The Cake...and the Question

    An engaged couple stops into a Denver area bakery to order a wedding cake. But the baker says no. He'll make them any other kind of cake. They can even purchase one of the cakes (or brownies, or cookies) already in the shop. But he can't make them a wedding cake. 



The problem?

They're gay men. And as a conservative Christian, he doesn't agree with their same-sex marriage plans.

When he explains this, the men storm out in tears. (According to one of the guys, his mom is there -- which makes it more humiliating.)

Here is where the story gets even more interesting. The guys -- David Mullins and Charlie Craig -- file a civil complaint. Jack Phillips, the baker, and his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, are not only castigated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission -- Phillips is required to have himself and his staff trained more 'sensitively.' Phillips even has to submit regular reports to prove that he's not acting prejudiced in any way.
    Finally, he stops offering wedding cake creations -- period. He's forced to cut his staff from 10 to 4, and loses, by his estimate, at least 40% of his business income.

He appeals. And loses.  Appeals again. Loses again. 

Now his case is up in the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments were Monday and Tuesday. LOTS of protesting on both sides, and media brouhaha.

As you would guess, there are a ton of news articles about this issue. Here's one -- and another. They all pretty much say the same things, along with cutesy comments and puns about cake. I'm sure every baker in the country would willingly participate in a spanking machine, as long as the reporters were lined up and run through.
              Twice on Sunday. (Yes, I'm being silly.)

Here's where I have a problem with the whole thing.

As a Christian (and, I think, a conservative one), I must follow the words of my Boss, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. I have no other choice. (I'm guessing Mr. Phillips feels the same way.) The Bible is crystal-clear about marriage's definition.

On the other hand, I can see the point of same-sex civil unions, which could legally be called marriages. They protect partners, their children and their estates, as well as provide for insurance and benefits. Their basic rights, like those of all people, should be protected.
     This is, after all, what Christians would call a fallen world. Our world -- and the U.S., specifically, in this case -- doesn't follow the Bible's mores. It hasn't, for a long, long time. That's especially sad, considering the proliferation of people who think lying, stealing, cheating and sleeping around is perfectly fine, and doesn't hurt anyone, themselves included. (It does. They're wrong.) 

While I personally disagree with homosexuality, and do not practice it myself, I have had many friendships with gay men and women...and value them highly. I don't believe that ANYONE'S basic rights for freedom and free specch should be denied or taken away.
     Christians and non-Christians alike.

And that includes what lawyers before the high court are fond of calling "artistic expression."

So what about Jack Phillips' right to his beliefs?

*Did he treat the men rudely, or denigrate them for their sexual choices? He says no -- and the couple seems to corroborate that.

*Did he refuse to sell them anything?  No.

*Could Mullins and Craig have gone to another shop? Yes. There are a bazillion bakeries in the Denver area -- they got married in another state, anyways. They had time to order another cake.

*Were they permanently or physically damaged? Other than hurt feelings, no. This didn't even come out in public until Mullins and Craig chose to make it so.

*Was getting another cake from another shop The End of the World?  Of course not.

What did Mullans and Craig get out of this? The satisfaction that their rights were enforced, over anyone else's. (And, presumably, another cake from another baker.) Seeing Phillips get punished for his refusal, first by Colorado government, then the legal system.

What did Phillips get? Public denigration. Loss of business and income. (He lost even more this week, considering he was in D.C. for his case, rather than decorating cakes back in Colorado.)




There have been some interesting twists to this argument. 

What if someone ordered a cake which celebrated white supremacy, or the Klu Klux Klan's beliefs? (The KKK were quite prominent in the Denver area earlier in the 20th century -- this is actually not that farfetched.) Would Phillips have been forced to take that assignment, regardless of how he felt about it personally?

Here's the crux of the case, in my opinion. Goods and services, I would think, are voluntary. They consist of someone offering, and someone accepting. Or vice versa. I don't agree with every book I read, every movie I watch or every painting I view. But I can choose not to purchase, read or view those items. I can protest when my tax dollars go to fund projects or purchases that I do not agree with. I should not be forced to pay or advocate for something that I don't believe in. (Sadly, as far as taxes and legal matters go, that isn't the case.)
      That is my right, as an American -- but it should be a worldwide right, as well.

    It's called freedom of choice, people. And it's one reason, for example, why football ticket prices and tv event viewing have declined since football players have decided to do the "kneel thing."


If I were Jack Phillips, would I have made the cake? 

Probably. But I would defend to the end his right to say "NO."