Probably hates immigrants too cuz haters gotta hate !

Marjorie came to the United States 15 years ago with a multilayer dream covered in frosting.

She began baking in her native land of Peru, but always had dreams of coming to the US to open her own bakery. This might be the land of opportunity but things don't come easy. In order to achive her dreams she had to work really hard and endured many nights without sleep.

After working from home for many years Marjorie opened Azucar Bakery in 2006 and after outgrowing her small store moved to a new location in 2011. She now has 15 employees including many members of her family.

Azucar Bakery does much more than merely supply Denver with irresistible Peruvian sweets and mouthwatering dulce de leche. Azucar has provided Marjorie’s family with a stable source of income that has in turn allowed Marjorie to hire employees and expand, which creates economic opportunity for other families.

man these look good
http://www.alfajorcookies.com/

It didn't take his 'Academy' long to disavow him either, but I bet they still allow him to teach his hate there.

pay a lawyer most likely for civil rights appearance

And that seems quite doubtful.

Meanwhile, here's the rest of the story.

"Worldview Academy believes that God unconditionally loves every person," it said in a statement. "We also believe in liberty and justice for all. Consequently, we support the Colorado bakery owner's right — and the right of all other bakery owners — to not undertake work which would violate their core beliefs."

BTW, your adjectives aside, I think you're right. If they don't support the baker here, they can't support the baker who refuses to make a same sex wedding cake.

I find their actions pretty vile, so my adjective is appropriate for them.
They are forcing this woman to take on legal expenses, harming her business to try to promote their bigoted agenda.
I won't be surprised if they targeted her because of her history.


I believe they had as little to do with this as Christie had with Bridgegate.

I do think they are behind it. Or at least knew he was doing it, he was a founder.
The rest is just speculation on my part.

The quote I used pretty much spells out their agenda.

That's why I think the group, not jackoff himself, came down on the side of this baker, no matter how reluctantly.

previously condemned the other.

I understand that this bakery was likely set up, but can you really have it both ways?

The one difference I see here is that this cake was overt hate speech. There is no legal protection for that.

The other baker faced consequences because her act, not speech, was discriminatory to a protected class of the public she was serving.

and refusing based on supplying a specific message.

But what if the gay couple wants a decoration that the baker finds vile and objectionable, even if that is based on bigotry?

I don't think her subjective views would govern.

in which a customer wants an undecorated cake specifically for a prayer meeting in which they are going to pray for the damnation of all homosexuals and use the cake as some kind of sacrament.

Right to refuse?

Specifically because the customer mentioned a religious use of it.

Think about it. If the customer said she was going to decorate it for kwanzaa and the baker said "In that case, no", the answer would be clear.

In this case the baker selling to the public was selling a blank cake.

Here's a scenario. A man in a white hood carrying a gas can goes to a lumber store to buy 2 two by fours. Sell the wood or no?

BTW, when are you going to law school?

If you have reason to believe that what you are selling may be used in an illegal activity, I would think you would have the right to refuse. But the "reason to believe" part could be very tricky.

So, what if someone is asked to provide a cake for a wedding which they knew was polygamous or otherwise illegal. Would they be able to refuse?

Law school? It occurred to me long ago, but I am glad that I exercised another option. I am currently pro per in a case that is now so far over my head I feel like I am drowning. For this reason alone, I wish I had gone to law school.

Pro per? Do you mean pro se, representing yourself?

You can always pm me.

I am representing myself and I might pm you. I am at a total loss as to what to do at this point.

She is being asked to make a cake with a vile message.
The other bakers simply wouldn't sell a wedding cake because of who the customer was. They didn't want it used for a Gay marriage.
They weren't asked to make an obscene or bigoted cake.

What if the gay couple wanted a picture of two people doing something that the baker found obscene and objectionable, even if you and I would see nothing wrong with it at all?

I just don't see how we can support one parties right to refuse and not the others.

if a baker refused a cake of a bi-racial marriage.

