BUCK writes:

In the context of the intense and very informative recent entries here deconstructing and reconstructing the hierarchy of Church and State; here is another homosexual “rights” case that when and if it is appealed in our courts will be decided, for the reasons that I cited briefly here, in favor of the furthering of unnatural rights. In this case, a baker refused to accommodate two homosexual males requesting a cake for “our wedding.” Upon hearing “our wedding,” the baker said no, citing religious reasons. He refused to sell them a “wedding” cake, but offered to sell them any and all of the many other baked goods that he offers for sale to everyone. The two homosexuals immediately got up and left the store.

Every single aspect of gaydom will forcibly be accommodated. “No, no. I don’t want your coffee and donuts, I want your soul.”

The same-sex pair never got around to the specifics of their same-sex wedding cake. I reiterate; no same-sex-specific details were discussed. I suspect that it will be argued that had anyone announcing themselves as a homosexual or not, or as a homosexual couple or not, who asked for “a” wedding cake would have been accommodated. But, as in other known cases, the homosexuals imposed their homosexuality on the unsuspecting baker. They chose to do so. They didn’t first ask the baker if he was a Christian who believes devoutly that sodomy is sinful, for fear that they might be imposing on him or his rights. They enjoy the superior status. The baker didn’t have to know for whom the cake was. Now, the full weight of the matter, something he never asked for, is on the baker. Now the baker has the unwanted, unnatural burdon of same-sex marriage placed squarely on him; his wellbeing and livelihood. He is forced to participate against his will, no matter what he now decides to do. He has to task himself in the creation of a cake that’s only purpose is as a symbol of approval and celebration of what should (at least) have been and could easily have been, a private celebration of sodomy, outside of his knowledge. The baker now has to chose whether to submit to a civil authority and an activity imposed on him against his will, against his heart and his soul or to obey his Supreme Authority to then suffer the consequences imposed on him by man’s law.

Buck adds:

This morning I read that the baker has capitulated. Jack Phillips has decided to stop baking wedding cakes. He had no real choice. It would likely have cost him his business and livelihood, and ended in financial ruin along with all of the associated personal trauma, if he had resisted.

It’s futile for an individual to fight back under the new rules. I read that there was a brief increase in the sales of his other goods. How gratifying. 

 — Comments —

Jill Farris writes:

Bruce Lewis writes:

Buck writes: “He had no real choice.”

Of course he had a choice. His choice was between obeying the law of God and the law of man. A Christian is obligated to refuse to obey Caesar when Caesar’s command goes against the law of God.

“It would likely have cost him his business and livelihood, and ended in financial ruin along with all of the associated personal trauma, if he had resisted.”

So what? I’d burn my business down before I’d let some court force me to do something immoral. He should defy the court order, refuse to bake the cake, and take the consequences without regret, in the spirit of the martyrs.

Christians all over the world are giving up their livelihoods — and in many cases their lives — rather than deny their faith. In America, we Christians can’t be bothered to give up our incomes for the sake of Jesus. Anyhow, losing one’s business and livelihood isn’t that bad. I took a stand against the filthy falsehood of homosexual “marriage” several years ago, and was subjected to a vicious campaign of personal and financial attacks as a result, attacks that resulted in the loss of many of my friends and the vast majority of the income I was earning in that field at the time.

And yet here I am today, better off both financially and in terms of happiness than ever before. I took everything the Gay Mafia could throw at me — and what did they accomplish? Nothing.I was against homosexual “marriage” before; I’m twice as much against it now.

Never give in. Never retreat. Attack and attack some more. Spite them. Defy them. Dare them to dish out their worst. And then accept the consequences with a smile. The lesson of Saint Lawrence is instructive: as he was being roasted on a giant grill, our saint turned to his tormentors and said — no doubt with a chuckle — “Turn me over, brothers! I’m done on that side!”

That is how you battle evil.

Buck writes:

Bruce Lewis sounds like the real deal. That’s exactly what is needed. I applaud him. I assume that Mr. Lewis knows that when I wrote “He had no real choice,” that I did not mean that literally. Obviously he had choices. I wrote that he could “chose whether to submit to a civil authority activity imposed on him against his will, against his heart and his soul or [chose] to obey his Supreme Authority to then suffer the consequences imposed on him by man’s law.”

I don’t know the man. So, my saying that he had no real choice was also part speculation, in the sense that most people are unlike Mr. Lewis; they aren’t willing to risk their livelihood or well-being. I have no way on knowing what else Jack Phillips was up against. Mr. Lewis should contact Jack Phillips and buck him up with his story. Find out what’s holding him back. Maybe that’s all he needs.

Mr. Lewis writes:

I realize now that my reply to Buck came off as supercilious and self-congratulatory. I apologize to him and to our hostess for the tone of my letter. I am not “the real deal” in any sense, nor am I any kind of example of Christian fidelity. In fact, I am a poor Christian. I meant only to express my conviction that it is possible to fight the Forces of Evil, if one is willing to suffer the consequences with a smile. This, after all, is how the Faith conquered the Roman Empire: one martyr at a time. When they realize that they can’t beat you, they join you.

Again: my apologies for the haughty tone of my response.

M. Jose writes:

It ought to be pointed out that, contra Buck, Jack Phillips did not really capitulate (i.e. agree to bake gay wedding cakes).  He sidestepped the issue by not baking wedding cakes at all.  Whether outright defiance would have been better is up for debate, but he did not capitulate in the sense of giving in and doing something against his moral beliefs.

Terry Morris writes:

As the sole provider in a family of eight children (ten mouths to feed), I’m sympathetic to Buck’s concern for the family in question. My business doesn’t provide a “public service” in the original (or classical) sense of the term, but I would have to say it does given the New Mexican court’s definition of the term quoted in the linked entry.

Nevertheless, I would never, say, remodel a “starter home” for a “newlywed” gay or lesbian couple for instance, even though this is part and parcel of what my business is. And damn the consequences. Let one of them approach me to provide such a “public” service and you’ll be reading about me next, but it won’t involve any capitulation to the new norm on my part. Enough is enough, and I’ve personally had my fill of it.

On the other hand I have, on more than a couple of occasions, criticized the likes of Ann Barnhardt for insisting that those who ultimately fold under the state’s relentless pressure, compromising their core principles for the sake of maintaining a livelihood, are necessarily godless, soulless heathens working under the guise of dedicated Christians. As I have written to her before, when you’ve got a family of ten people to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, provide medical care for and so on, get back to me about how “easy” a decision it really is to make to simply walk away from your livelihood. Well, as has been said before, this isn’t going to end well.

Buck writes:

We can’t see into the heart or mind of Jack Phillips. Many of us will flinch and sidestep when our personal bell gets rung. That Jack Phillips shrugged, and most of us have not been so challenged, is much of what is discussed on this site; what we all should be doing, but may or may not have the necessary strength to, when the time comes. We’re all challenged daily in many smaller ways. Protecting our own and our family’s well-being causes us to sidestep and in some cases to capitulate on a host of issues almost every day.

Please follow and like us: