Monday, May 18, 2015

'I Can't Bake That Cake Because It Would Offend Muslims'

Last week, Rush Limbaugh wondered rhetorically, “Where do we draw the line?” when it comes to offending Muslims. Is it drawing cartoons or is it advocating same-sex marriage? Expanding on that idea Monday, Limbaugh proposed something for American bakers facing gay fascists: “My idea for you is quite simple. …

Let’s say that you own the ABC wedding cake bakery. The only thing you do is you bake wedding cakes. And as such, militant gay activists target your bakery. They’re gonna take you out, they’re gonna take you down, they’re gonna walk in there, they’re gonna tell you they’re gonna get married, and of all the bakeries in the world, yours has been recommended to them because that’s all you do, therefore you must be better than anybody else at baking wedding cakes.

Instead of telling the gay couple that you refuse to bake the cake for their wedding because you disapprove of homosexuality, you should now say you are not going to bake a cake for the gay wedding because you fear Muslim backlash. Or, due to your respect of Islam, you cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding. See how that flies.”

Indeed, it would at least be entertaining to watch the Left contort in knots trying to get around the results of their own “logic.”



Anonymous said...

Unrealistic scenarios - with bluffs - double bluffs - counter bluffs. Material for a movie?!

Anonymous said...

Better yet just say your baker is Islamic and it is against his religion to bake this type of cake.

Anonymous said...

Unrealistic scenarios?!? Other than the Islamic twist it has already happened. I think it is a great idea.

Stan B said...

Anon 10:00 AM - there's no "religious exception" for artists, unlike pharmacists and ob-gyns on abortion, so that won't work.

It's the "offense" angle that has to be worked - specifically, the "offense by proxy" angle....

Bird of Paradise said...

Muslims Go Home

Anonymous said...

The Constitution says we have freedom of religion, but here we have the government telling people they are not allowed to follow the religious teachings of of the two major religions of the world and they must provide services endorsing something considered sinful.

Anonymous said...

"Freedom of religion" obviously cannot include the freedom to infringe on the legal freedoms of other people whose beliefs or lifestyles might offend, otherwise there would be civil conflict everywhere. There has to be mutual respect, at least in the public sphere, while beliefs can be held privately or within the religious communities themselves.
If people set up businesses serving the general public they must abide by local secular Laws, and that may mean serving customers regardless of their race, religion or legal sexual preferences .

Anonymous said...


You are confusing several different ideas.

First, "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" are rights inherent to people. Our country was founded with the understanding that governments must protect the rights of the people.

The idea to force someone into a service is in essence part of a contract. There is nothing in the history of mankind that ever acknowledges a "right to enter into a contract" or a "right to force someone into a contract."

You are confusing "rights" which need to be protected by governments and "laws" which establish a societal norm.

What you are also missing is that courts have recognized that some activities in the public square are artistic and therefore considered speech. The Supreme Court has rightfully held that compelled speech is not free speech.

Therefore if someone wants to come in a bakery and say they want a wedding cake made by the baker because they love the creations of they have seen from the baker, that baker should not be forced to create something that is against his religious and moral views,

If you want to say that a person should not be prevented from coming in and buying a pre-baked cake, a cookie, cupcakes, etc that are sitting there waiting to be sold, I would agree with you that moral views should not have a place in that transaction. After all, the baker has already made the offer to sell the item and the person is just accepting the offer.

Creative works are different and should be recognized as such. For example, should a black graphic artist be forced to design a flyer for the KKK? Should a Jewish copywriter be forced to write a press release for the Nazi Party?

There is a difference in laws and rights. There is a difference between standard goods and created works.

Finally, try figuring out this conundrum........

The owner of a bakery hires someone to help bake products, cakes and decorate cakes. A customer comes in and says "I want a special cake created that celebrates (insert celebration here.)"

The owner says "sorry, we don't do that as it offends our morals. We won't be a part of your celebration."

The customer takes his complaint to some commission and the commission says to the baking company "YOU MUST CREATE THAT CAKE!"

The owner then turns to his newly hired assistant and says "create the cake." The assistant says "I won't bake that cake because it is against my established and recognized beliefs."

The owner, by laws made to protect the employee's freedom of speech and religion, cannot force the assistant to make or work on the cake.

The assistant's rights are still in place and protected while the rights of the owner are dismissed and trampled upon.

