Judge Declines to Issue Emergency Injunction Against Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Same-Sex ‘Wedding’ Cake

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A state judge in California has declined to grant an emergency injunction against a baker who declined a request to make a same-sex “wedding” cake due to her religious beliefs, but also offered to call an accommodating business on behalf of the two lesbians seeking the cake for their event.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe rejected a motion filed on behalf of the lesbian women, who already “married” in December 2016 and approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake. Miller, who had the women try some of her cupcakes while present, also offered to call another baker who could accommodate them as she herself could not be a part of the event.

ABC23 News reached out to Miller about the matter, who explained that will serve anyone, but there are certain events that she cannot have a hand in due to her convictions.

“We’re Christians. We love everyone. God made everyone. It doesn’t matter the color [or] whatever. Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” she told the outlet. “But, there’s certain things that violate my conscience and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong, and most of what that’s based on is Scripture.”

“I don’t feel that I should be picked on because of my beliefs,” Miller added.

However, the women, Eileen Del Rio and Mireya Rodriguez, took to social media about the matter and later filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which handles enforcement of the state’s civil rights law. Miller’s attorneys say that she received hateful messages and death threats as a result of the situation.

The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.

  • Connect with Christian News

“California respects and celebrates diverse religious beliefs and freedom of speech, but does not create exceptions to its civil rights laws to allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Director Kevin Kish said in a statement.

“After a careful review of the preliminary facts, DFEH concluded that legal intervention was warranted to ensure equal access to services and prevent harm resulting from discrimination until our investigation is complete,” he outlined.

However, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is representing Miller, says that the motion for an emergency injunction was filed with little time to respond.

“The government sprung this needless motion on Cathy without notice, forcing her to scramble with less than 12 hours to prepare. This unprofessionalism is just another example of the LGBT activists and their government allies’ crusade to crush Cathy because of her Christian beliefs,” President Charles LiMandri said in a statement.

On Dec. 14, Judge Lampe declined to grant the temporary restraining order because 1) he had not yet heard Miller’s side of the story, 2) the women sought the cake months ago and 3) he wanted to respect the rights of both sides being represented in the matter.

However, Lampe also set a hearing for Feb. 2 surrounding DFEH’s request for a preliminary injunction, which is the normative next step following a request for an emergency injunction.

“To be clear, [Miller] would have gladly sold the same-sex couple anything from her bakery or create a cake for them for another occasion,” LiMandri explained earlier this month. “There is little doubt, however, that the lesbian couple’s purpose for ordering a cake was to destroy Cathy and her business. And now the state of California is all too willing to join in on the warpath.”

“Fortunately, the First Amendment forbids the government from forcing creative professionals like Cathy to express messages that violate their conscience and religious convictions,” he added.

 


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Scott Davenport

    That’s what you get for living in that Godless state…leave and let the maggots take it over. We need to dump that miserable state and the ones to the north of it……

    • It has nothing to do with the state – Though I’ll give it to you, CA sucks & is FULL of liberals, haters of the God of the Bible, heck, haters of anything they don’t approve of. There are many of us here though that truly love the Lord & desire to do His will. It has everything to do with where our country is going & the state of the people in it. The hearts of Americans have slowly changed, lately it’s at a quicker pace. If I had a choice to live in any other state, I would, but at the moment, the Lord has chosen this state for me & my family. I don’t think running is the answer & there have been sooooo many times I’d love to. I grew up for 47 years in North Carolina, moved to Texas for 3 & now here I am. It definitely is another country but for now, it’s where He’s chosen us to live. Thank you.

      • ppp777

        Its what I call , moral entropy .

      • ThroatwobblerMangrove

        Nobody hates God, and don’t most people dislike things that they don’t approve of? I know a lot of people who love God but they don’t discriminate against other people to prove it. I think you’re confusing a “live and let live” attitude of some Christians with the more angry militaristic approach of other Christians. But they’re all Christians.

        • IzTheBiz

          “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” 2 thessalonians Jesus said ” I am the way, the truth and the light”

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            If you disbelieve the Bible, it doesn’t mean you hate God.

    • DrIndica

      A secular, which the US is, or a godless state, which is a dog whistle to alarm people that agree with your dogma?

  • Recognizing_Truth

    Sensible solution: A business declines a job, take it to a business that will take the job. There’s no illegal discrimination going on, just a business owner accepting and dealing jobs as she sees fit.

    • DrIndica

      I also don’t understand why the “customers” would want to spend money at a business that does not want their business. Unfortunately, many “progressives” have simply attempted to turn a swastika into a peace sign. Certainly they would fail to embrace anarchism, or classical libertarianism.

