A Year In Jail For Refusing To Bake A Cake


Gay marriage has been banned in Colorado since 2006. Yet, despite that, a baker in Denver is facing a year in jail for refusing to bake a cake for a gay marriage ceremony:

A Denver bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is about to face the legal heat.

The Colorado Attorney General’s office last week filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who last year declined to make a cake for Denver couple Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, the Associated Press reports. The couple had their marriage ceremony in Massachusetts and wanted the cake for a hometown celebration with family and friends.

Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had cited his Christian beliefs in refusing the men’s business. “We would close down the bakery before we compromised our beliefs,” Phillips told a television interviewer last summer.

Gay marriage should absolutely be equal. Gays should be treated equally under the law. I’m not a fan of the government giving its blessing (or denying its blessing) to private social contracts in general, but if they’re going to do it they should do it equally.

But this is something else. This isn’t equality. This is the government enforcing a particular point of view about a lifestyle on the public at large.

What’s ironic is that the same people who invoke their freedom of associate with who they want, in this instance their freedom to enter into a social contract with someone else of the same sex, seem to be arguing that this baker doesn’t have that same freedom to disassociate himself from people he doesn’t like.

We can all have opinion’s on that baker’s feelings on the subject – I wouldn’t shop at a bakery that discriminates against gays – but doesn’t an individual have a right to those feelings?

It seems the government, at least in this instance, isn’t merely satisfied to allow gay marriages but also wants to force other citizens/businesses to endorse, or at least condone, those marriages.

That’s a bridge too far.

This freedom stuff cuts both ways.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • mikemc1970

    Leftist hate the first amendment. Unless people are spewing leftist ideals and dogma.

    • davoarid

      I think it’s a pretty cool amendment, myself.

      The only thing I hate is spiders. And the 18th Amendment.

      • mikemc1970

        Judging by the stench that often arises from your posts, it’s a pretty safe bet that you also hate bathing.

  • sbark

    …..and SCOTUS Justice Kennedy will soon equate that to the churches…………….yup, for sure, no radical leftist gays……the radical leftist are all in the EPA, welfare system, Big Educ, Abortion, Enviro, Global warming…………there are just none left for the homosexual “movement”……

  • ReduceReuseRecycle

    They should get more than a year if they’re reusing cakes. There are probably a lot of health code violations with this type of excessive recycling.

    • sbark

      ya think the homosexual lifestyle offers up any health code violations?

      1. Gays live 20 years less than straights on average.

      2. 75% of gays have sex with over 100 different males

      3. 28% of gays have over 1,000 lifetime sex partners

      4. The number of diseases suffered by gays is nearly endless…and terrifying

      5. Pedophilia is more common among gays than straights

      And THIS is conducive to long-term, family-oriented relationships (e.g. marriage)?


      • ReduceReuseRecycle

        I was referring to the original typo in the headline, but thanks for letting me know how concerned you are with homosexuals. Me thinks thou dost protest too much?…. weirdo.

      • Guest

        Yeah this is all a bunch if bull$—. We could just start with number one for now, do you know how they determined that gays live shorter lives?

        • davoarid

          They asked their friends, I’d assume.

      • davoarid

        “75% of gays have sex with over 100 different males”

        That’s pretty impressive, especially considering half of all gays are lesbians. Breaking down the numbers, that would mean that 100% of gay men have sex with over 100 different males, AND 50% of gay women have somehow had sex with over 100 different men, too.

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      I fixed the typo, thanks!

  • devilschild

    I would go to a different bakery instead of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    • OldConserv2011

      But making a mountain out of a molehill is exactly what they wanted to do. They can’t advance their agenda by quietly shopping around for a bakery that will bake them a cake. They advance their agenda by demonizing the guy who makes a principled stand.

    • davoarid

      Is that how you responded the last time you were refused service on the basis of your sexual preference?

      • devilschild

        I wouldn’t spend money at a business that treated me that way. Many others places of business would welcome me at their establishment so why waste my time doing business with a company that is biased against me? Frankly I think the problem would solve itself if government stayed out of it. People would frequent the businesses that welcome them and their money. Meanwhile the uptight business owners would see their businesses fail. Problem solved IMO.

