Hater Cakes


cjones06092018

A baker in Colorado is so homophobic that he refuses to take money from gay couples. He was sued by a couple after refusing to bake them a cake, citing his religious beliefs as justification for denying their business. The couple sued over the discrimination. The state’s civil rights commission ruled against the baker.

The baker, supported by conservative religious fundamentalists and fellow homophobes, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supremes narrowly ruled in the baker’s favor. Narrowly, as in, they left a lot of questions to be answered.

The Court said the cake man was a victim of religious bias by the civil rights commission. So, the baker can’t be a victim of bias but the gay couple can?

The court said it wasn’t changing laws and this doesn’t open the door for future discrimination, just that this one baker had the right to discriminate in this case because they didn’t like the way the commission treated him. But, conservatives are rejoicing and will use this for future discrimination.

Conservatives are not good with facts and will skip the court’s statement, “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” That sounds less like a legal ruling and more like “I hope you kids play nice. Good luck out there.” Have the Supremes never watched a political debate on Facebook?

I like to start these arguments with; why do you care what’s on the cake? You make cakes for a living. Someone orders a cake. You make them a cake. They pay for the cake. You take money for the cake. Everyone wins. Who cares if the writing on top reads, “congrats, Jack and Diane,” or “congrats, Chuck and Larry?”

I was married once. There was a wedding. We even had a cake. It never did occur to me that we needed the baker’s approval of our nuptials. What if the baker thought my spouse could do a lot better than me? He could have thought, “that guy’s a shiftless cartoonist, plus, he’s kinda goofy looking. And, on your wedding night, he’s going to insist on watching Harry and the Hendersons.” I wouldn’t have lost any sleep over that, and it was 1988 and Harry and the Hendersons weren’t on HBO every night.

But, the baker has his own issues for why he won’t make the cake. What’s important to him isn’t important to me. That brings us to the legal arguments. Can someone refuse service, whether it’s a cake, flowers, or photography if it’s a mixed-race couple? Can Wal-Mart start refusing to allow certain couples from entering their stores their relationship violates their religious beliefs?

I respect religious beliefs and freedom. You can be in your forties and still believe in Santa for all I care. But I do not respect using your beliefs to discriminate. Everyone deserves the same treatment. You’re not being victimized by providing the same service equally. Can you be a Santa believer and refuse service to Jews despite the fact you still carry latkes in your store?

How is a gay cake different from a straight cake? Can’t you just bake a cake and don’t ask if it is gay or not? Can the cake stay in the closet of your mind until the wedding? Are the figurines the problem? How do you know both figurines are gay and that one isn’t being forced into a shotgun-gay-figurine wedding? How do you know the figurines even like each other? Or, is it the idea that the cake is going to be consumed at a celebration for gay people? Aren’t all weddings kinda gay anyway? Will making a gay cake tempt you to be gay? What if someone has some leftover gay wedding cake, and they don’t discover it’s gay until later? If you’re against gay marriage, would you make a cake celebrating a gay divorce? Are you afraid of taking gay money? Are you afraid the gayness will rub off the money while it’s in your wallet near your butt? Are these questions stupid? Because I tend to pose stupid questions to stupid people.

If I was in the marriage business, I would have been ecstatic about gay marriage becoming legal. Who doesn’t want more business? But, maybe the homophobic baker has the legal right to be a dumbass. He could always make the cake and do what Chick-fil-A does, give the money to a hate group.

The one good thing is as customers, we still have the freedom of choosing where we want to shop. This baker will soon discover that a lot of people have strongly held beliefs against doing business with an asshole.

Watch me draw.

Thank you for your support. Reader contributions really do help and are appreciated in a time of dwindling revenue for political cartoonists. You will also be supporting free speech and the First Amendment, and independent journalism while those in power are doing all they can to suppress it. You can also support by purchasing a signed print for $40.00. Just look at the right of this page and click the PayPal button, or you can email and make other arrangements. Thank you!

Advertisements

12 comments

  1. I’m on the plaintiffs’ side on this. OTOH, if someone doesn’t like me — for whatever reason — I sure as hell wouldn’t want to eat anything they prepared for me.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Jesus didn’t say squat about gays. What he did say is that divorcing and remarrying is the same thing as adultery. “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:17)

      So unless Mr. No-wedding-cake-for-gays refuses to bake wedding cakes for divorced people getting married– and first he’d have to ask every wedding-cake client about that– then he doesn’t care what the Bible says, he’s just a hypocritical bigot waving a book around without reading it. And a majority of the Supreme Court are backing him up.

      In the interests of full disclosure, I’m an atheist and I don’t believe anything in the first paragraph, but I know more about what Christians are supposed to believe than most of the loudmouth ones do. (Not the nice quiet ones who’ve actually read it.)

      Liked by 4 people

      1. While Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, many Christians like to recall back to a simpler time & place & quote the Old Testament. “Man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman, blah blah blah.”

        However, as we all know (or, really, should bloody well know), much of the Old Testament was “over-ruled” (like the Supreme Court over-ruling a lower court’s decision) by the New Testament. G-d wasn’t the fire & brimstone, vengeance shall be mine, from the Old Testament anymore.

        The rules from the Old Testament are even more restraining than that of the New Testament too. If they wanna follow the Old Testament’s rules on “relations,” those bakers better not be working on Sundays. Otherwise, I suggest we head over to their bakery with a lot of stones. G-d says we must kill them. 😉

        (Also in the interest of full disclosure, I’m Jewish. We – or at least the good ones; I’m a terrible Jew – follow the Old Testament. Honestly, it makes Christians’ argument even more ridiculous to me when they quote the Torah. LOL)

        Liked by 3 people

  2. The biggest problem with this ruling is that now idiots and morons will think it’s okay to discriminate and break the law. I hate when the Supremes make these kinds of rulings, and then make sure to state in the ruling that it doesn’t mean people can now discriminate! Haters are going to see this as a green light. Especially today in Trump’s America!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. When all is said, the screaming and gnashing of teeth, who the hell wants this type of asshat to bake me a cake? I get it about discriminatory actions by anyone but for f*cks sake why would you bother about them cooking for you when you felt their hate? Chic Fil A is another hate group—don’t goddamn eat there! Call them out, don’t ever trust their food.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The problem with just ignoring discrimination rather than challenging it when it rears its ugly head is that without pushing the envelope, nothing would ever change. Discrimination would still be codified. No one cedes power willingly. If it’s food or housing or jobs or who you love, discrimination is unconstitutional and should be challenged. The court got it wrong this time, though. We just went backward, and that’s a worrisome problem from where I sit.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You are absolutely right about discrimination always being “challenged,” still, I would never eat their food under any circumstance, or have the black-hearted devils marry me or live in their building or trust them ever. I would “call them out” or “challenge” them in public ways, with my protest, my voice, my letters.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s