  • Robin Egg

    Would a homosexual go to a Muslim bakery and ask for the same thing? How about anybody go to a halal deli and ask for a pork barbecue sandwich. Then go file a lawsuit when they won’t do it. These people seem to have no other purpose in life if they have time on their hands to do this petty taunting to people in attempt to get them to go against their religious beliefs.

    • Michael C

      Would a homosexual go to a Muslim bakery and ask for the same thing?

      A customer should be able to enter any business and request any product or service that the business offers without worry of refusal of service on the basis of their race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

      This would include gay black Jewish customers requesting a product that a Muslim business owner sells to the public.

      This is the whole point of civil rights laws.

      How about anybody go to a halal deli and ask for a pork barbecue sandwich.

      If pork sandwiches are on the menu, the deli cannot refuse to sell pork sandwiches on the basis of the customers religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

      There’s nothing that would require a Muslim business owner to put pork sandwiches on their menu, though. If it’s not on the menu, they don’t have to sell it.

      In this case, wedding cakes are on the menu and the business owner doesn’t want to sell what’s on their menu to a customer on the basis of their sexual orientation. If they don’t want to sell wedding cakes to all customers equally, they shouldn’t put wedding cakes on their menu.

      • IzTheBiz

        So Christians are the only people with a moral conscience, I gather! The fact is NO-ONE is suing muslims or atheists. If you were to follow your logic to its conclusion, a christian could ask an atheist to print several thousand shirts saying ‘all atheists will burn in hell if they don’t repent’. So you obviously believe that in all circumstances the law of the land trumps moral conscience?????

        • Etranger

          Your example is different since there is a message on the tee shirt. That is an entirely different set of circumstances. If there is a muslim-owned bakery (there is no such thing as a “christian bakery” or a “muslim bakery” or an “atheist bakery”) that is denying cakes to gay customers, there would probably be lawsuit against them. I have been to muslim-owned bakeries and have never seen wedding cake displays or catalogs. It actually has made me wonder where many muslims get their wedding cakes!

          • IzTheBiz

            depends on how you define a ‘message’ quoting scripture, such as Romans 1:8 (which is saying the same thing) can be a message or a logo! It may be the name of a conference e.g ‘Romans 1:8 conference 2018’ Thats the problem with law. Its open to numerous interpretations!

          • Etranger

            But a message is clear when it is a message. As has been stated by others if you put a wedding cake for a straight couple next to a wedding cake for a gay couple you will not know the difference (aside from maybe figurines on top). There is no message written on the cake.

          • IzTheBiz

            Thats up to the judges to decide! Which brings me back to my original point! Does the law in all circumstances Trump individual moral conscience?

          • IzTheBiz

            Your argument is pointless! Thats up to the courts to decide and how the case is argued. What you would construe to be a simple wedding cake could be percieved as more than a wedding cake. If there is a left leaning judge, I am sure he or she would side with you.

          • Etranger

            I honestly cannot conceive of how one would have to ‘dude with me’. This is one of those ‘facts are facts’ instances… a wedding cake seriously is a wedding cake.

          • IzTheBiz

            You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about! Liberal education, no doubt! Goodbye!

          • Etranger

            Yeah….not sure aboutbliberal education…just education. Unlike yourself:)

        • Michael C

          The fact is NO-ONE is suing muslims or atheists.

          Maybe this is because Muslims and atheists aren’t illegally refusing service to gay people.

          If you were to follow your logic to its conclusion, a christian could ask an atheist to print several thousand shirts saying ‘all atheists will burn in hell if they don’t repent’.

          If civil rights laws confuse you, I would recommend taking time to read them and research court decisions relating to them to gain more knowledge about them.

          A shirt printing store would not be required by civil rights legislation to print shirts that say “all atheists will burn in hell.” Nor would it be required to print shirts that say “Christians are wrong.” That’s not how our civil rights laws work.

          • IzTheBiz

            ‘The fact is muslims and atheists aren’t illegally refusing service’
            Brilliant piece of logic! No-one bothers to harrass a muslim or atheist and therefore they are not discriminating!

            ‘If civil rights laws confuse you, I would recommend taking time to read them and research court decisions relating to them to gain more knowledge about them.’

            sounds like you know alot about the law. Could you please tell me what law would allow an atheist or muslim to refuse to print Romans 1: 18 ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness…’

            However all the above points are side issues. Ultimately a law is open to interpretation and is highly dependent on judges who are not impartial but have very clear predjucies. Otherwise, why would each side of the divide spend so much time and energy trying to elect judges who share their particular leaning. You haven’t answered my previous question, which is the most important one- do you believe that laws trump moral conscience??????