        • davoarid

          Sheesh, I agree. If only those updated negroes in 1950s Alabama had just been a bit more patient, we wouldn’t have had to pass the Civil Rights Act.

          • Mark 2112

            typical liberal mistake …. skin color vs a lifestyle choice

            apples and oranges.

      • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

        Do you have data illustrating the number of times anyone has been denied service in America because of their sexual orientation?

        I’m willing to bet it is an almost nonexistent number.

        • Betty Borrough

          You mean like the time the bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay couple?

          • Mark 2112

            because they have that right to do so? i guarantee more people have been persecuted for their beliefs.

      • Mark 2112

        since when doesn’t the OWNER have the right to refuse service to ANYONE?

        when was the last time you went to jail for your right to practice what you preach?

    • Mark 2112

      yeah, but then they can’t play the role of the ‘victim’

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob


    And if a business owner doesn’t want to serve the Negros at his lunch counter, or let them swim in his pool, or give them a home loan, they should be free to just liberty and freedumb the Negros when ever they please, right rube?

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob


      Right. Letting people make their own choices is dumb.

      Thanks for sharing, Boob.

      • davoarid

        Do you want to go back to the days when hotels and restaurants could refuse to serve black or gay customers?

        • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

          I don’t want to go back to the days when businesses did engage in that sort of widespread discrimination.

          But no, I don’t think being a bigoted moron should be illegal any more than I think controversial speech I happen to disagree with should be illegal.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Expressing religious discrimination is not speech.

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            It is, actually.

            The 1st amendment doesn’t exist so we can talk about the weather. It exists so that we can say controversial things – even things some might consider hateful or bigoted – without fear of censorship.

            That’s called freedom, a concept far too many like you seem to have given up on.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s not, actually.

            Speech is not deciding who you are not going to serve. It’s religious discrimination, which is illegal.

            You’re just a dim-witted blogger. Just because a bunch of tea bagger idiots want to call discrimination free speech doesn’t make it so.

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            Refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a lifestyle that one has a moral objection to is an expression of faith and religion, protected by the constitution.

            Call me all the names you want, but I think people should be free to decide for themselves what their morals are. And if you disagree, then ask yourself how you’d feel if we had President Rick Santorum wanting to prosecute bakers who make cakes for gay weddings?

            Somehow, I don’t think you’d be of the same opinion.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Making cakes for gay wedding’s isn’t religious discrimination. So Santorum would be a nut ball for using law enforcement to arrest people for breaking no laws. Your comparison isn’t apt, and you’re all over the map.

            It’s against the law to discriminate on sexual orientation.

            Please show me any legal document that says exhibiting racial discrimination is free speech. Get to it.

          • JoeMN

            Why the sudden leap from religious discrimination to racial discrimination ?

            BTW Is it discrimination for businesses to perform a criminal back round check if the applicant happens to be black ?

            Obama thinks so


          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I meant religious, although racial and religious discrimination are equal in the eyes of the law.

          • JoeMN

            Religions can discriminate.

            They can decide who to let in, who to marry, ect.

            In fact, there is lots of discrimination in our daily lives.

            Where we shop.

            Our choices in mates.

            Where we live.




            When a bank places an ad for a bank teller, do you think they have the right to discriminate against an applicant sporting ‘bank robber” on his resume ?

            And should it matter if the applicant happens to be black ?

          • Mark 2112

            no you meant what you said and only now when shown the error of your ways do you try to backpedal

          • Mark 2112

            they weren’t being discriminated against son. the owner (you DO know what an owner is, right? RIGHT?!?) has the RIGHT (another word you apparently don’t understand) to serve whoever he, she, they want to.

          • Mark 2112

            illegal? really? a business owner reserves the right to serve whoever he, she, they feel. and in usual fashion when shown the corner you lash out like a 2nd grader..

          • Mark 2112

            belt buckle boy has spoken.