How is it that people that claim they want "equality" for people are in fact working to make sure there are cut outs and exceptions for certain groups?

The government has no business compelling any business to create as a matter of speech anything. That is what is wrong with these suits and actions. It makes the assumption that people give up their rights in trying to make a living. It makes the assumption that your rights trample the rights of another.

The clashing of rights was considered by the founders of the country who basically said that when rights clash, the government and the people should take the path of least resistance to resolve the issue.

In the case of creating a wedding cake, that path would be having the customer go to another bakery. It's that easy. Instead of forcing people into a contract and forcing them to create something against their moral codes, the answer is "move on down the road to another bakery."

Because that doesn't happen, it is clear that the issue isn't about the cake or the service, but forcing acceptance of one set of morals on another person and using the government to do it.

That's unacceptable on all levels.

Anonymous said...

2:51 Are you deliberately obfuscating to confuse readers or because you are confused?
If the secular law governing how businesses conduct themselves say that if you are serving the general public then you cannot refuse service on the grounds of not liking their beliefs or lifestyle, etc., then is that not being very fair and reasonable?
"Freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech" applies only to holding private beliefs or having personal opinions, not meaning the right to interfere with the legal rights of other citizens and openly discriminate against them simply on grounds of race, religion, social background or sexual orientation, etc..
Why should anyone be humiliated by having to go from one commercial baker to another pathetically begging them to bake a cake as they are otherwise pretending to offer the public at large. Or are we back to the bad ol'days of nasty dehumanizing bigotry?

Anonymous said...

ANON 2:51 AM

Excellent distillation of the issue and what the left is attempting.


Alpha Skua said...

I wonder if gays are fully aware of what muslims do to gays?

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:16,

I am sorry that you are confused and don't seem to understand the difference between the government protecting the rights of men and laws that infringe on those rights.

You say that it is "fair and reasonable" to tell someone that they must act contrary to their beliefs. You think it is "fair and reasonable" to force someone to support an idea they find contrary to their moral or religious beliefs? Yoiu think it is "fair and reasonable" for one person to impose their beliefs on another?

That is not fair because the government is picking and choosing which beliefs are acceptable and which beliefs are not.

Secondly, you make the statement for the second time that people have the right to buy something where they want to. That is wrong. There is no such right.

There is no right of a person that allows them to force someone to create something for them.

A sale of anything is always based on a contract. An offer is made, accepted and then goods / services / money are exchanged.

When a person walks into a bakery and sees a cupcake there for sale, that is the offer. If they want to accept the offer and pay for the cupcake, nothing should bar them from doing so. Once again, they are accepting an offer made by the business.

The creation of a cake is different, however. There is no offer to bake or create the cake yet. When a couple comes in and negotiates the price and cost of the cake, both the baker and the couple are free to not accept the agreement for whatever reason.

That is both parties exercising their rights to enter into a contract and to associate with whom they choose. In that case, no one has any special rights or privileges as there is no offer, much less and agreed upon contract yet. Both parties are equal in the negotiation.

There is a difference between goods that are created and fall under speech and other "ready made" goods..

I noticed that you didn't answer whether a Jewish copyright writer should be forced to write a press release for the Nazi Party? Or whether a black graphic designer should be forced to design a flyer for the KKK?


Anonymous said...

Anon 5:16


I suspect the reason you did not address those issues is because it shows the flaw in your arguments. The press release and the flyer are creations. Like it or not, they are considered speech and due protection from those who would seek to trample the free speech rights of people. They are similar to creating a wedding cake. Therefore the baker is due the same protection for his creations as others are for their creations.

While you talk about "equality," you aren't interested in equality at all. You are for forcing one set of beliefs on someone else. You are for the government compelling people to act against their deeply held moral or religious convictions. You are for raising one set of beliefs over another. You are for the government telling people they must work in a certain way and manner, even though such force would make the people indentured servants or even slaves.

No, you aren't for "equality," because if you were, you would let allow all people to speak or not speak. You would support allowing them to create or not create.

Another way to look at this is to remember that the Supreme Court has said that school children cannot be forced to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That case came about because some kid asserted that his moral or religious rights were being violated when he was forced to act or speak in a certain manner by the government.

With that ruling and support of individual's rights in mind, explain why a person cannot be compelled to act against their morals or religious beliefs in the school setting but can be forced to do so in creating a cake.

To summarize, the right of speech (free or compelled) is a guaranteed right. The exercising of ones religious or moral beliefs is a right as well.

There is no "right" to purchase anything.

You are correct that a secular law has been made that forces people to sell something to others, but all that means is that the law is against the God given / natural rights of men.

It does not make it correct in any sense of the word and it is, in fact, an abrogation of the responsibilities of governments, lawmakers and courts.

Laws that trample rights are invalid.

Anonymous said...

6:14 Your verbose reply was unnecessary, as in the last part you agreed I was correct about the secular law, and I had been agreeing with it for the most part for the reasons I gave, while I was not agreeing as a matter of principle (rather than contract law) with your justification for the business owner to act randomly with each customer deciding whether, having first offered a service and the customer wishing to accept it, then refusing to go through with the "contract". Do you think it reasonable that everyone should approach a business not knowing whether or not one was going to be rejected as a customer because the business owner or an employee has some religious objection to the customer's appearance or lifestyle? It is a crazy way to run an economy and no doubt that is why there are secular authorities to regulate the way businesses conduct themselves in the interests of consumers. The local laws may decide to act in the way you wish in favor of "religious freedom", though how that is defined in practise as regards refusing to give a service to some customers and not to others would be difficult, to say the least. Would it be reasonable to refuse a female customer because she didn't cover her hair or had bare arms and legs, for instance? Or if the customer practised other "sins" like working on the Sabbath, or was guilty of the sin of gluttony, avarice or lustfulness, etc. - it simply becomes absurd.
Of course the business owner can defy the local law (whether or not in Nazi Germany) but then would have to take the consequences, or switch to another occupation.

Anonymous said...


Once again, you make several fundamental mistakes.

You argue that a contract has been offered and then pulled back. In the case of a wedding cake, that is not true. There is no contract negotiated or offered. You are supporting laws that force people into contracts which, as I said previously, would violate the rights of people on many levels.

"Run an economy?" I missed the message where in a capitalistic society, the government has the right or the ability to "run an economy." The government does have a duty and an obligation to ensure the safety of citizens, but that is about it. If you want the government running the economy, may I suggest moving to a country where socialism and communism are the preferred economic systems.

Would it be reasonable to refuse a female customer because she didn't cover her hair or had bare arms and legs, for instance?

And there you have it. You want the government deciding which religious beliefs or morals are "reasonable." You not only want the government to decide, you want the government to act in opposition to beliefs and morals it opposes.

What gives the government the right to tell people what they can and cannot believe in?

And as for your example, are you trying to say that a business cannot tell a woman to cover their arms but the government can mandate "no shirt, no shoes, no service?"

Of course the business owner can defy the local law (whether or not in Nazi Germany) but then would have to take the consequences, or switch to another occupation.

It is stunning that you truly believe that people should be punished for having beliefs and morals that do no harm to others. It is stunning that you believe that someone can tell you what you can and cannot believe or "face consequences." It is stunning that you believe that all people are not created equal and the government has the right to make sure that those who think differently than its approved thought should "face consequences."

It is clear that you don't understand the issues here at all.

Anonymous said...

Is the KKK a legal organization? Or is any "Nazi" party in the US a legal organization? If not, then these extreme examples 2:51 suggested are pointlessly academic, and therefore 5:16 had no reason to provide a response on them.
The main point is - does a business exist to provide a service to the general public (and hopefully make a profit and provide employment), or does it exist to promote the beliefs of a particular religion and impose those beliefs on its customers, by expecting them either to comply or go away? And does not the local or national government of the society in which businesses operate have a duty to protect the interests of consumers and the general public vis à vis how they are treated by these businesses?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:45 offers what is a convoluted, illogical and factually challenged response.

First, the KKK and the Nazi party are legal groups. In fact they, and other groups like them, place candidates for election on ballots every election cycle. But as 4:45 and others don't like the examples that show the fallacy in their "thinking," let's try this one: Should a gay printer / graphic artist be forced to create and print signs for the Westboro Baptist Church protestors?

4:45 then skips down the road to offer a false choice between a business existing to "offer services to society" or "promote a religious belief?"

The actual answer is that the business exists to provide a livelihood for the owner. While he may employ others, the business is there for him. The Declaration of Independence says that people have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Originally, "the pursuit of property.") A business exists for that purpose. If the goods or services "benefit" society (whatever that means as that is a judgement call allowing the morals and beliefs of others to be imposed upon the business owner) that is irrelevant for the reason for the existence of the business itself.

