In 2012, a gay Colorado couple wanted a gay wedding cake for their gay wedding. It was a dark age of ignorance and religious repression. Homosexual couples couldn’t use state power to force ministers to desecrate their faiths, at least in Colorado and other benighted states.
Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a dogged pair of poofs, couldn’t get married in Colorado, but Massachusetts, a state on the leaking dicktip of progress, was happy to wed them. So the duo planned to get married in Massachusetts and then return to Colorado to celebrate.
Gay marriage has since become legal everywhere in the US. A gay couple can now sashay into the bible beating heart of rural Alabama and get married with the full backing of the federal government. If a rebellious yokel in Arkansas refuses to officiate a gay wedding, then he’ll be greeted at his door by tanks and troops who have a few things to teach him about tolerance.
But going back to the medieval period of 2012, Craig and Mullins went to Masterpiece bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, owned by practicing Christian Jack Phillips. They asked for a wedding cake and Phillips turned them down. He cited his faith as the reason for why he couldn’t serve them.
The gay brave underdogs got married and bought a cake elsewhere, but they weren’t done with Phillips. Equality isn’t just the opportunity to do what everyone else does, it’s the power to punish and humiliate anyone who disagrees with you. Those who talk of level playing fields dream of burying the privileged.
The couple sued Phillips and brought the weight of the state down on the tiny private bakery, and the ensuing case was settled in favor of the gays. It was framed as a battle between anti -discrimination laws and religious freedom. In America, the freedom to practice your religion ends at the scowling face of a petty homosexual. You are free to believe whatever you want as long you don’t make minorities feel bad by living up to your faith.
You may worship your backwards, gay bashing god in private, in secret, under the cover of night. But your beliefs will not excuse your private business from bending over and serving everyone, regardless of lifestyle, race, nationality or communicable disease. If a semi sentient life form can hobble or crawl through the door of your establishment, then you must serve it.
When a monolithic corporation with a stranglehold on the market fired an employee for sincerely explaining why most women don’t want tech jobs, leftists cynically defended corporate power. After all, Google is a private company and they can do whatever they want, they can hire and fire at their discretion. But when a bakery in a city with countless other bakeries stands up for its principles against the grotesquery of gay marriage, then we need government regulation, the state must steamroll over private opponents of publicly recognized perversion.
Colorado commanded the Christian bakery to sell cakes for gay weddings. Not only did the state force Phillips to contradict his beliefs, it also ordered him to change his company policy and provide his employees with Huxlian style indoctrination into the proper methods of accommodating homosexual patrons.
Dim, shuffling bureaucrats handing out gay tolerance report cards is a second-rate version of the everyday menace Hannah Arendt called the banality of evil. Our current system gives unseen administrators the power to impose reeducation programs on dissident heterosexuals and penalize individuals who resist the demands of aggrandized minorities.
Philips had to file quarterly reports on how he was going about making himself, his employees and his cakes as gay friendly as possible. The state stopped just short of locking Phillips in stocks and sodomizing him on the town square.
It’s worth remembering that Philips didn’t outright deny the gay couple service. He didn’t watch them skip into his store and snarl at them to get out. He offered to sell them any other baked good but he couldn’t help them with their wedding cake. There’s no account of Philips belittling or threatening the couple. He politely and respectfully declined to perform a single service that would undermine a tenet of his religion.
Making a wedding cake is an expressive act, closer to the performance of an artist than the provisioning of a basic resource. A wedding cake is a symbolic object, it means more than a sugar bomb at the end of a buffet. Philips didn’t withhold scones or muffins from Craig and Mullins because he thought they deserved to go hungry.
There are plenty of inclusive bakeries in Lakewood, Colorado, and gay marriage is legal in all fifty states. Craig and Mullins say the case isn’t about a cake, and they’re right; it’s about the gay obsession with domination and submission, it’s an example of the gaydomasochistic desire to degrade, torment and mortify. Craig and Mullins want to have their cake and shame a Christian too, as well as suck up the attention of a sympathetic press and the support of corrupt civil rights groups.