          • Michael C

            No-one bothers to harrass a muslim or atheist and therefore they are not discriminating!

            Actually, a conservative comedian went to Dearborn, MI, pretended to be gay and tried to get bakeries to refuse him service. He deceptively edited the video to make appear as if they had done so when in fact, as he admitted to Christopher Agee of Western Journalism, “no one said ‘No, we won’t do it.’” In truth, an employee of one of the bakeries told a reporter for ArabAmericanNews that they had made wedding cakes for gay couples in the past and one couple returned the next year to purchase a cake for their anniversary. …and this is in a state that doesn’t even prohibit discrimination against gay people. These bakeries would’ve been well within the law to refuse service to gay customers but they choose to serve all customers equally.

            Could you please tell me what law would allow an atheist or muslim to refuse to print…

            In a free society, we don’t make laws outlining what is allowed. Our laws outline what is prohibited. If it’s not prohibited, this means it’s allowed. I know of no law that would prohibit a business from refusing to print your bible verse.

            Can you cite such a law?

            You haven’t answered my previous question, which is the most important one- do you believe that laws trump moral conscience??????

            If someone disagrees with the law, they can choose not to obey it. They will be subject to the repercussions, but we all must follow our convictions.

            Our own personal moral conscience does not exempt us from the penalties of violating the law.

          • IzTheBiz

            I am not familiar with the case. One anecdotal case does not disqualify the reality that in the vast majority of cases its christians who are being targeted for litigation .This litany of cases transcends the border of the US (yes, there is a whole wide world out there) In the UK, Canada, etc Everywhere this wonderful institution has been set up-i.e gay ‘marriage”
            If you know of no law that would prohibit a business from refusing to print a bible verse, then why are you drawing conclusions from nothing??? I have given you an example in the UK where someone is being sued for refusing to print a gay magazine. fact is you are not a judge and don’t know how each case would be argued or decided upon. Thats why they fight over which judge should be elected to a position.

            “‘If someone disagrees with the law, they can choose not to obey it. They will be subject to the repercussions, but we all must follow our convictions.
            Our own personal moral conscience does not exempt us from the penalties of violating the law.”

            yep!, thats called civil disobedience and some people practiced it in Nazi Germany and wherever oppressive governments reigned, including Muslim countries to this day . Its something TRUE followers of Christ have practiced for millenia. From refusing to bow down to worship the Roman emperor, the pope, sharia law, OR refusing to bow down to the LGBT idol. Its really a case of one world view , i.e postmodern LGBT v’s a biblical world view. Guess who wins?? read the book!

          • Michael C

            that in the vast majority of cases its christians who are being targeted for litigation .

            In the cases I’m familiar with, the businesses weren’t “targeted.” And if the majority of businesses that are choosing to refuse service to gay customers are owned by Christians, there’s only one conclusion to be drawn.

            …and even if someone decided to start targeting businesses, it doesn’t matter. All businesses should be following the law.

            Franklin, Joseph, David, and Ezell targeted Woolworth’s.

            If you know of no law that would prohibit a business from refusing to print a bible verse, then why are you drawing conclusions from nothing???

            Huh? I don’t understand what this sentence is referring to.

            I have given you an example in the UK…

            Again, I don’t know what you’re talking about. What magazine? What?

            Either way, different countries have different laws.The topic of this conversation is US law. I have no interest in debating other country’s laws in this thread. It’s irrelevant.

          • IzTheBiz

            No its not irrelevant to other countries. If you come to a Christian site, you have to be prepared to argue about belief systems. Your belief system is obviously not a biblical world view and so you are skewing everything to justify the way the LGBT community has acted -which is essentially stalinesque, i.e repress ALL dissent. The subtext is -does one group in society have the right to violate the conscience and religious convictions of another group. And according to the LGBT community (not all), the answer is a resounding YES!
            Its interesting that there aren’t many true libertarians amongst the LGBT crowd. There are some, but sadly, very few.

          • Michael C

            does one group in society have the right to violate the conscience and religious convictions of another group.

            We’re discussing US civil rights laws. If you oppose civil rights laws because you think they violate the conscience and religions convictions of business owners, so be it. Not everyone likes civil rights laws. That’s just fine.