4:45's logic is lacking greatly in that he thinks that a business imposes their belief system on customers. That is so ridiculously convoluted that it is painful to think that someone would even try and put that forth as an argument. The business is not saying "you must do this or not do this." They are saying that "we believe in something and we will not support activities that are contrary to those beliefs."

On the other hand, the customers and government that demands a business acts against the beliefs of their owners and employees are the ones imposing their beliefs on the business.

The business says "this is what we believe and if you don't agree, you are free to go somewhere else." The government and customers are the ones saying "we believe in this and you have to agree and support our beliefs."

How 4:45 gets that twisted around is beyond the comprehension of most people.

The final statement from 4:45 shows the real basis for his thinking. In his view, it is not the owner that controls the business, it is the government. It is they who can control how a business acts, thinks, and feels. It is they who can tell people how to work and what they must do. Absent of any harm to anyone, 4:45 believes the government owns the work and work product of all people.

He believes that under some nebulous theory of "good for society." The question is then "who decides what is 'good for society?'"

The owners of certain businesses think that promoting a gay lifestyle is not good for society. One should be free to agree or disagree with that opinion and such healthy discussions do benefit society. What does not benefit society is the shutting down of legitimate points of view. What does not benefit society is censoring people's legal thoughts and speech. What does not benefit society is demanding that someone work against their moral or religious beliefs. What does not benefit society is eliminating the choice of supporting legal businesses who think as they do or allowing the person to head to another business.

What does not benefit society is making the work and work product of a person belong to the state.

Contrary to 4:45's assertions, it is choices, speech, and self ownership of ones work that benefits society. Taking those away from people is a type of tyranny which is never good for people and the society in which they live.

Anonymous said...

3:08 just rambles to muddy the waters. Clearly it is he/she who doesn't understand the MAIN issue here (not about the ins and outs of how wedding cakes are ordered or not).
The bottom line here is why should customers particularly care what the private religious beliefs are of the business owner or of the employees. It is IRRELEVANT to the purpose of the secular business and the reasons why a customer is interested in the service supposedly offered by that business. If religious sensitivities are so important to the owner or employees they should confine their commercial activities to their own faith-community, and then neither they or their customers will get so offended. It seems not only muslims see offence everywhere!

Anonymous said...

3:08 selfishly thinks the "government" should not be involved except to the extent that it suits him/her, and if anyone else wants more they should emigrate to a more "socialist" or even a communist country. By the same token, if s/he wants more support for his/her religious views in the public domain then s/he should emigrate to a country run by a theocracy.

Anonymous said...

(I am going to try this again as a previous comment was not approved for some reason.)


Yes, the KKK and the Nazi Party are "legal" organizations as evidenced by the fact the both groups regularly run candidates for elections. The only reason you don't want the question asked is because the answer shows the hypocrisy.

But if you don't like that question, try this one: "does a gay graphic designer / printer have to work for the Westboro Baptist Church promoting their ideas on gays?"

4:45 makes a false choice for the purpose of a business. The purpose of a business is to make a living for the owner and employees. People are guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (which was originally "pursuit of property.") If 4:45 believes that a business exists for the purpose of society, he has the right to move to a country that embraces communism or socialism. Here in the US, we believe in the rights and freedoms of people - rights that cannot be taken away by the government.

One can make the case that the government has the duty to protect people from harm, but is there real harm when some one decides not create something that promote ideas that are against their religious beliefs or morals?

Of course not. There is no real harm and therefore no reason for the government to intervene.

In fact, the only imposition of beliefs is not by the business, but by the consumers. It is not the company saying "you have to believe and promote what we believe," but the couples. They are the ones forcing the company to create something in which the company does not believe.

In essence, people like 4:45 believe in slavery or at the very least, force servitude. They believe that their beliefs are morally superior to others and can be forced on people. They then have the gall to claim they are the victims for forcing a company to act against their religious and moral beliefs.

Anonymous said...

3:08 There is an obvious difference between insisting on a dress-code in a restaurant, club or other commercial venue, and objecting to the way of life of a customer who the business owner may never meet in person to see how they dress or witness how they live.

Anonymous said...

4:51 is the hypocrite as he (she?) would whine about victimization of Christians/religionists if any one of them was refused service in a store after saying something "religious" and not realizing the owners were an atheist gay couple. But I doubt a gay or atheist owner would be so bigoted as to turn away business.