          • Ogrrre

            Oh, really? The Supreme Court held that burning a flag was speech. Expressing your religious beliefs through refusing to do business with someone you find to be offensive, for whatever reason, is covered three ways by the First Amendment: 1) Freedom of religion, 2) Freedom of assembly/association, 3) Freedom of speech.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Forcing someone into a business contract in such a manner is akin to slavery.

        • JoeMN

          The market takes care of these things all on it’s own.

          But it’s so much more fun for leftists to empower government to crack some sculls, isn’t it ?

          • davoarid

            “The market takes care of these things all on it’s own.”

            The Market has a pretty lousy track record on ending discrimination, Joe. The market gave us Jim Crow–the government gave us the Civil Rights Act.

          • JoeMN

            Lets take a look at where segregation took place when Democrats enacted Jim Crow laws

            Public transportation, public schools, public water fountains, the military, ect.

            That’s right.

            Government sanctioned discrimination.

            And the key portion of the CRA was ending this practice of government discrimination.

            However the private sector can, and must be allowed to discriminate for any number of reasons.

            For one, you wouldn’t want to hire a convicted bank robber as a teller.

            What about professional sports ?

            The NHL hires a disproportional number of white players.

            And the NBA can say the same with blacks.

            Should government step in, do head counts, and threaten lawsuits ?

            Meanwhile the restaurant owner (for example) turning away blacks is also turning away profits.

            And his bigotry becomes someone else’s opportunity.

          • davoarid

            “Lets take a look at where segregation took place when Democrats enacted Jim Crow laws”

            Restaurants, movie theaters, hotels, etc…

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            The market ended segregation in baseball.

            The market does not reward things like racial discrimination.

            But you say the market gave us Jim Crow. That’s not true, Jim Crow laws were actual laws passed by government.

          • devilschild

            exactly what Joe said….this isn’t the days of yore….we have moved forward in our thinking. Many people have gay relatives or friends. We wouldn’t frequent a business that was rude to someone we cared about. Let a few of these businesses fail and see how quickly words gets out that it is possible to go under if your are biased against people based on skin color, race, sexual preference, etc…

          • davoarid

            Joe Smith, his wife and his kids are the only black people in Tinytown, ND.

            Billy Buck runs the only gas station in town. His wife runs the only grocery store in town.

            It just so happens that they hate black people.

            They should be able to refuse to allow Joe Smith to shop in their stores, right? Make him and his family drive 25 miles to get gas and bread?

          • devilschild

            Well Joe’s neighbor has a daughter who is married to a black man. When he heard about the way Joe was treated he decided to boycott the business. He told his large extended family and his friends to do the same thing. Soon the gas station and the grocery store start to feel the pinch and change their position.

          • eury

            Okay, now Joe Smith is fire chief. Billy Buck’s gas station catches fire. Should Joe Smith have to go fight that fire?

          • devilschild

            Joe would be the first guy there. That is the kind of guy Joe is. Joe is able to overlook Billy Buck’s racism so that it doesn’t have a negative impact on his children.

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            You say that as though you don’t support policies giving preferential hiring/admissions treatment to people based on skin color.

            Wake me up when you’re actually against racial discrimination.

          • davoarid

            Rob: WAKE UP! I’m actually against racial discrimination!

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            So am I, which is why I don’t support treating people different based on their skin color. Or their gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

          • JoeMN

            There are any number of ways that they could discriminate.

            Say Joe Smith has a particular taste for arugula.

            The grocer could simply decide not to stock it.

            Should Holders Justice Department raid the place and threaten her with a year in jail unless she immediately complies ?
            Does Joe Smith have a “right” to the food he want’s where he wants it ?

    • schreib

      A large majority of African Americans would be very offended by your equating gay rights to the rights of color. One cannot change their color. They are born with it. But one can decide their sexual practices. And having civil rights depended upon their sexual practices is pathetic. Also a large majority of black Americans detest same sex “marriage”. It goes against over 5000 years of human history. NEVER before in human history has this ever happened.

      • StraighterThanASchreib

        A large majority of homosexuals would be very offended by the notion that they can change their sexual orientations. Just because you think it’s a choice does not make it so. When did you decide to be straight?