          • IzTheBiz

            No its NOT about civil rights. Thats how the LGBT community has cleverly managed to define it. Very post-modern, i.e change the language and you change the reality.Thats a lie! There are many in the black community who are outraged that someone who is gay is somehow on the same playing field as they are, i.e a victim of systematic discrimination. If gays wanted to create their OWN institution and not call it marriage, and were denied, then it it may be construed as discrimination. If you walk into an interview, the chances are no-one cares or knows you are gay. If you are black, its another matter. You can choose to have sex with whoever you choose to have sex with. You can choose NOT to express your sexuality. But you CAN”T choose to change the colour of your skin. What you are trying to do is to assert your world view over others.

          • Michael C

            No its NOT about civil rights.

            The law that this bakery violated is called the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It’s the same law that protects citizens from discrimination on the basis of their religion, race, or sex.

            There are many in the black community who are outraged that someone who is gay is somehow on the same playing field as they are

            Did you just say that there are black people who are outraged that gay people want to be treated equally? Did you just say that?

            There are others who fought alongside Dr. Martin Luther King (like his late wife) who see parallels between civil rights for black citizens and civil rights for gay citizens.

            You can choose to have sex with whoever you choose to have sex with. You can choose NOT to express your sexuality. But you CAN”T choose to change the colour of your skin.

            Civil rights protections aren’t reliant on a characteristic being immutable.

            You can choose your religion and how you express it. You can change your religion. You can try to hide your religion.

            Discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion is prohibited by civil rights laws even though religion isn’t an immutable trait.

            Are you Canadian? Am I trying to explain US law to a foreigner?

          • IzTheBiz

            Even if it was about civil rights (which its NOT) the idea that equality should include marriage between two men or women is about as ludicrous as a Jew deciding he should be a priest and should not be denied by the catholic church, because he has decided he has always wanted to be a priest. ”I am black and Asian and therefore I am! ” Thats the level of insanity that is being endorsed. Gods law reigns supreme, not mans law. There is no point continuing this conversation because there is a fundamental lack of reality on your part. You can believe whatever you want to believe. You can believe that there is no hell, no judgement, but that wont change the reality that you and everyone else will face your creator one day and denial wont be an option!

          • Michael C

            There is no point continuing this conversation because there is a fundamental lack of reality on your part.

            Merry Christmas

          • The relevant part of the law that explicitly allows people to refuse to print is the principle of “compelled speech” and it’s a legal term that applies to 1A and 5A.

        • SFBruce

          About 1% of Americans are Muslim, and around 3% are atheist, while about 75% are Christian. That may be why all the bakers and florists in legal problem for discrimination against LGBT people happen to be Christian. As Michael C pointed out, perhaps they aren’t illegally turning customers away.

          • IzTheBiz

            75% are NOT christian. Not the case in ANY western nation! You are not a Christian by your birth certificate. Try 10% MAX! Most so called ”Christians” actually support gay ‘marriage’. The percentages don”t prove that christians are more likely to discriminate. The fact is that in Islamic countries gays are routinely jailed, stoned, or in the case of Iraq, Libya etc, thrown off buildings. They only recognise pedophilia with little boys in Islam, not consensual homosexual sex. The only thing one may deduce from the stats is that there is a higher proportion of christians who are willing to stand up for their beliefs and the muslims really are willing to practice ‘Taquiya’, i.e lying. As for your average postmodern atheist, well its a case of whatever goes. Moral conscience is usually the least of their concerns, unless its promoting the murder of unborn children. You are either true to your belief system, or you are not.

        • Lark.62

          Threatening someone with torture is aggressive hate speech. If the printer refuses “bird watchers suck” and “aussies go home,” they can also refuse “atheists deserve to burn.”

          But if a baker accepts a cake celebrating a christian christening or a christian wedding, they should accept a cake celebrating a bar mitzvah or a non christian wedding.

          I mean, you are aware that a happy personal celebration is fundamentally different than hate speech, right?

          • IzTheBiz

            The only thing you and every other sinner has to deal with is God’s Truth speech , and it doesn’t need to be on a t-shirt or a cake.

            ” The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

            21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

            26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

            28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
            Romans 1.

          • Lark.62

            Don’t change the subject. We are talking about a business being asked to place a message on a product.

            You can believe whatever you want about hell. However, saying that another person deserves torture is still a hateful message. Businesses can reject hateful messages as long as all hateful messages are treated equally.

          • IzTheBiz

            The only message you need to be convinced about is the message of the cross, “For God so loved the world (including you) that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life” Such is the love of God, that while we are still sinners, He reaches out to us and calls us. Eternity is forever. This world is a vapour. Your life is a vapour. All things are passing, including the LGBT insanity. You need to be concerned where you will spend eternity!!

      • getstryker

        The issue is NOT ‘selling wedding cakes’ . . . it is the ‘message’ that is being requested/forced to be added that conflicts with the beliefs and values of the person making the cake. Buy/sell the cake . . . let ‘them’ take it to someone who does not object to the message ‘they’ want to be added to the cake. Works for everyone . . .
        IF ‘their request’ is NOT simply an thinly-vailed attack on a Christian cake maker – which, of course it is. And the ‘guberment’ supports the disgusting actions of those initiating this attack!

        • Etranger

          What message is being forced to be added that conflicts with the beliefs and values of the cakemaker? It is well-established that a cake maker/shirt maker/etc. is not forced to put messages that they would normally not put on their products. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, for instance, there was not requested/forced message for the cake. (Heck, the discrimination is so clear in that case since the clients never even got to discuss their cake design with the cakemaker!)

          • getstryker

            The article clearly indicates the following:

            (excerpt)

            “. . . the lesbian women, who already “married” in December 2016 and approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake. (Cathy Miller). . . offered to call another baker who could accommodate them as she herself could not be a part of the event. . . ”

            Although the specific language requested is not mentioned, the fact that creating a ‘same-sex’ wedding cake, whatever that entailed, conflicted with the baker’s religious beliefs. It was enough for her to decline to create the ‘completed cake’ in the manner requested. Whether it was a request for a specific message on the cake or placing two same-sex figures on the cake, she refused to violate her beliefs

            . . . she did NOT discriminate as she clearly would create/sell them a wedding cake without the same-sex specific figures/message added.

            Beyond that, we’ll see what happens in court.

          • Etranger

            I did not listen to the video, so maybe she mentions that she would sell the cake without a figurine in that. It is not written anywhere in the article. If the topping were the only thing she wouldn’t do, I honestly can’t see how she should be in violation of anti-discrimination law/ordinance.

          • getstryker

            I agree . . . the excerpt shows she would sell a wedding cake but withholds her artistic ability to create a same-sex message she disagrees with . . . government can NOT compel her speech/freedom of religion rights . . . there is NO discrimination – just LGBT being bullies as usual.

          • Etranger

            I agree with everything except your last phrase of course. No need to mischaracterize and malign a group of people just trying to get goods and services they are entitled to.

          • getstryker

            And I object to the idea that ‘they’ are some-how ‘entitled’ to demand that anyone relinquish their Constitutional Rights to appease a ‘protected class’.

          • Etranger

            At a basic level they are entitled to go into a shop and ask for a product, just like everyone else can. Not all LGBT people are bullies as you characterize. Most of us are trying to live our lives. When we are denied things – some are denied basic things such as jobs and housing – simply because of who we are it gets frustrating. Sometimes lawsuits are necessary.* To characterize that as “usual bullying” is intellectually dishonest and certainly unempathetic.

            *edit – necessary because it will iron out the conflict of interests for both sides.

          • getstryker

            No sir, NOT intellectually dishonest – the record of lawsuits show that specific Christians who fail to render their expertise to specific requests that are rejected on moral/religious grounds are being attacked. Lawsuits designed to punish, drive out of business and devastate Christian families are being fully instituted on a regular basis across the country and they are being supported by local governments.
            How would you characterize these actions if they were reversed and foisted on the LGBT community?
            As far as ‘unempathetic’ goes, No sir . . . what individuals do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. My objection is when those actions are presented to school age children as normal, natural and socially acceptable without parents knowledge or approval. I object to ‘Transpersons’ (whatever the term is) being accommodated in school locker rooms/showers and the rights of the vast majority of other concerned students are ignored.
            No sir . . . when you infringe the rights of the majority, seek special consideration without regard to the harm your community creates, demands and inflicts on others . . . No sir . . . enough is enough!

          • Etranger

            I understand where you are coming from. Yes, a majority of lawsuits in this particular area are by LGBT folks. That is because the majority of the discrimination is against them. That said, there are not THAT many lawsuits. it is not as if every gay person is going around suing “Christians” lol. Just like, on the flip side, not every Christian is an anti-gay activist. The lawsuits are not designed to punish and drive Christian families out of business. They are lawsuits against people who are discriminating against particular people. As we both have said, the courts will have to decide what rights people have.

            If gay business owners are discriminating I completely agree with them being called out on it and sued. I have seen it happen in my home town, in fact!

            Your defense of unempathetic is way beyond the scope of this article. It does more to reveal your personal bias and agenda than to add to the discussion (a very good one!) we have been having.