Sorry you don't see the difference between someone having a legal wedding and asking to be treated like everyone else and a customer asking for a vile hateful, obscene order.
Your stance would mean that a cake that said Fuck the Ni**ers or Kill the Jews should be accepted.

and can not see the difference between. That is really insulting and I have not taken a stance at all.

I want to be able to support the baker who refused this case and condemn the other. That would fully suit my personal position.

But I am struggling with what could be a grossly hypocritical position of supporting one and rejecting the other without a very clear distinction. Perhaps the difference comes down to what is generally defined as hate speech.

to argue against your point. Not saying you would endorse them.

It's about not serving a customer because of who they are as opposed to refusing a cake because of content.
Writing God Hates Fags is grossly different than Best of Luck David and mark.

I think they will lose this, in the mean time they are hurting a woman who doesn't deserve this shit. Hopefully some group will come tom here aid with legal fees. A suit like this could drive her out of business.

This is the same mindset that is behind the "Religious Liberty" bullshit.

who someone is and refusing because of the message. I was trying to make this point. Would we also support a baker who found the message vile and offensive, even if we did not agree that it was. That's content and not about who the individuals are.

I think it's important that we make a clear distinction and I think you are making one here in terms of the individuals vs. the message, but it might not be clear enough for some messages.

I guess societal values come into play, as it does with most obscenity cases.
I don't think it would be hard to argue God Hates Fags is vile or hate speech.
Arguing "Good Luck David & Mark" is any more obscene than saying they don't like to see black people and white people sitting together would be tougher.
This case is about some one wanting a disgusting case made, the other is about religious preferences.
Let's face it, nobody would win if they said , I just don't like Gay people, so I won't serve them. This woman has a case saying I just don't like what the cake says.
But the other bakers say, it's against my religion to accept Gay people and they ask to violate the rights of others.
Religion used as an excuse for bad behavior.

is also not able to really define the distinctions.

In that article, the author asks about a situation where someone comes in and asks for an undecorated cake and explains that it will be used in a prayer meeting where they will pray for the damnation of all homosexuals and women who have had abortions and the cake will be used as a sacrament of some sort in this event.

That is closer to the gay marriage case.

What do you think of that?

Unless the customer was disruptive, if they were spouting Bible crap and yelling at other customers for example.
Now the owner could ask the customer to go elsewhere, but if the customer refused, they should serve them.

tell them that the cake was made by a gay baker and you are sending the money he pays to Planned Parenthood.
But you would have to sell him a plain cake.
When I buy something, what I use it for is my business.

beliefs and refusing based on political beliefs.

If you get a chance, take a look at the other article and see what you think.

Here you hit on exactly the difference between the two instances. Yes, I would support a baker who refused, for instance, to sell a cake decorated with images of people having sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Because the cake itself could be considered obscene. But that isn't what happened in the earlier case - in that one, the cake was not obscene, the baker felt that the marriage, not the cake, was obscene.

I support a baker's right not to create a cake with obscene messages or images on it, but not their right to refuse to sell to members of the public whose actions they deem 'obscene'. And that's EXACTLY how we 'support one party and not the other'. Because one cake was a regular old wedding cake, and the other was specifically designed to convey obscene messages.

Is refusing to make a wedding cake for a mixed race couple the same as refusing to make a cake with a racist message on it?

is not where the complexity lies.

If people are permitted to deny goods or services based on their religious or ideological beliefs, where do you draw the line?

This was a rather extreme request, but what if the baker is asked to provide undecoarted cupcakes for a KKK rally? What if a jewish deli owner is asked to make ham sandwiches? What if an OB-GYN who has strong personal beliefs about abortion being murder is asked to provide abortion services?

Yes, it really is that complicated. There is the potential for hypocrisy here and the lines are not always that clear.

Do we really need to get into what-ifs ad nauseum to answer a pretty straightforward question?

