Since Christian bakers are being forced by courts to bake cakes for gay weddings, wouldn’t it neat to see if gay bakeries will bake pro-marriage cakes for Christians?
Well, this blogger did just that:
Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued, they get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses.
So Shoebat.com called some 13 prominent bakers who are pro-gay and requested that they make a pro-traditional marriage cake with the words “Gay marriage is wrong” placed on the cake. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it. We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual agenda is.
If anyone who objects saying that our request for the cake was hateful, this is exactly the type of thing the homosexual activists do to Christian bakeries when they use the state to coerce them to make a cake with an explicitly anti traditional marriage slogans on it.
Here are the videos – WARNING: some have very vulgar language.
Video 1 of 2:
Video 2 of 2:
The videos contain very vulgar language, which is a stark contrast to the apologetic and humble language Christians employ when responding to the wedding-related requests gay activists. We don’t seek to offend, but they are totally OK with offending us.
I’ll just link to a few of previous stories on how gay activists forced Christian-owned businesses to service their gay marriages – through the courts.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
As someone in apologist circles, you may be familiar with the ministry of Bill Jacks. We dropped off a couple of my kids at his Worldview Academy summer camp this summer and I chatted with him for a bit.
We ended up discussing the gay marriage situation and he told me that he had gotten a copy of the local gay newspaper in Colorado where he lives and went to three bakeries that advertised there. If memory serves, he requested two cakes, one which had a pro-marriage message and another that had a Bible verse that condemned homosexuality.
All three bakeries turned him down and refused to make the cakes. One of the bakeries said that he had would normally be happy to make the cakes, but had to decline. Upon further discussion, he revealed he would not for fear of repercussions from the homosexual community.
Following this, Jacks filed a religious discrimination complaint against the bakeries with the state of Colorado.
I have been watching for the outcome of this, but have not seen anything. I hope I got all the details correct, but the broad strokes are there.
LikeLike
Funny how their tune changes when the shoe is on the other foot. When they are denied service at a Christian bakery, it’s discrimination, but when they deny service for the same sort of reason, it’s perfectly okay. So much for “tolerance.”
LikeLike
This is very smart activism. Well done.
Its a case of agree and escalate. I think all should be free to accept or reject whatever customer they please.
But is must apply to all. What;s good for the goose is good for the gander.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLike
This would be a great counter-example…if gay marriage cakes were anti-straight marriage. They aren’t. They’re just pro-the couple.
Find me an example of someone asking for a cake that says ‘straight marriage is wrong’, and I’ll give you a cookie.
LikeLike
Sorry, but you’re not getting away with that one. Every cake that is pro-homosexual is anti-traditional marriage. Because traditional marriage is straight only, proclaiming that homosexuality is OK in turn makes the truth claim that traditional marriage is wrong since both cannot exist. This is why us conservative Christians get so upset about this issue. It’s not that we hate homosexuals and are “out to get ’em”. Instead, it’s that same-sex marriage will fundamentally transform the institution of marriage. And that is something we cannot abide as that will only hurt people in the end.
LikeLike
“is pro-homosexual is anti-traditional marriage.”
No, it’s really not. Just because my good friends want to get married does not mean that they didn’t want my wife and I to get married, or that they did anything to prevent my wife and I from getting married.
The fact that you think they do certainly explains your position. But you’re fundamentally wrong.
LikeLike
I think that gay people should be able live how they want, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us, and they CERTAINLY don’t have a right to force people using the law to celebrate something that undermines marital norms, like permanence, exclusivity and procreation. That’s what redefining marriage to mean “any people who love each other” does. Not only that, but children deserve a mother and a father. Finally, people who disagree with same-sex marriage should not be fired from their jobs, fined, have their businesses and churches vandalized, have their offices shot up, etc. because they disagree.
LikeLike
“have the right to redefine marriage for all of us”
How is it redefined for you? What, in any real way, is different about your ability to get marriage, or about the marriage itself, if gay people can get married?
LikeLike
It’s redefined in the law. And that means that the definition of marriage has changed for everyone. I explained what the effect is – it undermines marital norms by making marriage based on feelings instead of on a lifelong, exclusive permanent committed centered around producing and raising children. That changes the whole society. It also undermines the presumption that children have a right to their biological mother and father, instead of courts assigning parents to children. It undermines liberties, including free speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. And finally, I don’t want my children being told by teachers in public schools that marriage has this new definition, and then being sanctioned as haters if they disagree with their teachers who are now operating with this new definition of marriage.
You should think of same-sex marriage as the second redefinition of marriage. The first was no-fault divorce. That redefined marriage for everyone. The proponents said “how will making it easier for people who are unhappy in their marriages to escape from them affect you and your marriage?” Well, a few decades later, we know. We know the social costs of broken homes, the crime, the mental health costs, the welfare spending, and frankly just the misery caused to children because adults needed their easy way out. When you redefine marriage for adults’ selfish happiness, it affects everyone. And same-sex marriage is just round two of that project.
