DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on August 13, 2015, 09:20:57 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-appeals-court-backs-gay-couple-in-wedding-cake-dispute/ar-BBlIJk6
We still have some freedom, as long as we agree with the governing religion.
-
Free speech dealing with the refusal to bake a cake is barely speech at all. I do not see this as any serious problem.
There will be gay bakers who will bake cakes for gay couples. The bigoted bakers will eventually retire, just like the White restaurant owners who refused to serve Black people and this will become at best a quaint non issue. Not even worthy of a made-For-TV movie on Trinity Broadcasting.
"I refuse to bake a cake for Adam and Steve because I oppose buggery." is hardly a serious political statement.
-
What governing religion?
The law, in most places, requires businesses to be licensed. A requirement to obtain a license is that a business does not discriminate. The bakery owners are in no way required to be gay themselves, or even to approve of a gay lifestyle, but to obtain a license to run a public business, doing business with the public, they must do that business with all segments of the public, without discrimination.
-
Would you be upset if the government were telling an artist what the message of his art must be?
Imagine Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollack having to explain to an official of the government why their art was art, Salvador Dali had to leave Spain for a while because this is an impossible task.
There is an ancient philosophy in government , in that the government is right , and disagreeing with the government is troublemaking.
This philosophy was probably old when the Pharaohs were engaged in it.
Now we have a government setting precedent that a work of art must be produced as requested in the government approved orthodox set of messages.
If the message offends the artist , that is just tough.
-
BINGO!
-
OMFG, I must have missed all those artists being thrown into jail for not producing government approved art.
Examples please. With URLs, if you don't mind.
-
Making wedding cakes may be artistic, but it is hardly a recognized art form. I agree that if the business is licensed to serve the public,m then it must cater to the public.
Saying "I won't bake this cake for Adam and Steve because I disapprove of their wedding" is perfectly legal. Just refusing to make the cake is illegal.
This is obviously some sort of test case, otherwise the couple would have just told the bigoted baker to kiss off and found a different bakery. So it is not really about free speech at all, it is about symbolically using the government to punish either gays for wanting to get married or bakers for refusing to bake a cake to show they disapprove.
NOT any sort of real threat to free speech.
-
That's funny....I see those signs at restaurants, "that cater to the public", that make it clear they have the right not to serve you. There's no art involved in making someone scrambled eggs for breakfast
-
The slogan "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is the classic sign used to tell Blacks they were not welcome.
I have not seen such a sign in decades. I think you may only have seen it in your imagination.
Putting up such a sign is not illegal. Refusing to serve someone based on race, gender or whatever is clearly illegal. Most people do not sue over such bigotry, they just go to any local chain restaurant (Denny's, Chili's, McDonald's, BK, wherever) that does not post such signs.
I have seen "No shoes, no shirt, no service", but that all I have seen lately.
I can't recall seeing barefoot or shirtless people anywhere except on the beach in any restaurant.
-
Yep, that's the one I still see. Thanks for providing the full quote
-
Here is the legal opinion about "We reserve the right to refuse blahblah to blahblah:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html)
I am not a lawyer, so I defer to this.
Can you refuse to serve the barefooted?
It looks like you can't say the law is on your side about that one, either.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/06/3-ways-you-can-legally-refuse-service-to-customers.html (http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/06/3-ways-you-can-legally-refuse-service-to-customers.html)
Once upon a time, a man named Lester Maddox in Atlanta ran a fried chicken place. He refused service to Blacks because he claimed that his chicken eating customers would be offended by Black people eating chicken on the same premises. He was told he could not do this. So he provided a barrel of axe handles at the door, so that his customers could threaten chicken-loving Negroes. He was eventually shut down, and due to this and his prodigious ability to ride a bicycle backwards, he was elected governor of Georgia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox)
http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ajc/id/497 (http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ajc/id/497)
I bought a "Pickrick drumstick" (an axe handle with Lester's name on it) in a yard sale here in Miami for $3.00 and presented it to Johnny Adams, a Black colleague of mine who taught business courses. Dr Adams was from Athens, GA and had been a master Sargent in the US Army for 22 years, but had participated in lunch counter boycotts before he enlisted.
