You have heard the arguments. The baker is being sued and faces possible jail time for refusing to sell a cake to a same sex couple for a ‘wedding.’
Seems kind of easy: just sell the d_mn cake. But wait, what if the baker does not want to sell? and herein lies the dilemma.
The baker is a professing christian and states he does not recognize this arrangement, therefore he refuses to bake and decorate a cake under these circumstances. They who argue for the ‘gays’ say he has no rights, and should treat ALL customers as equals.
Some have missed the point that the baker COULD sell the cake, but chooses not to. He in fact does have a right, the same way a consumer has rights.
What is equitable to both parties? The buyer should seek another bakery who will cater for their special whims; after all it is a special day…why would they want the memory of this ‘blessed’ event to be so stained in controversy?
I’ll tell you why: it is not about the cake, it is forcing acceptance on a culture who does not want it; it is generating media attention so the agenda may be advanced. The cake is an ancillary issue and a detour for gay rights. It is another way to force ‘normal’ behaviour upon a people who instinctively know otherwise.
If the bakery has a stellar reputation for making outstanding cakes, they as artists can, may, and should have their right to ‘paint’ a cake as they see fit, and in this instance, they choose to leave the canvas blank. As a business entering into a contract, they have every right NOT to sign the contract, they have every right to deny the business.
When a roofing contractor submits a bid to a homeowner, the owner of the house is not obligated to sign the contract just because the roofer wants the business. A contract is binding when both parties agree to the terms, and put name and ink to paper to consummate the deal.
It appears the bakery has a strong hand here. Others have proved this idea of a business turning away business. I saw a man wanting to play golf on a course that had clearly defined signs: ‘Must wear collared shirt-no jeans.’ Discriminatory? You betcha. And the paying patron was turned away, as he refused the offer to play according to the rules.
Private property as well as the general rights of a business owner according to common sense, suggest some things do not appear fair, but ‘equal rights’ mean nothing unless ALL have access to these rights. Could the golfer sue? Sure he could, and the case would be thrown out in half a minute.
There is a precedence sought by the CO cake buyers to make ‘their’ rights higher than all others; they could care less for equal rights; if they did they would respect the opinion of the bakery and move along. The bakery would have made a cake for their birthday, or any other event, they only drew a line in the sand regarding marriage which they believe to hold a special kind of sacredness not recognized by the patron.
The bakers should not be vilified for this, and the patrons should quietly go away. This is not about the cake… ‘No shirt, no service’ says the sign in the restaurant window, again discriminatory? Of course, and the passerby also has the right to ignore this establishment being already fully attired. Discrimination happens every day, get over it, it’s called simple decision-making, and folks will always find fault with the opinions of others.
Surely the ‘cake buyers’ could find a bakery who would be more than glad to assist them in a cake for their day. Leave the CO baker alone