      • StraighterThanASchreib

        …..and also, you’re one of those people that think that humans have only been around for 5000 years aren’t you?

  • davoarid

    What should happen to businesses that refuse to serve gays or blacks or Jews?

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      They should be boycotted and criticized.

      • banjo kid

        I don’t think a boycott would work not enough straight people would join in .

    • Prairiemom3

      If you’re not free to be a bigot, you’re not free.

  • Sky Rider

    The main point here is Freedom to decide. But a point completely left out of the article, except in it’s intro, IS THE FACT that Homosexual marriage is ILLEGAL in Colorado. So the Colorado State Attorney General is trying to FORCE a business to recognize and support an Illegal event in Colorado. How did this case even get past the filing phase.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      A gay marriage is illegal, not celebrating one. Religious prejudice is illegal.

      You’re welcome!

      • Thresherman

        “Religious prejudice is illegal.”

        I’d like to see the legal definition of that and the appropriate portion of the statute from which you get that.

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          I meant discrimination…

          • Neiman

            Remember your rule is no corrections of statement s made are acceptable. You said prejudice it remains prejudice.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            My rule? Don’t go thinking for yourself, Nieman, you aren’t very good at it.

            If it wasn’t for the fact that on this post there are at least 3 difference references where I am clearly speaking of religious discrimination. Unlike you, where there was 3 different statements in favor of heterosexual sex out of wedlock, and a promotion of women selling sex.

          • Neiman

            You assertions are lies, but it is obvious as I have stated for years, there are rules for Christ hating, communist liberals like yourself and rules for everyone else. You can revise and extend your comments to better reflect your true views, but not Neiman, because unlike you he is not a bottom dwelling, scum sucking liberal.

          • JoeMN

            So a church must accept anyone who demands membership ?
            Does this mean the Catholic church must start supplying prayer rugs and foot baths ?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Foot baths, huh?
            Very Christ like, if you actually knew something about Him.

            John 13:1-17

          • JoeMN

            Why don’t you answer the question ?

      • JoeMN

        But the issue here is that the Attorney General believes the baker should not be allowed free will.

        That he should be pressed into service at the command of the gay couple.

        A slave

  • davoarid

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed “discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.”

    I get the sense that most conservatives oppose that law–is that accurate?

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      If it means that we’re going to put a baker in jail because he doesn’t want to bake a cake, then yes conservatives do and should oppose those sort of laws.

    • Prairiemom3

      Only if you’re going to stretch the definition of Interstate Commerce as far as FDR did.

      • Guest

        FDR was not president in 1964, and it is more about the 14th amendment and the incorporation document, which was not used to justify the New Deal.

        • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

          I don’t think PrairieMom was saying that FDR was the president in 1964, only that his elastic view of the interstate commerce clause is used as the justification for much federal policy up to and including federal discrimination laws.

          • Prairiemom3

            Exactly as Rob says. Look at the history of the Interstate Commerce Clause during FDR’s rule and see why it is so offensive to small government conservatives, including its inclusion in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

          • Guest

            If you are against Civil Rights Legislation you are very far out of line with the vast majority of Americans, and against the intent of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment and the end of the fourteenth amendment that gives Congress the power to enact appropriate legislation to ensure that it happened.

          • two_amber_lamps

            A baker in their own private business must make a cake against their will?

            Do you always advocate for slavery Mr. Guest?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            2 dim bulbs, if they serve the public and the public pays for the police that protect them and the fire fighters who would be there to save them and the streets they use to to conduct their business they should thank the boys and bake the cake.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Your asinine beliefs are nothing if not incredulous….


  • awfulorv

    Meanwhile real unemployment is somewhere around 15% the Mid-East is exploding, we’re about to give away a large part our childrens heritage to illegals, our constitution is being shredded, the IRS has become a police force, it cost fifty bucks to gas up your car, and we waste our time with these distractions.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    When did religious discrimination become legal in CO?

