because it makes them feel wonderful… forget about the overwhelming impact it is making on civilization as a whole.

    Civil unions? What is that? You can legally provide for any significant other without it. You take care of those you love without the need for some certificate from a government official.

    What is really being done is eroding the real value of marriage. I am sorry if that offends any gay people. I know many gays who actually agree with me! They don’t want to be part of the norm. Gay used to mean anti-society…now they want to rule society. So much for being queens!

  11. Phineas says:

    @Phineas…RINO as “religious” in name only?

    “Republican In Name Only.” It’s a running joke between ST and me, having both been called that at one time or another. :)

  12. Casey says:

    Phineas, as ST pointed out upstream, the bakery didn’t flat out refuse to serve the couple. They just refused to bake a wedding cake.

    Would it be discrimination if a kosher or halal shop refused to process food in a way which violated those standards?

    Besides, I have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to certain “Moslem” objections. Note that you don’t hear of many Jewish workers refusing to “handle” pork in the sense of re-stocking the shelves of the local supermarket. I expect most of the stories come from bigoted Muslims from the “old country” who expect everything to be exactly the same here.

    Not a chance, fella. We don’t do “barefoot & pregnant” (no matter what the proggies say), nor beat women for showing their ankles, going to school, or wearing jeans. And the whole “honor” killing thing? That’s Right Out.

  13. Phineas says:

    @ Casey:

    as ST pointed out upstream, the bakery didn’t flat out refuse to serve the couple. They just refused to bake a wedding cake.

    I don’t buy that argument, I’m afraid. The customers didn’t come in for a 4th of july or a birthday cake. They came in for a wedding cake, and they were denied service. That they had other options is, well, irrelevant.

    Would it be discrimination if a kosher or halal shop refused to process food in a way which violated those standards?

    The baker wasn’t being asked to change his methods in a way that would violate his faith. He was asked to provide the same service he provides to all his other clients.

    Besides, I have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to certain “Moslem” objections.

    I’ll admit the examples I used weren’t perfect, but I think they were applicable. But,let’s try something else. Take the same situation and change the actors:

    In Islam, it is absolutely forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry outside her religion. It’s a great sin.

    Let’s say a Muslim woman marries a Christian man. For their reception, they want to order a cake from the best baker in town; he has a sterling reputation for quality cakes and service. He is Muslim, but has never been known to discriminate against any of his customers.

    But, when the happy couple comes in to place their order, he refuses because her marriage to a Christian is a great sin, and he refuses to participate in that sin in any way, even by just selling them a cake.

    In each case, the refusal is based on a quality unique to the people being refused. In the story ST cites, you can’t have gay marriage without homosexual participants. In my hypothetical, the Muslim woman’s interfaith marriage requires someone of a different religion — it’s discrimination against Gays in one, and against Christians in another.

    In my opinion, the hypothetical Muslim baker was wrong (in a minor, non-criminal way) to refuse service. If you don’t agree, we’ll have to agree to disagree. No harm, no foul, as Chick Hearn used to say. But, if you feel that the Muslim baker would be wrong, then I ask how that would be different from what happened in real life?

    (And, again, I emphasize that I believe the reaction to the baker was way out of proportion to the act, and the death threats were downright criminal.)

  14. Carlos says:

    We will have to agree to disagree, Phineas. In your latest example, I believe the baker well within his rights as a Muslim to refuse that service based upon those beliefs. (Not that I believe that faith system is a workable model in a civilized world, but that’s a different post.)

    Now, if it happened to be a husband who ordered a cake to celebrate the “honor” killing of his wife, THEN I’d have a major problem with it, but since it deals with a civilized, legal activity that runs counter to what the baker believes, what’s the problem? A person can’t be in business if he has a value and belief system?