The only real question that needs to be answered is whether religion can be used to justify hate against other groups of people.

What is interesting about this case is the what-if's that it brings up.

What do you see as the straightforward question and answer?

What is straightforward for me is I think this baker had the right to refuse, but I don't think the baker that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding has that right. But this is possibly slippery ground and there is a potential for hypocrisy in that position.

Religion is frequently used to justify hate against groups of individuals, including by those non-believers that hate religious people. Things other than religion are also often used to justify hate. It's not a matter of whether it can be used, it's a matter of whether it's right to use it.

But that is really a different issue than this particular case.

It's always been the same issue. Bigots used religion to justify slavery, Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation, and all sorts of other discriminatory shit. Their last refuge is hate against teh gays. It's well past time for decent people to put an end to that shit. The "slippery ground" has been going the other way for far too long.

But I totally agree that it is well past time for decent people to put an end to that shit and fully support this baker's refusal.

However, this was clearly done to create a test case and that is where it becomes important to tread carefully and not just have a knee-jerk reaction.

If this baker has the right to refuse based on their personal ideology, then where do you draw the line as to what other things people can refuse to do? They are trying to make the case here that people should be permitted to refuse to provide certain goods based on their beliefs, whether they be political or religious.

Were they to win that without a clear understanding of under what circumstances that would or would not be ok, it would hurt our attempts to put an end to that shit.

You don't have to stretch the civil rights laws to answer that question and it just isn't that complicated. You do have to pervert those same laws quite a bit if you want to say anyone should be compelled to write a bigoted message on their product.

But this is about refusing to provide goods because you are ideologically opposed to the message you are asked to provide.

They set this up as an extreme on purpose. They filed the lawsuit not because they hope to win, but because they hope to set a precedent which would allow people to discriminate based on their beliefs, be they religious or ideological.

The only point I am making is that this is not as crystal clear as it might appear on the surface. It will be most interesting to see how it plays out.

This is the actions of one guy who is so absorbed by his hate that he thinks he should have a legal right to it.

It is the meat of the matter.

He is a founding member and active participant in this organization. He's just doing the dirty work.

Otherwise proving that religion doesn't give one a pass on bigotry doesn't seem to be a good strategy to prove religion does give one a pass on bigotry.

or I have really failed at making my point.

Anyway, I will wait to see how this pans out but I'm not going to jump with both feet on the bandwagon yet.

The better practice is to draw conclusions from it rather than fit it into you conclusions.

didn't have same-sex erotica messages on it. At 'worst' it was a wedding cake like any other, possibly with simply two of the same plastic cake toppers on it, if they even asked for that, which I doubt. Those little suckers are pretty tacky, and most people I know whose weddings I attended didn't bother with them.

So what's the distinction? Overt hate speech. Sell him the cake, a tube of icing, and let him scrawl his own hate speech on it if he wants.

If you wanted to try to claim that these two instances are anything close to being 'similar', you'd have to have the gay couple wanting a cake that had 'God hates Christians' written on it.

and I think it is smart to move thoughtfully on this.

If they can make the case that this is about your conviction, be they religious or ideological, it could be extended to other areas.

Do you think it would be ok for a baker to refuse to make a cake saying "God hates Christians" on it? Or let's make it something someone could not do themselves, like embroider a shirt.

I am not claiming that these two things are the same and never had, but a ruling could be made that would apply to both.

I do think it would be ok for a baker to refuse to make a cake that says 'God hates Christians', and I think the remedy should be the same - offer to make the cake sans message, and hand over a tube of icing along with it, so the buyer can put any message they want on it afterwards.

Ditto embroidering a shirt with 'God hates X', whether it be Christians or gays. Heck, that's literal hate speech. It's got the word hate right in it.

I think that is the difference.

and give him a tube of icing to write his own hate speech with.

here's to them being Cake Wrecks!

I think this is supposed to be a Bible:



If so, then this bakery deserves to have the (good) book thrown at them.