  • Thresherman

    What most of the people who oppose the bakers seem to be forgetting in their comparison to no blacks at the lunch counter is that there is some mighty important differences between the two. First off, the bakers were not refusing the gay service, they specifically refused to make them a single specific item, a wedding cake. The lunch counter issue was a complete denial of all services, not one specific one. If the gays could show that they were being denied all services, birthday cakes or retirement cakes or whatever, then the case would be much different.

    The second issue though, is the more important one, it is a bedrock of our system, it is that people have the right to express their religious beliefs and in this case is the belief that gays should not marry. Now we can debate whether that is right or wrong, but what is not up for debate is that people are entitled to hold that belief.

    In essence, what the gays here are arguing, is that the Christian bakers must embrace the beliefs of the gay couple while they do not have to respect the beliefs of the bakers. That is a bigotry of it’s own sort. What if the gays filed suit because Jewish bakers refused to bake them a cake on the Sabbath? Would the critics of the Christian bakers support the gays in this claim as well? Or what if the bakers were Muslim instead of Christian and refused to bake the gays a wedding cake? Who thinks that the liberals in Colorado would prosecuting that? Are not Christians entitled to the same religious rights in this country as Jews or Muslims?

    That is what is at the heart of what is going on here.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      That’s a distinction without a difference. There is no legal grounds to exercise their religious beliefs over another based on their religious discrimination grounds.

      • Thresherman

        You do seem to like to cite the law without showing the statute that you claim to be citing. I would be interested to see if you can provide the statute in this claim and the how the legal definition of religious discrimination applies.

  • SigFan

    This is just the beginning. In the next few years – or less – the government will use the force of law to require churches to perform gay “marriage” ceremonies whether it conflicts with their religious values and principles or not. From the outset this has been a push to eradicate religion – particularly Christianity – from public life. Mark Steyn had an article recently where he quoted a church bishop in Canada relating that he expected it would not be long before ministers in Christian churches would be faced with jail time for refusing to perform gay ceremonies in that country. And that is exactly where we’re headed too.

    • SiggyWig

      This is a pretty dumb statement. Many Catholic churches refuse to marry straight couples because one of the parties is not catholic. Do you think those Catholic churches will also be forced to marry all people from outside their congregation and religion? Do you think the government will force those churches to marry Satanists or have voodoo wedding ceremonies. I think you’re a bit too paranoid about something that will never happen. Maybe you should just come out of the closet and then you won’t have so much angst.

      • devilschild

        That happened to me when I got married so I went somewhere else. I didn’t join the church or donate money to them based on the way they treated me when I wanted to marry one of their members.

  • Rick Olson

    Stuff like this is what really makes me cringe. It seems the country bends over backwards to support a particular agenda — in this case, gay rights. However, I don’t see how this could even remotely be considered discrimination. Last time I checked, a business owner has the absolute right to refuse service to anyone. Apparently, not in Colorado.

    Hey, I am all for freedom and equal rights, don’t get me wrong about that. However, threatening to jail a bakery owner for refusing to bake a cake? That’s just way over the top if you ask me.

    I realize that Christians are vilified for trying to defend their beliefs — as a born again Christian — I’ve been ridiculed more times than I can count. But why do we Christians have to constantly take it in the hind end, while our nation bends over backwards to accommodate and encourage behavior such as this.

    I see it in the workplace all the time. It’s been like pulling teeth for me to get my employer to reasonably accommodate my religious beliefs and practices (that’s guaranteed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), yet they bend over backwards to accommodate other people, such as allowing Muslim women to wear their religious articles of clothing on the job (when it is clearly a work hazard).

  • davoarid

    Should towns be able to run all the blacks and gays out of town? If everyone in good ole Wahpeton ND agrees that they don’t want any blacks or gays in town (and respond by getting their banks and gas stations and landlords to refuse to do business with gays and blacks), is that just Tough Luck for the gays and blacks of Wahpeton? They have to get out of town?

    • devilschild

      Good luck with that scenario….this is the year 2013.

  • HG

    See, we warned you.

