Colorado Issues Ruling On Bakery That Refused To Put Anti-Gay Message On Cakes (VIDEO)

The Colorado bakery that refused to put hateful, anti-LGBT messages on two Bible-shaped cakes is not guilty of illegal discrimination. According to ABC 7 Denver, Colorado’s Civil Rights Division ruled against William Jack, the man who tried to entrap Marjorie Silva, the bakery’s owner, into discriminating so that he could prove that anti-discrimination laws aren’t applied fairly, and specifically target Christians.

The Civil Rights Division said, according to ABC 7:

[I]n the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays.

The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.

There’s the problem with Jack’s argument—and the argument of the entire religious right—is that when a business decides not to provide a service, they have to apply that to everyone that walks into their establishment. A bakery has the right to refuse to do weddings. However, they have to apply that to everyone, regardless of race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, and gender. Weddings are simply something that the bakery in question doesn’t do, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it except go to another bakery.

It’s when that bakery says, “Oh yes, we do weddings, but we’re not going to do a wedding for your kind,” that there’s a problem. This is the reason the Civil Rights Division found in favor of Marjorie Silva. ABC 7 reports that the division said the evidence shows that Silva would not have done those decorations for anybody, regardless of their creed, or anything else. Putting hateful messages on cakes is simply a service she does not provide.

ABC 7 says that the image that Jack wanted was of two groomsmen, with a cross behind them and a big red “X” across them. That, plus the phrase, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin,” went too far for Silva. She did offer Jack the materials he would need to put the messages on the cakes himself, and he refused.

For his part, Jack is angry. He told ABC 7 the following:

I find it offensive that the Colorado Civil Rights Division considers the baker’s claims that Bible verses were discriminatory as the reason for denying my claim. I find it offensive that the legal director of the Colorado division of the ACLU called the Bible verses on the cakes obscenities.  Especially at this time on the church calendar — Holy Week — I find it offensive that the Bible is censored from the public arena.

The Blaze says that Jack, the founder of a Christian organization called Worldview Academy, wanted two Bible-shaped cakes with specific verses on them, though he did admit that he also wanted the phrase, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin,” and an image representing his opposition to marriage equality, on the cakes.

Jack freely admits this was an attempt to show the inequality and hypocrisy behind anti-discrimination laws. He also believed that Silva had the right to deny him the cakes, but that Colorado law would prohibit her from doing so, according to The Blaze. Finally, he wouldn’t give her a copy of the messages he wanted on the cake, which says something.

What about discrimination is it that these people don’t understand? They seem to suffer from a persecution complex. An establishment that wouldn’t do something for you any more than they would do it for anybody else is not discriminating. An establishment that won’t do something for you based on a protected category, but will do for other people, is discriminating. It really is that simple.

Jack is filing an appeal of the Division’s ruling. ABC 7 says that other anti-LGBT activists are trying to order similar cakes from LGBT-friendly bakeries, trying to prove that anti-discrimination laws aren’t applied equally. Distress of the privileged is a terrible thing.

Watch ABC 7’s original report on the case below:



Featured image via screen capture

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply