browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

The Gay Cake Controversy

Posted by on July 12, 2015
Share via email

My original assessment of the now infamous “gay wedding cake” controversy was that had I been the baker the only question I would have asked would have been what flavor icing did they prefer.  It’s a personal position I still stand behind simply because I’m not homophobic, plus from a logical standpoint for me to not bake their cake neither suddenly turns them into a straight couple nor does it prevent them from getting married.  Sounds logical enough, right?  Except then I did some deeper digging into this controversy and realized that the ruling has far greater implications than most people realize. 

Let’s start with some simple role reversal.  If a court can force a business owner to service someone against the owners personal religious beliefs then what’s to prevent a court from doing the same to the customer?  So for example, what’s to prevent a court from ordering a vegan to purchase a McDonalds Big Mac, or force an environmentalist to purchase Monsanto products?  After all, in a free market society the buyer and seller have equal standing under the law.  Therefore, forcing one side to commit to a transaction against their will or beliefs has equal bearing on the other side as well. 

For a second role reversal let’s now pretend that instead of a Christian baker and a cake it’s an Islamic restaurant and I want to order a BLT.  By this court’s own ruling doesn’t this mean that the cook now has to handle bacon on my behalf, but against their beliefs?  You may think the easy out is that bacon isn’t part of their menu and therefore this ruling doesn’t apply.  However, that’s actually irrelevant because not having bacon on the menu is itself a form of discrimination against those whose lifestyles include eating pork.  There are numerous news stories popping up where Christian ministers are now being threatened with arrest for refusing to perform gay weddings against their beliefs.  The pacifistic nature of most Christian churches makes them easy targets to pick on.  However, good luck getting your local Mosque to do the same! 

Once I started digging in on this particular wedding cake case I came across a fact that was both profoundly relevant as well as incredibly troubling that the media has conveniently left out of this story all together.  As it turns out the baker not only knew all along that this particular couple was gay, but that while knowing this the couple had been regular customers all along as well.  The bakers had gladly serviced their needs without hesitation all the way up to the point where their request violated the owner’s personal religious beliefs.  In other words, this particular case truly was about religious freedom and had nothing to do with discrimination at all. 

Furthermore, upon reading the list of all the various claims of damage that this couple supposedly “suffered” simply because they couldn’t get serviced by this particular bakery and that such suffering somehow equated to $135,000 in damages is ludicrous.  As it turns out the list of claims was not only highly suspect but by any logical reasoning downright fraudulent.  To say that not having a particular bakery bake a cake causes a person to suffer high blood pressure is like saying that eating a grape causes alcoholism.  Let’s get real! 

That brings me to my final point.  Regardless of what most people think marriage (whether gay or not) is NOT A RIGHT!  By technical definition it is a state level privilege.  Religion, however, IS A RIGHT with all the guarantees and protections of the Constitution behind it.  Therefore, with prior knowledge and consideration of all the facts behind the case there is no legal basis for the ruling to have come out the way it did other than through opinions and an attempt at political correctness on behalf of the judge.  Therefore, if there is anyone who should now be penalized it’s not the couple who own the bakery, but the judge himself for following his personal opinions instead of the law by allowing a privilege to usurp a right.

Share via email

Comments are closed.