Baker Under Investigation After Declining to Make Gay Couple’s Wedding Cake: If I Have to ‘Be Penalized for My Beliefs,’ So Be It
An Oregon man may have broken the law and is facing a state investigation after refusing to bake the cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding, KATU reports.
KGW has details on the story:
It started on Jan. 17 when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for the perfect wedding cake.
“My first question is what’s the wedding date,” said owner Aaron Klein. “My next question is bride and groom’s name … the girl giggled a little bit and said it’s two brides.”
...
Praise God that I see that God is still in someone's heart to take a stand against what is being termed "GOOD" when all and sundry knows that homosexuality is a SIN I am being called an enemy of the church because I dared to stand and say that this is a sin and it says so in the word of GOD
Every American should read that article to be fully informed of what our government is really advocating when it promotes homosexuality as a lifestyle to be celebrated as 'normal.' That article exposes just how contrary to nature and dangerously unhealthy that lifestyle is for the body as well as for the soul. How sick, twisted, and wicked it is for our governmen to be promoting such things-- it is all for the love of money, for the 'big bucks' that politicians receive from the LGBT lobby to get them re-elected and to go on living their cushy lifestyles.
Just refer to them as queer couplings, Martin that should do it. Oh and of course remember, [URL=http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Holsinger_on_Homosexuality.pdf]]]Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality -- Rated "M!"[/URL]
You're exactly right. They want to control Christians by getting them to use terms like "marriage" and "wedding" with reference to their anti-Christian pagan rituals. Why? Because if they can get us to use terms invested with the meanings THEY supply, then we become useful "pawns" in furthering their goal of cultural domination. They know that "whoever owns the language owns the culture," so they believe that if they can get everybody, including Christians, to engage in "homo-speak" by referring, for example, to a cake that has the names of two men on it as a "wedding cake," then they have won the culture war. That's why we Christians need to refuse to be caught up in this lunacy even in the terminology we use. John Piper discourages Christians from using terms like "gay marriage" and urges them to refer instead to "so-called gay marriage" and "so-called gay weddings" to reinforce the idea that men have no power to create something which God says has no existence. I agree with him, and so I am making a conscious effort to use words always according to their Judeo-Christian meaning and cleanse my mouth of "homo-speak" terminology. In this war for civilization that we are fighting, we must not allow ourselves to be used as pawns even in the way we speak.
Mark M. wrote: ---I don't understand why people want to spend their money at a place that doesn't want their business. Again, if I had a shop, I would have printed on huge banners "I support traditional Biblical marriage between one man and one woman." ---
It isn't the cake they want, but control. If the cake were the issue, they could easily find a baker who would accommodate them.
What I don't understand is why this baker does not put in his brochure, "We bake traditional wedding cakes," and then put an asterisk to a footnote explaining that the term "traditional wedding cakes" refers to cakes that bear the name of the bride and the groom. Then the issue is not about WHOM he is willing to serve, but rather, WHAT SERVICES he is willing to provide. If he offers to sell "traditional wedding cakes" as defined above to anyone who comes into his shop, then how is that discrimination? He is willing to do business with anyone who comes into his store-- but he is only willing to provide them with the specific products advertised in his brochure. Do bakers have no say at all over which products they are compelled to produce? As long as they maintain the same policy 'across the board' for all their customers, then how can that be construed as discrimination?
I wonder if the Butcher and the Candlestick Maker are willing to stand behind this guy. I would.
I don't understand why people want to spend their money at a place that doesn't want their business. Again, if I had a shop, I would have printed on huge banners "I support traditional Biblical marriage between one man and one woman." I would have similar things printed on my business cards and every flyer that promoted my shop. I'm allowed to do those things. If they still want a wedding cake from me, then I would do it and keep my business open.
Martin (from TX) makes sense. If I have a chevy and I bring it to a foreign car repair shop, can I demand that they repair it, even if they don't repair domestic cars?
It seems to me that the real issue here is not the question "WHO is the baker obliged to serve?" but rather "WHAT SERVICES is the baker required to provide?" His defense should be that he is being asked to provide a service that he has never offered to anyone, which is to provide a cake for a 'mock' wedding ceremony, that in his view as a Christian is not a wedding at all, but a pagan religious ceremony that is directly hostile to his values as a christian. What these two women are wanting him to bake, therefore, is something that he has never offered to bake for anyone-- therefore, he is not discriminating against them, for he would not bake a 'mock' wedding cake for anybody for any reason. The only service he offers is to bake wedding cakes for real weddings. The government is trying to get him to recognize something as a wedding that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize as a wedding, so that is a violation of the first amendment, which allows freedom of religion. It is like 'bloody Mary' trying to impose her belief on all the subjects of her realm that the object in a priest's hands is Christ's body and blood. But it is NOT Christ's body and blood, but bread and wine. This is a clearly a case of the state imposing religious belief.
I agree but there are also the business laws of the land to deal with, like the law of equal compliance. These retailers who post the signs that say "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" is misleading...no they can't and that applies here. I'm a small business owner and I prefer not to do business with gays, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, or any other type of criminal. If I can get away with it secretly, I won't but if I have to, I have to. The way I see it is that I am not supporting any particular organization...I'm just providing a service for a sinner and they will have to deal with God about their sins on a personal, private level which I have nothing to do with and which has nothing to do with the transaction. If I were to openly begin refusing service to these types of sinners, I would go into financial ruin due to the lawsuits. There is an Earth full of sinners suffering from various types and levels of sin. Some sin openly and proudly, while others (most) live their lives of sin in secret. These are the people we do business with, are introduced to, and have conversations with every day. I just don't see the difference really because whether we are aware of it or not, we deal with unsavory people each and every day.
Luther said "Peace if possible, truth at all costs." We need to be gentle to all because we are all sinners, but, we CANNOT compromise God's truth for social expediency.
Typical liberal state where past cries for tolerance against "thought police" now are turned into applause for pretended "social justice" dictatorship. Are they not censoring his speech and rights for New Orthodoxy of Political-Correctness? Will the State be a persecutor of religious freedom and (passive protest) speech? He is not even trespassing or picketing in protest on public streets. He simply refused a customer order to his own private-owned business.
Articles in the UK prove that if met with resistance both conservatives and liberals believe such persecutory laws by government are contrary to the Constitution and free speech, free religion, and private property (i.e. including business affairs).
Where is the "social justice" in overthrowing speech, intellectual and religious "freedom" here in America? This will not stand in any Constitutional appeal. The baker is on firm moral and lawful grounds in refusing and standing against such tyranny and injustice. No one compelled them to order a cake from him, nor is it a life-essential commodity they wanted. Why should he be compelled to support and avow their pretended marriage or any other strange or offensive order?
I'm glad that these business owners choose to take a stand on their convictions. A florist here in RI did the same just last week when refusing to deliver flowers to an athiest that complained about a schools wall mural. The problem I see is that they will never win and will end up paying court judgements and even lose their businesses should they ignore or fight. To me, supporting athiesm, gay rights, etc, would be to contribute directly to the organization so I don't think I'd have an issue delivering flowers or baking a cake, although, I would frown upon it for sure.
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