Anonymous said...


The customers don't have to particularly care about the religious beliefs of a business. It is the business that cares about its beliefs and morals. The main issue is whether a person should be forced to act against those beliefs and morals.


No one is asking for more support from the government for their religious or moral beliefs. There is a difference that seems to escape people like you between the government forcing someone to act in a certain manner against their beliefs and being left alone to practice beliefs that pose no real harm. In essence, you propose that the government run the business. That's not the economic system we operate within.


If the person is never met by the business, then how is the contract for a cake negotiated? Even if you want to say that they never meet, why should a person be forced to promote or participate in an event they disagree with? What gives the customers or the government the right to say "you have to act against your beliefs?"

The bottom line and the main issue is whether the government should be able to force speech from people. People who believe in freedoms and the natural / god given rights of men say "no." Those who are interested in the government trampling over the rights of people are going to support forced speech.

Anonymous said...

Someone accused us of trying to "muddy the waters" in relation to creative works being speech and therefore different than other goods for sale.

In United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court held that creative photography was protected speech.

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd held that a person who writes professionally is still protected by the First Amendment, thus eliminating the barrier that when one enters the "public arena," they relinquish basic, foundational rights.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court wrote that (“The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to cre-ate in the realm of thought and speech.”

There is no doubt that creative works such as a wedding cake are protected speech.

That leaves the question of whether the government can compel such speech.

It cannot.

In Wooley v. Maynard, the Court ruled that compelled speech is not free speech and contrary to the First Amendment saying "“The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’

And also, “The First Amendment protects the right of in-dividuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster . . . an idea they find morally objectionable.”

The legal precedence is clear: Created works are protected speech and the Government may not compel any speech much less speech that the individual finds morally or religiously objectionable.

Anonymous said...

It is patently ridiculous to compare a peaceful gay couple simply trying to plan a wedding, with vicious racist organizations like the KKK and neo-nazi parties, as would-be customers. It is even hard to credit that these organizations are indeed "legal" as 4:51 maintains, since they advocate extreme violence and even the murder or extermination of particular sections of society. Similar inappropriate comparisons have been made between gay wedding planners and the murderous ISIS.
It has often been remarked that the obsession that some religious people have with "homosexuality" suggests a Freudian angst where religion is used as the cover.

Anonymous said...


Ah yes, the ol' "hypocrite card" being played by those who are indeed the hypocrites.

If a Christian couple walked into an atheist bakery and was denied service to buy a pre-made cookie, I would object to that just as I would object to a gay person being denied service to a pre-made cookie in a Christian bakery.

If the atheist was asked to make a cake extolling the virtues of a God or some other celebration against their beliefs, I would support their choice not to make the item.

It is wrong legally and morally to force people to act against their moral or religious beliefs. It is wrong for the government to force speech from people.


It is not extreme at all to compare whether one's beliefs and ideals should be forced onto another. I also gave other hypothetical situations such as whether a gay person should be forced to create and print placards for the Westboro Baptist Church? Should a liberal speech writer be forced to write speeches for a conservative? Should a pro-life movie maker be forced to create a pro-abortion film?

Far from the bakery trying to impose its moral and religious beliefs on people, it is the couples who are demanding that the bakery act against its beliefs and ideals - not the other way around.

Freedom of speech includes protection from those who would put forth what may be unpopular ideas. If you really think that people should be forced to act and speak against their beliefs, then you do not truly believe in the First Amendment of the rights of men.

Anonymous said...

Why don't these businesses which turn away customers (because the business owners claim such would-be customers offend their religious sensibilities) make it explicity clear in their advertising and signage, etc. that this will happen, but I suppose such business owners don't respect their customer base enough to save them the embarassment of being rejected as "sinners". What priggish pharisees to sit in such self-righteous judgement on members of the general public attracted by the commercial services offered; and what was that Biblical ref to the effect that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?!

Anonymous said...

2:50 is typical of the religious bigot and fanatic, thinking he could go into business offering a service to the general public and then insult customers by saying they are too sinful to be served just because of his personal religion saying so.
He also claims in other posts that the secular authority should not be able to decide or define what religious views may or may not be accepted as a valid justification for this commerical behavior, so that he or some other religious nut could just as well claim the "religion" in question disallows service to dark-skinned people or Jews, and if that was against the law, it must be against his or that person's Constitutional rights under "freedom of religion" - WHAT HUMBUG!