He died not too long ago, and his wife gave it to a Black History Museum project.
Perhaps one of the greater financial errors of my career as a yard sailor:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lester-Maddox-Signed-15-Axe-Handle-PickRick-Drumstick-PSA-DNA-COA-Autograph-GA-/301130932992 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lester-Maddox-Signed-15-Axe-Handle-PickRick-Drumstick-PSA-DNA-COA-Autograph-GA-/301130932992)
-
Strange how they can "cater to the public", but have the right not to serve someone. Which is how it should be....it's called freedom, that which this country was founded on.
If said person/business is deemed to be discriminatory, and the word gets out, people will stop giving them business.
What you don't do is mandate that they perform a service, against their religious values. There are plenty of non-religious organizations that will gladly cater to one's wants. The notion of forcing someone(s) to perform functions counter to their religious guidelines, just because they don't support your actions/choices. is completely contrary to the concept of religious freedom, as set forth in the 1st amendment of our Constitution
-
The problem is that you are clearly wrong. Legally, you cannot refuse service to anyone in a public business.
I can refuse to serve you a Cheeseburger in my home, but once I open a public restaurant, I no longer have that right.
The purpose of a restaurant is to serve food, not to make political statements.
The purpose of a bakery is to bake cakes for the public, not to make religious proclamations.
The court ruled correctly in this case.
This country was not founded on mean-spirited gestures of bigotry.
-
Your problem is that you might have Political Correctness on your side, however the Constitution is on my side
-
The court ruled on my side.
This was no doubt based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
I do not consider this to be in any way important, as it is not difficult to find someone to bake a gay marriage cake, and marriage does not require cake.
I am not gay, and I am not fond of cake.
-
Not the Supreme Court.....they're the folks that have the final rule on matters of Constitutional parameters. In other words, the lower court got it wrong, and this is likely to be appealed. The 1st amendment is just that important
-
http://eelslap.com/
-
As I said....the 1st amendment is just that important
-
http://eelslap.com/ (http://eelslap.com/)
-
Wash...Rinse...Repeat (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=19177.msg170876#msg170876)
-
You assume that the Supreme Court will even hear this case.
-
I don't assume anything. For those without the reading difficulties you frequently demonstrate for all to see, I said this case is likely to be appealed. How high it goes, I have no idea. Court gets these cases wrong many a time, with their version of "interpreting" the Constitution. That's why there's an appeals process
-
I think that the legality of putting up "We reserve the right to reserve service to anyone" signs has been decided long ago.
The purpose of these signs was to let Blacks and other disliked minorities that the management did not want their business. These signs are NEVER seen in any chain restaurants, even Southern ones, like Waffle House and Po Boys. And since 1970 the number of non chain restaurants has declined.
A baker has the right to put up a sign in the window saying "We disapprove of gay marriage". But they do not have the right to refuse to bake the cake.
This lawsuit is a test case and it is on a very, very minor importance.
-
......................................................
This is obviously some sort of test case, otherwise the couple would have just told the bigoted baker to kiss off and found a different bakery. So it is not really about free speech at all, it is about symbolically using the government to punish either gays for wanting to get married or bakers for refusing to bake a cake to show they disapprove.
.....................
Ah!
Bingo!
And that the government gets to determine what is and is not art , I almost missed that.
-
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/YouTube-screenshot-TaylorHamKid.jpg)http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/heres-the-nazi-cake-jewish-bakeries-will-be-forced-to-sell-thanks-gay-mafia-video/
-
I don't think that a cake is what most people call "art". Perhaps making a cake is an art, but there are no cake museums. Cakes are too ephemeral to be serious art.
Besides, a wedding cake is a commissioned edible product in which the people ordering it decide what it is to look like. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned, but it was durable, not edible.
-
I think that the legality of putting up "We reserve the right to reserve service to anyone" signs has been decided long ago. The purpose of these signs....
...was to indicate that a private enterprise/business had the right not to serve someone, based on whatever the situation was, despite that they "catered to the public". Any place that would try to make the practice one of racial intolerance, would quickly see their profits shrink, as folks would simply not cater to them.
