There have been a number of stories regarding bakers and others refusing to materially cooperate with same-sex marriage and the resulting prosecution. When such stories appear we run the mental simulation of reversing the story and wondering what would happen. In this case such as requesting a baker to do some activity contrary to their possible support of same-sex marriage.
DENVER – Azucar Bakery on South Broadway is under investigation for religious discrimination by the Civil Rights division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies stemming from a March 2014 incident.
A customer came into the store and requested a couple of cakes in the shape of Bibles, according to the owner Marjorie Silva.
Silva says the man pulled out a piece of paper with hateful phrases like “God hates gays” and requested her to write them on his cakes. He wouldn’t let employees make a copy of the paper and would not read the words out loud, Silva claims. The bakery owner also says the customer wanted an image of two men holding hands with an “X” on top.
“After I read it, I was like ‘No way,’” Silva said. “‘We’re not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’”
Silva then received a complaint from DORA for religious discrimination.
“It’s unfair that he’s accusing me of discriminating when I think he was the one that is discriminating,” Silva said.
My first reaction when I saw this story was “Ha! About time somebody performed this reverse action.”
My second reaction was to repent of my first reaction. This really is evil. This is treating a person as a means to an end.
With all the other cases often it was remarked that the businesses were singled out by same-sex activists and this was certainly a possibility. People rightly decried this aspect. That the women was specifically targeted is quite evident in this case. That is is okay to sick the state on somebody to make an ironic point is totally missing the point of conscience rights and religious freedom. We want others to respect conscience rights while cheering trampling somebody else’s. That because somebody is wrong about their support of something means that you can treat them as somebody with no rights.
This is simply inexcusable, just as the other cases by same-sex activists were.