            Asking for a wedding cake does not seem to be infringing on the rights of the majority. I don’t of gay people seeking special consideration. I don’t see how gay people trying to live their lives and get goods and services harms community or inflicts harm on others. If it does, it sounds like a problem for the community! (I do remember my friends in Virginia still thinking they were harmed by black people being newscasters…in 1985!!! So I have certainly seen your line of argument before).

          • getstryker

            We all have opinions . . . I’ve seen yours and now, you are aware of mine. Neither of us is totally right or are either of us totally wrong . . . we simply have different opinions. The courts will decide and that will be the start of new opinions, right or wrong!

          • Blake Paine

            You are confusing the article writer’s words for the truth. The customer only requested a wedding cake.

          • getstryker

            Considering that I only have the article to refer to for the supposed ‘facts’ in this case . . . perhaps you are correct but I have no proof of that as a fact the writer did not report here.

          • Blake Paine

            Considering no one asks for a “type” wedding cake it. A black person ordering a wedding cake is not asking for a ‘black’ “wedding” cake, a gay person is not asking for a ‘same-séx’ “wedding” cake, they are just asking for what the business sells: wedding cakes.

        • Michael C

          I think you’re either misunderstanding the facts or you’ve been intentionally mislead.

          In none of the wedding vendor discrimination cases have the customers asked for any sort of “message” added to the product.

          They didn’t ask for silly plastic cake toppers (I’ve never seen anyone use these, straight or gay), they didn’t ask for “gay wording,”

          …they just asked for a product or service that the business willingly provides for any other customer.

          • getstryker

            Well then, perhaps you would like to enlighten me with a description of a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ – both by message and appearance – in other words . . . how would anyone be able to distinguish such a cake from an ordinary ‘heterosexual’ wedding cake?!

          • Lark.62

            Bingo. The product is identical.

            The baker is saying “I will make this product, but I won’t sell it to you.”

            That is the definition of discrimination.

          • getstryker

            That is NOT the issue here and you should be aware of it. Read the article again if you are unclear on what happened. The ‘product’ to be produced is NOT identical . . . ‘they’ demanded a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ . . . whatever that may be.

          • Michael C

            how would anyone be able to distinguish such a cake from an ordinary ‘heterosexual’ wedding cake?!

            exactly.

            You can put two wedding cakes on a table, one for a straight couple, the other for a gay couple, and nobody would be able to tell which one is which.

            Like I already told you, these customers aren’t requesting products that that businesses don’t already serve to other customers.

          • getstryker

            Several references to ‘same-sex wedding cake’ signifies a difference between the cakes . . . she would sell any cake to them, however, she would NOT create a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ because it conflicts with her beliefs. Something is obviously different. Beyond that . . I have better things to do on Christmas Eve. Have a great day!

          • Michael C

            Several references to ‘same-sex wedding cake’ signifies a difference

            As I’ve already said, you’re either misunderstanding or you’ve been intentionally mislead.

            None of the customers requested anything different than what the businesses already provide for other customers.

            The customers didn’t request a “same-sex wedding cake.” They just asked for a wedding cake.

          • getstryker

            Did you bother to actually read the article? Last time:

            A state judge in California has declined to grant an emergency injunction against a baker who declined a request to make a same-sex “wedding” cake due to her religious beliefs

            approached Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery in August 2017 to request a same-sex “wedding” cake.

            The DFEH soon Miller placed under investigation, sending her more than forty questions about her professional and personal life. The entity decided to take Miller to court over the matter, asking that it issue an injunction against Miller’s practice of declining to make cakes for same-sex celebrations.

            “To be clear, [Miller] would have gladly sold the same-sex couple anything from her bakery or create a cake for them for another occasion,” LiMandri explained earlier this month. “There is little doubt, however, that the lesbian couple’s purpose for ordering a cake was to destroy Cathy and her business. And now the state of California is all too willing to join in on the warpath.”

            “Fortunately, the First Amendment forbids the government from forcing creative professionals like Cathy to express messages that violate their conscience and religious convictions,” he added.

            Read the article . . . I have NO misunderstanding nor have I been misled . . . especially by you and your attempt to ‘spin’ the reason for the attempted lawsuit. I’m done!

          • Michael C

            Did you bother to actually read the article?

            I did. I’ve read many articles about this and related issues.

            The customers didn’t request a “same-sex wedding cake.” They just requested a wedding cake.

          • getstryker

            Whatever . . . don’t bother me with this again . . . I have shown you several instances in the article where they specifically asked for a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ – – you deny that there is any difference . . . believe what you will . . . we’re through!