Point being, that the Government's job is to protect its citizens, not and try to mandate behavior. And certainly not to stamp on a person(s) constitutional rights of Religious Freedom, based on nothing more than obscene out-of-control political correctness
-
Until the 1960's, most places in the South that DID serve Black people were boycotted by their regular White customers.
The real point of previous rulings is that it is free speech to say you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, but to actually do so based on race or sex was illegal.
After this was ruled on, the signs slowly vanished. I haven;t seen one since around 1976, in Lumberton, North Carolina.
-
I still see them.....the point being that any private business has the right not to have their religious freedom stomped on, in the name of political correctness, regardless of if they "cater to the public". You just go to a different business
-
How is baking a cake "stomping on religious freedom"?
Are we to assume that they actually believe that God will get angry if they bake a cake that is eaten by buggerers?
What if they were not told that the couple was gay, and the gay couple just exchanges the plastic Bride & Groom dollies on the top for Lesbian dollies or Gay Male dollies after they had baked it? God would know and should inform them of such trickery, right?
-
How is baking a cake "stomping on religious freedom"?
When its forcing it to be made in support of a position completely contrary to the teachings of that religion. That's how. They can't be the ONLY baker in the area. This is purely being done to force this particular business to act in direct opposition to their religious beliefs. Otherwise, the couple would have simply gone elsewhere
This whole chirade of how the Government shouldn't butt into the business of people's personal lives is apparently only so long as it's not butting into liberal or politically correct causes. Anything Christian, conservative, or religious, is completely fine for the government to butt in....and supported even
What a bunch of hypocrites
-
The government is NOT butting into this.
There are two irrational sides here, one a gay couple that wants to force a public business to serve ALL the public, and a sanctimonious baker who thinks that baking a cake for a customer he disapproves of somehow violates his rights.
There are two bunches of people here that want to make a silly thing like a wedding cake into a serious affair. But neither will succeed in looking anything but silly.
The government, in the form of the court is only mediating between them.
-
The government is NOT butting into this.
Of course it is.....The Court system is a part of Government. Political Correctnes is pushed by those, by way of lobbying Government to do its will, via legislation, executive action, or judicial fiat
-
The government is only adjudicating this issue: they did not initiate it.
It is the duty of the government to adjudicate disputes like this. One side is suing the other. Only the government has the courts to decide this.
The government is not to blame for this.
The issue may be political correctness, but there is no political correctness law. And if there were, it would be challenged.
But nothing involving a wedding cake and a bigoted baker is a big deal.
-
They are mandating it....that's the bloody point
-
They simply agreed to hear the case.
Why shouldn't they?
-
With the power to then mandate the required behavior....that again being the bloody point
-
Ask me again if I give a shit about some goddamned homophobic dentist.
-
Considering I never asked you in the 1st place, pretty much makes that last comment of yours moot
-
Then you got a free opinion. Most of your are defective, and mine are not, so that is a plus.
-
LOL....so opines Professor 99% Wrong. So, yea, that 1% would be a plus
-
I don't think that a cake is what most people call "art". Perhaps making a cake is an art, but there are no cake museums. Cakes are too ephemeral to be serious art.
Besides, a wedding cake is a commissioned edible product in which the people ordering it decide what it is to look like. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned, but it was durable, not edible.
So singing cannot be serious art?
I am not convinced that we should have a branch of government functioning to define what is and is not art, and what is and is not serious art.
-
Singing is of course an art. It is even collectible. I have about 2000 CD's. About half of them have the voices and instrumentals of the now deceased.
Cake decorating could be an art, I suppose, but wedding cakes for specific weddings are no more artsy than advertising jingles.
The Japanese have a tradition of putting sculptures of their best dished in restaurant windows, so diners can see whet the food looks like before they eat it. This form of food sculpture is called Sampuru.
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/10/japanese-artisan-uses-wax-to-make-incredibly-realistic-food-samples/ (http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/10/japanese-artisan-uses-wax-to-make-incredibly-realistic-food-samples/)
Still, as art goes, this is more like Madame Tussaud's Wax museum sculptures: artistic, but not quite art. Wedding cakes are far less artistic, I would say.
