political point with regards to the bakeries that refuse to make cakes for gay weddings. A practical application of the conservative's "Would you force a Jew to make a Nazi cake?"

That said, this should be an interesting debate.

I did not read the OP closely enough and totally misinterpreted what you were saying, I apologize for my initial reaction.

Feel free to private message me.
I just like the debate on all things. The wing nuts asked this very question during the debate on their baker. I just like to see what our position is on it.

I failed to read your comment in context and thought you were comparing a bakery that refused to bake cakes for gay couples to a Jew that refused to bake cakes for Nazis. After looking at the context it became clear that is not what you meant, and I am pretty sure you would be in agreement that such an analogy would be offensive. Because that was not your analogy however I thought an apology was in order just in case anyone had seen the post before I deleted it.

time and time again. That's why I used it. Framed the debate as they would. I try to get into their heads a little bit. I read and post at their site just so I can learn. And 4 days ago my account as banned because I called someone on some BS.
And as offensive as the comparison may be, they find gays as offensive as we find Nazism. They make the comparison all the time. They bemoan and whine about bigots getting "shunned" as they call it.
So that is why I said the gay/Nazi thing. Not because I believe it, but because they do. And now that it's pretty much happened, now that someone is being sued for refusing to do work they find offensive, where do we stand on it? They say "gay marriage is offensive to me. I won't participate in any way." We say that's wrong. Now someone is being sued for saying "'God hates fags' is offensive to me. I won't participate." Is either right or wrong? I am 100% on the side of gay rights and marriage. I just find the debate interesting.

In my opinion the right wing bigots are going to lose this case badly. It's not the same as refusing service to someone because of their race or orientation, it's refusing to engage in hate speech. Also, this bakery made a genuine attempt to meet the customer's needs - they didn't totally refuse service to the customer they simply refused to engage in bigotry.

that said they were happy to sell the gay couple anything other than a wedding cake.

the customer wanted a Bible-shaped cake and they were perfectly willing to sell him one that he could write his homophobic comments on himself. If I'm reading the story correctly, it even sounded like they were willing to provide the icing, pastry tube, decorating tip and advice on how to put those comments on the cake. The other bakery wouldn't even provide a generic wedding cake that the couple could decorate. If I were the bakery, I'd maintain that it is my deeply held religious conviction that hate speech about LGBTI people is not permitted and let it become a head-to-head cage match over opposite religious convictions. Heck, since the guy wanting the Bible cake is apparently Christian, they could even have gladiators-at-law fight for them, just as the sci-fi book of roughly the same name did, to decides whose religious conviction wins out.

The bakery offered to sell him the necessary stuff so he could decorate it himself:

Marjorie maintains that she never refused the customer her service, according to New Now Next. Instead, she says, she remained professional, and tried to work out a compromise with the customer so that he would have his cake, but yet would allow her to not send a cake out of her bakery with a hateful message written on it.

“I told him that I would bake the cake in the shape of a Bible… Then I told him I’d sell him a decorating bag with the right tip and the right icing so he could write those things himself.”

I think a bigoted baker would likely also come out in the clear if, when asked to bake a cake for a same-gender couple's wedding and the customer wants a man-man or woman-woman topper or the names Congratulations Bob and Bill, they provided the customer with information on how to order their own topper and provide them with the frosting and let the customer put on the topper and put on their own text.

In this case the baker attempted to accommodate the customer but would not themselves be implicated in hate speech which, could in some jurisdictions, subject them to legal culpability.

I think the baker handled this very well both from a customer service perspective by providing the customer with a means to achieve what they wanted and legal by refusing to themselves engage in hate speech. They could still have been complicit in hate speech by "facilitating" hate speech in which they knew the customer planned to engage.

"hate speech which, could in some jurisdictions, subject them to legal culpability"

Please identify one US jurisdiction where this is true.

hate speech itself is not subject to government regulation unless it is likely to incite or promote violence, etc.

For example you can say "I hate Catholics" and that is protected but if you say "I hate Catholics and I ask all my fellow non-Catholics to meet up at the corner of 4th and Vine on Sunday at 3:00 and we are going to go to the Cathedral and kill us some Catholics" is not.

to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple and refusing to write hateful things on a cake. This man doesn't have a case because the bakery was willing to sell him the cake. That's what the bakery is required to do: sell cakes to one and all. They are not required to write offensive shit on them.

This is the RW's lame attempt to equate the two and challenege the Colorado state law that bans public businesses from discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation.

It's not religion I ridicule. It's behavior.

I wonder what would happen if people started ordering cakes from them with messages of friendship and information, or just chocolate for him, to be delivered to ...?

Regardless, the publicity should help their business for a while, if the criminals stay away.

WTF is an anti-gay cake, anyway? If you want an insulting sentiment on your cake, or whatever dessert, get a tube of icing from Safeway and do it yourself.

a scalp in their twisted war.

There is no law in this country that forces anyone to repeat someone else's hate speech.

Whether it's two grooms or an anti-gay message, it's the owner's choice.

The rest of us can then decide if we want to continue doing business with said store based on previous actions taken.

However, you absolutely should be able to refuse to put something on top of it that you disagree with. Even if it's something stupid like an elephant for a young Republican's meeting, if the owner is a liberal he or she should not be forced to write it.

receive any benefits for being one.

It's meant to play into the "You tolerance is the real bigotry" meme that the right has been pushing for years now to advance the notion they are the real victims.

So regardless of the facts, expect a deluge of comments from conservatives complaining what hypocrites gay people are because they will force you to make a gay cake but refuse to serve christians.

These people have never really faced persecution so they think being a victim is some kind of prize to be won.

If they make the cake including the hate speech, the customer would be "eating their words."

I'd make sure they paid for the cake in advance, though. LGBTI people are clever yet wise.

Oh, and when they want to marry their sister, we'll accommodate that too. No need for the small-government conservatives to run to the nanny state for protection from the mean gays.

The baker is not violating someone's civil rights by not decorating it in the form requested.

I can't think of an event that would require a "Gays are going to hell" cake. If he got one, he'd probably either eat it himself or throw it away - most likely the latter. The probable intent of ordering said cake from an LGBTI-friendly baker is to make sure it's seen by their normal clientele, who won't want to shop at a bakery that would make a cake like that.

particularly since this bakery was vocal in its opposition to the Christian bakery that refused the same-sex wedding cake.

Nevertheless, such animus does not change the legal standards and analysis by any state agency or court. It would be no different if a gay couple ordered a themed cake from a religious bakery to challenge their policies or otherwise cause them strife.

This type of reaction to the Christian bakery loss is entirely unexpected, and I'm surprised it took this long to happen. I'm curious how it will legally play-out, and if the attorneys are smart, I'm uncertain if the bakery in the OP will prevail.