          • Michael C

            I have read several articles and listened to this business owner’s account from multiple sources.

            Not once has anyone claimed that the refusal of service had anything to do with any decoration on the cake.

            Some people are describing the request as a “same-sex wedding cake” because it is for a same-sex couple. No other reason than that.

            I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand this simple fact.

          • Blake Paine

            Yes you have, they just tried to buy a wedding cake, not a ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ one.

            Just like a customer buying from a Jewish kosher deli – the business can choose to only sell kosher food but the customer has a right to use their purchase in any non-kosher way they want.

            If someone foolishly said they didn’t make ‘gay’ wedding cakes I’d just say “Great! I’ll take a straight wedding cake then” and us that at the wedding because as Michael C has pointed out, they are indistinguishable.

          • Bob Johnson

            Unfortunately, I think we may have follows of Marshall McLuhan’s, “The medium is the message.”

          • Michael C

            Yeah, I’ve heard others attempt that argument.

            I think getstryker is under the impression that the requested cakes were actually materially different on some way. Like they were to be adorned with some sort of actual messaging.

            Getstryker seems to be basing their argument on this notion.

        • Lark.62

          A pretty decorated cake is a pretty decorated cake. The customer may choose where to serve the cake, but the baker is being asked to do what he does every day. The only thing different is who the customer is. And that is discrimination.

          The same rules apply when a baker is asked to make a cake for a christening or a bar mitzvah or an easter celebration or a disability month celebration or a gathering of natives of Iceland. A business owner needs to serve customers regardless of their personal characteristics – including race, religion, disability, national origin, and in some states sexual orientation.

          Everyone else manages to obey the law. Christians can too.

          • getstryker

            You strain your credibility with your instance that a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ is simply an ordinary cake like any other. In this instance, the shop owner offered a ‘regular wedding cake’ but to no avail . . . whatever they wanted . . . it conflicted with the shop owners religious beliefs.

          • Maxwell Edison

            No such thing as an ordinary wedding cake.

          • getstryker

            My opponents in this exchange would like me to believe that ALL wedding cakes are ordinary – that is, without any distinctive or unusual differences . . . on one hand, I agree – cake is cake!

            However, the reference to a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ signifies a major difference, either in ‘message or toppers’ – their tactic is to claim that the ‘supposed discrimination’ by the shop owner is because those requesting the ‘same-sex wedding cake’ are lesbian only and NOT that the women are actually demanding the owner use her artistic talents to create a ‘distinct message’ that conflicts with her religious beliefs.

            Their argument in this matter is totally disingenuous!

          • Maxwell Edison

            What can I say? These people are intellectually incapable of making honest arguments without them immediately crashing and burning. So they MUST be disingenuous.

          • Blake Paine

            No one asked for a ‘same-séx wedding cake’, just a wedding cake will do just fine. One just like the last one the made will be fine.

            If they won’t sell to customers of all religious beliefs why are they making an offer to the public, a group comprised of all religious beliefs and a civil right to purchase regardless of their beliefs.

            I mean weddings for couples regardless of their sexes is just as much a part of many faiths as those that limit themselves.

          • getstryker

            I would suggest that you read the article more closely – you are in error!

          • Blake Paine

            Sorry no one asks for a “wedding” cake, that is the author’s bias showing through. The customers wanted exactly what the business offered for sale: a wedding cake.

          • getstryker

            If you will re-read the very first paragraph of the article, you will see that they asked for, specifically, a ‘same-sex wedding cake’ . . . whatever that is. I have gone over all of this with Lark62 and Michael C and I have no intention of continuing to debate the issue. Read my responses to them if your interested. I’m done!

          • Blake Paine

            With the word “wedding” is in quotes and no customer is ever asking for a “wedding” cake, something is amiss.

            Take care.

          • Lark.62

            The owners rejected the couple before learning what they wanted the cake to look like. There was no cake they would make for this couple’s event. This was about who the couple was and not what the cake looked like.

            The couple could have wanted a cake the bakery has made a dozen times. But the appearance of the cake made no difference, because this was not about the cake.

        • ThroatwobblerMangrove

          Do you not see the pandora’s box you’d be opening if you wanted the law to operate that way? Go into a place that doesn’t want to sell to you for any reason at all, that’s what you’re basically looking to do here. If you have a tattoo and the person selling whatever product they sell doesn’t like tattoos and refuses to serve you, maybe because it’s part of their religion?

      • Etranger

        So very well-explained. Excellent response!