There is a rumor that Madame Tussaud's melted down a rock singer named Gary Barlow to make a Brittany Spears. That does not sound like classical art to me.
The purpose of a wedding cake is primarily to be eaten, not looked at, as is the case with Sampuru and Madame Tussaud's Wax Jesus.
-
I differ.
I consider cooking to be an art form that includes pedestrian and high art in a very wide spectrum.
Cake decorating is no more temporary than Navaho or Tibetan sand painting.
So I am unhappy with giving to the government the right to determine what is worthy art, and what of that art is worthy of free speech.
I do not expect the government to be good at this.
-
So, let's say I'm gay, and I want to marry my boyfriend Gary. We walk into a cake shop hand in hand, and order a wedding cake. The owner is some homophobic religious zealot who tells us he doesn't like gays and we are going to hell. Who cares, we don't believe in hell anyway, but, he better bake the damn cake.
Why? Because as a commercial business, he relies on a business license in order to stay open and charge for his services. And to keep that license, he is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference. He actually does have a choice, he can choose not to bake the cake, in which case I would file a complant with the local licensing board, the BBB, and every local blog or rating service I could find, as well as a lawsuit to shut him down and sue for damages [emotional distress, etc, whatever my attorney can come up with]. He would still be able to bake cakes, just not to legally sell them as a licensed business. Still free to pursue his artistic muse, so to speak, but unable to profit from it.
-
Let's address the 2 issues, that H has brought up.....
1) Just because they have a business license, and "cater to the public" doesn't then abolish their right to religious freedom. The only reason a gay couple would go to such great lengths to force said business to act contrary to their faith, when they could just go across the street to another bakery, who doesn't care, is simply trying to impose their set of morality onto someone else. If words gets out that said bakery is supposedly run by some homophobic zealot, they're not going to do good business now, are they. Instead, the bakery is likely to be given massive amounts of publicity, and they'll undergo a Chick-Filet phenomenon of overwhelming support and cash flow. Not the smartest way of trying to punish the zealot now is it
I'll address the other issue, in the the thread
-
There may not be another bakery across the street. I may not feel like finding another one. They might not have the resources Chick-Fil-A does.
And I would not go after them, as you say, just to impose my morality on someone else. I would do so because I had been discriminated against. I could care less about their faith, or lack of it. Seems it's all well and good if it's making a point against racial discrimination, but when it's against gays, well, it's okay to get all puffed up and say your religion prevents you doing your job? Really? Well hell, there are pro-slavery Biblical passages, and passages that place cwomen as inferior to men - lets abolish all laws against discrimination.
-
Why? Because as a commercial business, he relies on a business license in order to stay open and charge for his services.
And to keep that license, he is prohibited from discriminating against someone based on race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.
Should a "gay bakery" be forced by law to make a pro-traditional marriage cake if a religious customer requests it?
-
I feel sorry for bakeries now.
Apparently there is no right to refusal at all.
Someone might have to work very hard to offend H in his bakery , but sooner or later someone might , and H would have to bake a cake to celebrate Custer's birthday .
-
(http://www.picturesanimations.com/l/laughing/lolsmiley.gif)
-
Well, first C4's question was ridiculous on soooo many levels...
Second, I don't bake. Not commercially, not for sale, and very little at home.
Third, if I did open a business, of any kind, I would make it a point to be familiar with local laws and ordinances that might affect my license and the keeping thereof, and follow them, um, religiously [pun intended].
And fourth, I got nothing against Custer. He was stupid enough to get himself killed, no skin off my nose.
-
So offending H in his bakery would be real work, do we live in times that have plenty of people willing to make that effort?
-
Oh, I'm sure I could be offended. Have been, many times. The question before us is, would I let such offense become a threat to my livelihood? It would take quite a bit of offending to do that. Still, I have the choice between letting it pass or finding a new job. As did the owner of the bakery.
-
There may not be another bakery across the street. I may not feel like finding another one. They might not have the resources Chick-Fil-A does.
You couldn't google a nearby bakery?? What you "feel" doesn't trump the 1st amendment, I'm afraid to say. You have, however, no right, not to be offended
-
You couldn't google a nearby bakery?? What you "feel" doesn't trump the 1st amendment, I'm afraid to say. You have, however, no right, not to be offended
I didn't have my cell phone, no way to Google anything. I was too broken up over some religious zealot using his prejudice to refuse to bake a simple wedding cake, and that and the stress of dealing with my disability just to make my way out to this shop that had such a nice full page ad in the phone book wore me out, I was unable to continue looking for another bakery.
And I have a right NOT to be discriminated against. What about that is so hard for you to understand?
-
sirs enjoys offending people, it appears. He delights in being outrage by the many people who disagree with him.
Wedding cakes are pretty trivial things to classify as speech, free or otherwise.
-
You couldn't google a nearby bakery?? What you "feel" doesn't trump the 1st amendment, I'm afraid to say. You have, however, no right, not to be offended
I didn't have my cell phone, no way to Google anything. I was too broken up over some religious zealot using his prejudice to refuse to bake a simple wedding cake, and that and the stress of dealing with my disability just to make my way out to this shop that had such a nice full page ad in the phone book wore me out, I was unable to continue looking for another bakery.
So sorry that your feelings were hurt, and you were so physically & emotionally taxed from the whole ordeal, that you didn't have the energy to go thru the yellow pages to find any one of a bazillion other bakeries. It still doesn't trump another person's 1st amendment rights however. Why you would even want such a baker after all that stress is beyond me, but that's just me
-
What I would want would be to not feel discriminated against because the baker disapproves of my lifestyle.
-
Well, first C4's question was ridiculous on soooo many levels...
looks like more evidence of a "one way street"
http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied-service-by-thirteen-gay-bakeries-after-requesting-pro-traditional-marriage-cake/
-
LOL, 'pro-traditional marriage cake' my ass...
From the article:
However, when Shoebat.com decided to call thirteen pro-gay bakeries and ask for the words “Gay Marriage Is Wrong”, they were met with insults and hatred. In short, they were met with the same intolerance that the people wanting “Support Gay Marriage” cakes were met with at Christian bakeries… yet these pro-gay bakeries had no backlash against them.
They were gay bashing, pure and simple.
-
I really doubt that most bakeries would refuse to bake cakes with any slogan on them, pro-gay or anti-gay. Bakeries are a business. The purpose of businesses is to make money, not to promote or disparage people who order their cakes.
Custom wedding cakes are not a serious issue for anyone, when you look at it. Anyone can order a no-name cake and decorate it any way they wish.
-
What I would want would be to not feel discriminated against because the baker disapproves of my lifestyle.
And what I would want is for the Baker not to be forced to service those of a lifestyle that their religion disapproves of, because someone's feelings get hurt. Just go to a fricken gazillion other bakeries, who could care less
-
I do not actually care that some bigoted baker was sued over this.
Wedding cakes and unnecessary and trivial. Making them the focus of bigotry is even more trivial and unnecessary.
To say that this somehow abolishes free speech in this country is inaccurate and foolish.
-
What I would want would be to not feel discriminated against because the baker disapproves of my lifestyle.
And what I would want is for the Baker not to be forced to service those of a lifestyle that their religion disapproves of, because someone's feelings get hurt. Just go to a fricken gazillion other bakeries, who could care less
Awwww, gee, did I forget to mention I live in Moosebutt, Maine, and there's only one custom bakery within a hundred miles?
Your rationalizations are bullshit. It is illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference. It is illegal to try to force your religion on someone else by discriminating against them. Quit whining about someone trying to force you to become a Baal worshipping, butt-fucking idolater just by asking you to bake a simple wedding cake, which is what you are in business for, licensed for, and solicit customers for. Either that or change livelihoods, because, yes, someone is liable to work within the legal system to put you out of business and sue your jock strap off for discrimination.
Capisce?
-
It is a trivial issue, but hnumpah is right and sirs is wrong.
-
What I would want would be to not feel discriminated against because the baker disapproves of my lifestyle.
And what I would want is for the Baker not to be forced to service those of a lifestyle that their religion disapproves of, because someone's feelings get hurt. Just go to a fricken gazillion other bakeries, who could care less
Awwww, gee, did I forget to mention I live in Moosebutt, Maine, and there's only one custom bakery within a hundred miles?
LOL....riiiiiiight. And lemme guess....no phone, no computer, horse covered wagon, with one of your horses having a bum hoof, your short on hay, and the phone book you used to find this one and only bakery, had of course, no other bakeries listed, that could accomodate all your needs without any feelings getting hurt. ::)
Sorry, Constitution still trumps feelings, and no one is forcing anyone to accept God. Capisce?
-
Perhaps not, but they are still discriminating, which is still illegal. And see my earlier comment about the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws.
-
No, they're not.......if they're functioning within their religious beliefs. I appreciate your comments, about anti-discrimination laws. I would hope you'd appreciate my comments regarding the sanctity of religious freedom, as embraced by our founding documents, and dedicated in the very 1st amendment to the Constitution
-
The freedom to be a bigot is not covered by any part of the Constitution.
-
Read this very carefully. Get an eighth grader to explain it to you if you have to.
Unless and until the existing laws on discrimination can be overturned on constitutional grounds, those laws are considered constitutional and valid. Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph.
If you want to continue to whine and portray yourself as some sort of persecuted religious sect, do it with someone else.
-
The freedom to be a bigot is not covered by any part of the Constitution.
Exactly....so quit being a bigot and trying to make the homo agenda superior to my religious freedom.
Go get your cake someplace else!
It will be entertaining to watch the homo-agenda try this with Muslims.
Of course the homo-agenda probably doesn't have the balls to force their perversion beliefs
on people that will blow their ass up!.....no pun intended!
-
they were gay bashing, pure and simple.
"Gay marriage is wrong" is not gay bashing any more than stating it is wrong to suddenly rename dogs cats.
A dog is not a cat.....and stating a "dog is not a cat" is not hate speech or dog bashing...it is fact.
-
Read this very carefully. Get an eighth grader to explain it to you if you have to.
*sigh*.....I think we can stop there
-
Gay marriage is wrong, like any statement of the type "X is wrong" is an opinion and a value judgement. It is not a fact.
You think it is wrong.
-
Gay marriage is wrong, like any statement of the type "X is wrong" is an opinion and a value judgement. It is not a fact.
"Swindling a helpless elderly person is wrong".....yep just an opinion, not a fact! ::)
"Driving drunk is wrong".....yep just a value judgement, not a fact. ::)
"Pedophilia is wrong"....yep just an opinion. ::)
-
What is wrong about it?
Is it because of something you heard in Church?
-
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on August 14, 2015, 09:31:06 AM
......................................................
This is obviously some sort of test case, otherwise the couple would have just told the bigoted baker to kiss off and found a different bakery. So it is not really about free speech at all, it is about symbolically using the government to punish either gays for wanting to get married or bakers for refusing to bake a cake to show they disapprove.
.....................
LOL, 'pro-traditional marriage cake' my ass...
From the article:
However, when Shoebat.com decided to call thirteen pro-gay bakeries and ask for the words “Gay Marriage Is Wrong”, they were met with insults and hatred. In short, they were met with the same intolerance that the people wanting “Support Gay Marriage” cakes were met with at Christian bakeries… yet these pro-gay bakeries had no backlash against them.
They were gay bashing, pure and simple.
Bingo again!
Trolling for unco-operative bakeries is just bashing or suit seeking.
Should this not be fair in both directions?
-
The fact that there are ignorant fools on one side of an argument does not in any way indicate that the fools on the other side are less ignorant.
Refusal to bake a cake is not really free speech, and is a trivial matter.
-
The fact that there are ignorant fools on one side of an argument does not in any way indicate that the fools on the other side are less ignorant.
A frank admission?
-
Anyone who makes a big whoop de doo about refusing to bake a cake as freedom of speech, whether the cake is pro- or anti-gay, is a dolt.
The fact that some anti-gay types want to force a gay baker to bake a cake with an anti-gay message is just as dumb as the reverse situation.
No one changes anything by writing slogans on cake with icing.
This is as almost as trivial as writing "WASH ME" in the dust on a dirty car. I imagine someone would like to sue over that as well.
The car should be washed, and writing this is free speech.
But the car is private property, and no on has the right to write anything in MY dust on MY car.