(See Pleasureman’s lucid take on gay motives here https://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8489-conflict-aggression-and-humiliation-in-modern-politics/)
What is left for a gay couple to do after getting married? They can’t have children. Rather than spending the rest of their lives wistfully recalling their gloryhole days, they look forward to avenging trivial insults. They have no legacy beyond their legal assaults and no sense of proportion in their response to rejection. No offense is minor enough to forget.
Gays are inwardly broken; they’re products of abuse and neglect. They vent their self hatred on the healthy and stifle their own inner confusion and discontent with shallow enthusiasm, hedonism, disinhibition and pageantry. The slightest disagreement with how they live sends them down a dark path of suicidal loathing and hysterical accusations. People are compelled to exaggerate their approval of gay dysfunction and pretend they aren’t disgusted by homo sex habits.
Philips fought back against Colorado and now the Supreme court is reviewing the case. The struggle between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom has reached the highest court in the land and come to national attention. In defense of a theatrical, attention seeking victim class, leftists are once again warping the meaning of religion, attacking traditional attitudes and redefining words to suit their deranged agenda.
Religious freedom is just a flimsy cover for an endless index of horrific offenses and sins against the modern cult of progressive, overheated emotional reason: racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, hatred, bigotry, philiaphobia and phobophilia.
Gay rights activists and concerned members of the public are confronting the sordid possible consequences of a ruling in support of Philips. Will shops be able to hang up signs that say they won’t serve gays? What’s the next step for empowered hatred? Separate water fountains for blacks? Such fevered imaginings sound like classic slippery slope arguments.
Liberals are quick to mock conservatives for worrying about the next institutional degradation that will follow from gay marriage. No one will want to marry their dog, that’s just a slippery slope fallacy. But when a baker denies a gay couple their cake, our skeptical fallacy busters slip right into fearmongering, hand wringing rhetoric. Where will the discrimination end?
The possibility of a hateful sign doesn’t seem relevant to the case, but while we’re indulging in fantasies, I have a few interesting hypotheticals of my own. What if a muslim baker withholds his cakes from gays? Whose side do we take when the gays put pressure on the muslims? Which phobia is worse, islamophobia or homophobia?
Who is the bigger bigot, a gay hating muslim or a muslim hating gay? Can a gay baker refuse to sell a cake to a westboro baptist? What if a bright, blonde Nazi couple goose steps into a jewish bakery and asks for a 7 layer swastika cake? I suspect that in each of those scenarios, liberals and leftists would suddenly start loving freedom and tell the gays, baptists and Nazis to leave the poor bakers alone and find another place to get their pastries.
Expensive, grueling lawsuits will be necessary to sort through the confusion. Identity politics thrives on an expansive, cumbersome legal apparatus and reinforces the grudges of a fractured, litigious population. People without historical or cultural common ground will resort to hijacking impersonal mechanisms of power to control the behavior and beliefs of their neighbors.
Discrimination is another word like diversity, only instead of everyone mindlessly praising it, everyone robotically condemns it. Diversity is unnatural and destructive but we should want more of it; discrimination is natural and normal but we should eradicate it. Discrimination is a foundational mental process and we’re constantly doing it unconsciously, but it’s also terrible and wrong. We won’t have a just society until no one notices anything about anyone or has any preference for or against certain types of people.
Soon you will be allowed to distance yourself from someone only after you spend years peeling back the layers of skin color, religion, gender, nationality, economic class, political party, sexual orientation and group affiliation and plunge into the quivering innards of their real, individual identity.
We won’t be satisfied until every last organic attachment and evolved bias is torn up and replaced with a synthetic evaluation program that determines worth on the basis of merit. Don’t worry about what merit means either, that’s for our technocratic transumanists to define.
Narcissistic dullards turn local disagreements into national controversies. Private conflicts become public spectacles and legal quagmires. Everyone disparages power until they can use it to soothe their resentments. Our insistence on rights betrays our lack of reason.