      • Maxwell Edison

        Wrong. A business owner should have the absolute right to refuse service to anyone.

        Period.

        • Michael C

          Wrong. A business owner should have the absolute right to refuse service to anyone. Period.

          If that’s your opinion, you can contact your local representative to request that they begin work to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          Lemme know how that goes for you.

          • Maxwell Edison

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not even relevant to this.

            You want the sexually deviant and mentally unstable to be treated the same as black people.

            Let me be blunt: That’s crazy. That’s stupid. And it earns a big fat freaking NO that can be seen from freaking Venus.

          • Michael C

            “A business owner should have the absolute right to refuse service to anyone. Period. – Maxwell Edison

            “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not even relevant to this.” – Maxwell Edison

            Which is it? You can’t have both.

          • Maxwell Edison

            If you are trying to show a contradiction, there isn’t one. You’re just stupid.

            Good day.

  • IzTheBiz

    Christians need to get smart-be as wise as serpents. Clearly these reprobate sinners won’t give up. Simple solution-you bake a standard cake and EVERYONE gets the same decoration-i.e a man and a woman with a scripture verse ‘…. and a man shall leave his ……
    No individualising that part of it. Sure, they might loose a bit of money, but its better than getting sued!

    • Michael C

      That sounds like a very good solution.

    • ThroatwobblerMangrove

      That would work really well with two 80-year olds getting married.

    • Sure. And as long as you never allow a cake to leave your shop without that decoration on it, you are legally in the clear since you simply don’t stock any other cake. And boycotts happen or they don’t.

  • CJH

    Great news!

  • akagaga

    The bottom line is that LGBT folks, like many others, are trying to be accepted for who they are and what they do. We all want that acceptance. We are social beings and want to belong.

    When the culture says their views are not acceptable, however, they want to change the culture. The only avenue they have to force the culture to change is through the law, hence these lawsuits.

    I suspect, though, that even if they win these lawsuits, they still won’t feel the acceptance they desire. That can only come through understanding that God’s opinion is the only one that really matters, and willingly submitting to that opinion is what brings true peace.

    • Michael C

      As a customer, when I enter a store I am not seeking to purchase acceptance or approval. I a simply looking to purchase a product that the store sells.

      I don’t care if the cashier likes me. I just want to buy the thing.

      Whether or not the cashier likes, accepts, or approves of me should have no bearing on whether or not they’re going to sell me the thing.

      • Etranger

        I used to have my own accounting firm. There were many clients I didn’t like 100% for various reasons. But as long as they were not a risk to my business (i.e., doing illegal or pushing the envelope too much with accounting or tax schemes) there was absolutely no reason to deny them service. Of course we are talking about an entirely different client-provider relationship – my services were of course much more personal and required much more interaction than any of these discriminators’ does! But I was just pointing out that even in a services industry, the client does not need acceptance or approval for who they are in order to get services. There has to be a business reason to turn them away.

        • Jimmie C. Jones

          Horseshit!!! All that is necessary to protect the business owner’s legal rights is to post a sign prominently saying” Notice: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. It seems to me that there is a likelihood that this bakery may not have had such a notice posted for their protection and was specifically targeted due to this.

          • Etranger

            You are exactly right. You can put that sign up. But you have to comply with laws that protect people’s roghts to get goods and services that are in the open market place. Under your scenario you would be fine with every business in a town having such a sign. Result would be that someone (oh maybe a black person or a Mexican) could be denied service in every business. That sounds like a good result in your book?! What a beautiful Christmas spirit you have! (You also don’t know much about small business ownership and complying with laws, but that is another story).

          • Michael C

            Perhaps you haven’t heard, but over fifty years ago, we passed a law called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Individual states also have their own anti-discrimination laws.

            Posting a sign hasn’t been a thing for over half a century.

  • Lark.62

    A Muslim baker in Indonesia refused to write “Merry Christmas” on a cake.

    Is that the world you want to live in?

    Either businesses are allowed to discriminate or they are not.

    We are all better off if businesses sell their products without discrimination.

    • IzTheBiz

      thats their choice! Lots of other bakers around. they can sell the cake without the message.

      • Lark.62

        Christians are in the minority. What if every baker is Muslim?

        The way christians whine when they aren’t allowed to make public school kids pray to their deity, I seriously doubt many christians would be okay with being on the receiving end of discrimination.

    • Michael C

      A Muslim baker in Indonesia refused to write “Merry Christmas” on a cake.

      I would have no problem with a baker in the US making the same choice.

  • Fedup65

    God will definitely sort it out.