LikeLike
” it undermines marital norms be making marriage based on feelings of love”
Newsflash- the marital norm IS that it is based on feelings of love. With or without gay marriage.
“I don’t want my children being told by teachers in public schools that marriage has this new definition,”
Sorry, but you don’t live in a bubble. And you’re more than welcome to tell your children anything you want in private.
LikeLike
I think that gay couples think that it is based on feelings, and that’s why their relationships are so short-lived on average:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/?page=all
The problem with redefining marriage so that the commitment is based on feelings instead of being about constraining sexuality is that it undermines the stability that children need. Children need the two adults who got together to create them to stick around long enough to raise them. When you redefine marriage to make it about feelings IN THE LAW, you have now enshrined a definition of marriage that undermines that stability. Marriage is not about feelings, marriage is about commitment and self-sacrificial love. Love as an action. It is alien to people to think of marriage this way, but it never used to be that way until people started to redefine marriage for the benefit of selfish adults.
No, you’re not welcome to tell your children whatever you want in private. Sometimes the government gets involved and takes the children away so that you can’t tell them whatever you want in private:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nh-court-upholds-order-to-send-homeschooled-girl-to-public-school-49468/
I’ll leave it to you to sift through the past actions of gay activists to see if they are OK with children being raised to believe the traditional child-centered, complementarian, exclusive, permanent version of marriage. Maybe you are unaware of how activists creep into the schools in order to plant their ideas in children’s minds against the wishes of the parents, but I am not.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/14/parents-angry-after-school-tells-13-year-olds-can-have-sex-choose-gender/
LikeLike
And you have explained your position, but you are fundamentally wrong about the point. Gay activists sought out businesses operated by professed Christians so they could ask those people to do something against their conscience and then, instead of seeking businesses that were happy to trade with them, sue the Christians to make them do what the gay activists want. So somebody put the tolerance of gays running business to a test and discovered they would not sell their service to someone who asked them to make something they didn’t like.
LikeLike
Yes, in the New York case the gay couple literally called around and recorded calls until they could find someone to sting. They wanted to punish people who disagreed with their redefinition of marriage using the law.
Look:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-couple-fined-13000-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-at-their
Quote:
“The entire interaction between the Complainants and the Giffords transpired during a two to three minute telephone conversation which, unknown to Mrs. Gifford, was being tape recorded,” Trainor said.
LikeLike
There’s a reason I used the term traditional. For the course of most of human history, marriage has been defined as a joining of the two sexes with the implicit expectation of children. It wasn’t until the sixties, really that things began to change. Sex was separated from marriage, so-called no-fault divorce was excepted, and feelings took the front row in our thinking. The whole idea of marrying for love is a modern luxury we enjoy, not the core meaning of what marriage is. Sure, the culture may treat marriage like it’s all about what you feel, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. While feelings are an important part of who we are, and thus our institutions, they make very poor masters. And the damage that has been done to the family due to treating marriage like as if its purpose is to make us happy is tremendous. I can’t emphasize this enough: marriage that is based solely on feelings of love…no, let me correct myself…this culture doesn’t know what love is…we think love is the same as sex. Marriage that is based on nothing more than romantic feelings will only cause more pain, particularly to children. It’s also clear from your other posts that you confuse ability with principle. Just because homosexuals claim to not oppose heterosexual marriages doesn’t mean that they aren’t proposing a fundamental change to the nature of marriage, which they are. Sure, if marriage is just about emotions, then ANYBODY can get married, all you have to have is romantic feelings. (This would, of course, have to include polygamous and inscetous relationships as well.) But this is exactly what we need to avoid, since it would only lead to an increase in human misery.
LikeLike
“since it would only lead to an increase in human misery.”
Really? Because the gay couples I know are the happiest people. The only people who aren’t happy are people that want to discriminate against them but find they legally can’t.
LikeLike
Here’s what the Center for Disease Control says:
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/mental-health.htm
Quote:
Although the current politically-correct narrative is to blame social disapproval for this, the data shows that in societies where homosexuality is MORE accepted, the mental health issues REMAIN.
LikeLike
This is nothing but a bit of cheap theatrics UNLESS he follows through and SUES them for discrimination.
I hope he DOES.
LikeLike
On how SSM legislation imposes a particular moral view onto everyone and massively increases state intrusion into private lives. The Real Problem With Gay Marriage…that almost everyone is ignoring.
LikeLike
Thanks for linking to this Terrell, and I hope our pro-SSM interlocutor reads that article and follows the link at the end to get the full story.
LikeLike
I have one for you: Homofacism.
LikeLike