  • Neiman

    This is part and parcel of the religious, really anti-Christian discrimination many Christians have been warning many decades would grow in intensity, as homosexuality gains such unprecedented power in relation to their small numbers. Homosexuals already have many, many more rights and much greater political support (the entire Democrat Party, Atheists, Libertarian Party and a majority of the GOP) than do Christians. This baker is a victim and symbolic of the nature of the Epidemic of Gay Thuggery and the total evisceration of the First Amendment as regards “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    This is the fruit of secular humanism made manifest in our time, it is a destructive, fatal, demonically controlled political cancer that must destroy the Christian faith, not religion. The State can co-opt every religion, but true Christian faith opposes sexual deviancy and license to pursue after other deviant, destructive lusts; and, its adherent are willing to face death and loss of all things for the love of Christ and that idea secular humanism must not allow. So, these humanists (Democrats, Liberals of all stripes, Libertarians, atheists and not a few conservatives), most damnable name, use gays as their foot soldiers to drive Christians out of our schools that they now rule and where they are preying on our children, to attack people of faith everywhere they can, like they are victimizing this Christian Baker and trying to force the Christian faith to submit to gay rights or else, thus Christians abandoning their faith rather than fight the government

    The gaying of America, the Red, White and Blue of our flag turned rainbow colors, is the same final symptom that Rome and Greece experienced just before their fall into the ash bins of history, the final immoral straw that rotted the moral fiber of these great empires, just like it is doing to America. It has long been said that America is a revived Roman Empire and we are following their example to our own demise.

  • Jesse

    Whatever happened to the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs we used to see in private businesses? As a private business owner, the baker should have the right to choose his customers.

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    So Rob’s not for putting bakers in jail but only for the laws used to put bakers in jail.

  • PK

    “baker… freedom to disassociate himself from people he doesn’t like.”

    “I wouldn’t shop at a bakery that discriminates against gays”
    Rob Port

    “owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had cited his Christian beliefs in
    refusing the men’s business. “We would close down the bakery before we
    compromised our beliefs,””

    They refused to make a wedding cake for gay people because of their Christian beliefs, not because they don’t like gay people. It’s the same thing as turning away food that was sacrificed to idols. It’s amazing how you never brought up that the bakery owner’s right to freely exercise their religion is being assaulted. You write this dry post about how we should have the right to associate with whoever we want, but never once mention the clear assault on the owner’s, already established, 1st Amendment right. I’ve told you this agenda is about war against the church, and as it starts, you won’t even mention religion when you’re talking about it. As a Christian is being led into the dungeon for being a Christian, you site “freedom of association”, instead of the 1st Amendment.

    “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they
    have done abominable works, there is none that does good.” Psalm 14:1

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      So, you’re attacking me because I think the cake guy should be free to bake cakes, or not bake cakes, for whoever he wants?

      Of course this guy has a right to his religious conscious, however bigoted others might think it is. And of course he has a right to associate, or not associate, with whoever he wants.

      The same way gays have the right to associate with one another in social contracts called marriages.

      • PK

        I’m pointing out how you didn’t once mention how the bakery owner’s 1st Amendment right is being attacked. They’re facing a year jail for freely exercising their religion and standing up for their beliefs. Last time i checked, the ability for gays to get married isn’t in the Bill of Rights, but you seem to be more willing to defend gay marriage than the religious freedom declared in the 1st. So when the government starts throwing preachers in jail and shutting down or fining churches for not marrying gays, are you going to mention the 1st Amendment at all to defend them? I wasn’t attacking you either. I was showing my amazement at how you neglected to even mention religion and the 1st Amendment in “defending” the bakery owners. I also just posted a verse from the Bible. I know, the Bible is a hateful book of fables. So, if matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed, according to one of the few natural laws we know of, how did the universe get here? How did the first cell organize with all the DNA containing the informational code to build itself, then have the nano-machines present to perform all the functions in the cell, all being enclosed in a membrane that has the proper gateways to let good things in and bad things out, then have the ability to replicate itself? How did something like that just happen out of mud? I won’t post that Bible verse again here, but yeah, only a fool thinks there is no Creator.

        • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

          I’ve actually studied the bible extensively. I was raised a good, church-going Lutheran and I maintain a lot of respect for what organized religion is. My wife continues to attend church regularly, and our kids go to sunday school and vacation bible school.

          That I’m a non-believer shouldn’t be taken by you as an insult. So settle down.

          As for my argument in favor of this baker – and I’d remind you that we’re on the same side on this issue – I don’t feel we even need to invoke the 1st amendment. Of course it applies, but I don’t see where needs to invoke the US Constitution to say “hey, I don’t want to bake a cake for those people.”

          So settle down. I’m not the enemy.

          • PK

            Where in my comments did you interpret that i’m insulted by you being an atheist? I’m just saying you’re an idiot for not seeing the obvious fact there’s a Creator. Can you answer my questions regarding the universe and life?

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            Where in my comments did you interpret that i’m insulted by you being an atheist? I’m just saying you’re an idiot for not seeing the obvious fact there’s a Creator.

            Ha. Ok.

            Can you answer my questions regarding the universe and life?


          • PK

            That’s right, it’s all a joke. You base your world view on “science”, even though one of the few known laws of the universe proves that there has to be a Creator separate from the universe. All the organization and digital codes built into everything can’t be explained by random events. Information can’t arise from random events, yet our DNA is literally a digital code. The human mind, or consciousness, has a direct effect on the universe, completely proven by quantum physics. Praying has been shown to have an effect on reality. The statistical probability for everything to have developed with no direction whatsoever is almost negative. It’s mind blowing that we’re even talking about this, but yet you think it was just an accident.

          • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

            Praying has been shown to have an effect on reality.

            Obsevation has been shown to have an effect on reality.

            Clearly, you’ve found a level of evidence in the world around you to support the existence of a creator. That’s great. I actually wish I could have your certainty. Atheism isn’t easy. It’s a little scary to think of the nothing that comes after life.

            But I’m not convinced, and berating name-calling Christians aren’t likely to change my mind. ;-)

          • PK

            I’m just talking about mainline science. It all points to a Creator. The biggest group of scientists who were atheists and converted to religion are micro-biologists. Since technology has progress so we can actually see how cells work, there’s no denying that the nano-machines that run our cells were designed by intelligence. Then there’s information theory and DNA. It’s all far too complex for even one cell to have developed from random chemical events, let alone an organism.

      • JoeMN

        But one cannot deny that engrained into the gay rights movement are those cultural Marxists who wish to destroy the institution of marriage altogether.


        • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

          Right, but I think it’s the hostility recognition of gay marriage has received from Christians that has allowed the more radical elements to glom onto the gay marriage thing to push other agendas.

          • PK

            Great point, it’s us Christian’s fault for resisting an agenda that we knew was going to be used by the government to persecute us. And as it starts, you won’t call it what it is.

          • JoeMN

            Those radical elements have had it in for Christianity long before gay marriage became an issue.

            Besides, you wouldn’t blame the Christians opposition to abortion for Kermit Gosnell ?

    • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

      I want to go into a Kosher shop and order bacon because that’s allowed by my religion.

  • Drain52

    I suppose the gay couple insisted on homogenized milk with their cake.

  • banjo kid

    What is wrong with refusing service to any one should not the business pick its customers ? could the couple not change a few things around after they pick up the cake, is this the only cake baker in town . I still believe it is nothing more than a moral decay item to bring the USA down and not anything to do with equal rights . for 2 to 3 % of the population they sure do raise a big stink . If they want to wallow in it it does not bother me except the salvation of ones soul now that bothers me, but I was told to dust my feet at their door long ago. We will never know all here and if there is nothing the other side of death then it won’t matter . There is something after death and they will find that out to late. The Lord wants us to cast our seeds on fertile ground not barren rocky ground that will yield no fruit . The Gay people are being used as a tool to instill sin in every day life and the church.

  • Mark 2112

    Affirmative Action is racist
    BET is racist
    Ms. Black Universe is racist
    The United Negro Fund is racist

    exclusionary by default. where is the outage?