White Supremacists Like The Gay Cake Case

The law firm who represents the cake baker against the gay couple who were refused a wedding cake has also been involved with white supremacists. That makes sense.

White supremacists hate interracial marriage. They hate children of mixed racial heritage. Gay marriage does not result in mixed race children. But the power to insert religious beliefs into marriage plays directly into their long term strategy of stopping interracial marriage. They are happy to catch a ride on the anti gay-marriage bus.

The on-going problem of inserting religious rules into the operation of government is that the brake pedal is missing. Within the religious community are factions including ones who want complete control over people’s lives and their thoughts. Compromise is defeat to them.

If bakers, florists, hair dressers, flower arrangers, caterers and limo drivers can all refuse to serve gay couples, the logical extension is to not serve weddings between mixed race couples. Maybe that can be extended to couples of mixed religious traditions and those who are handicapped.

In the commentary today about the Supreme Court hearing on the cake for gay wedding, the weakest moment for the attorney representing the anti gay baker came when Justices asked how the line could be drawn as to which vendor is an “artist” and which is not. When the attorney said those whose job is called “makeup artist” is not an artist it brought laughter across the room.

There is only one way to stop racial discrimination. That is to halt discrimination against gays.

31 Responses

  1. White supremacists number in the hundreds out of 300,000,000 in the US.

    Homosexual unions could result in the adoption of mixed race kids.

    There is no problem of religious, atheist or undecided running for office and making laws. That’s America.

    The SCOTUS has ruled that speech cannot be compelled and that people have religious rights in the US.

    Case closed. Next.

    1. Dennis

      Now matter how you wrap this package, it is not a religious freedom issue but an issue of discrimination. Period. Case Closed. Next!

      1. It is a First Amendment case based on both free speech and freedom of religious expression. Combined with SCOTUS precedent and case law, I expect this case to be closed by the current SCOTUS, next case up.

        Not everyone who walks in to a Catholic Church and demands that the priest marry them is entitled to marriage. We Catholics have standards and are very discriminating.

      1. There are kooks who vote Republican and there are kooks who vote Democrat. You probably vote Democrat with the occasional cross-over or third-party vote. I vote Republican with the occasional cross-over or third-party vote.

        There has been at least a couple stores lately about the Democrat party making sure their base – felons and prisoners – get to vote. Nice company to keep – https://www.snopes.com/jerry-brown-felons/ and https://www.npr.org/2016/04/22/475297932/virginias-governor-just-gave-206-000-ex-felons-the-right-to-vote

        Since you are off-topic, your man Al Franken seems to have hands with their own minds. As of 10:32 am, he is still a Senator. Comment?

  2. Grant Bucson

    Good. First mixed race kids are gross and a disgusting throwing away of the parent’s genetic heritage. Second, let the free market figure this out. If they don’t want to do business with them, fine. They are hurting themselves.

      1. Matt 8:43 Mixed race kids are not gross, disgusting or anything but a gift from God.

        I don’t think you have a clue about what is going on. White supremacists want all religious beliefs, no matter what the consequences, to prevail over all civil rights. A sincerely held religious belief that God finds interracial sex a sin leads to no rooms at the inn for interracial couples or their children, youngsters or adults. I don’t see why that would not apply to religions themselves. A hotel/retaurant run by a Catholic would refuse service to noncatholics. Protestants would refuse you service. The Supreme Court is now flirting with prohibition of all civil rights instruction given to employees. Even the lawyer representing the cake baker was stunned by the question from one conservative Justice:


        1. I don’t congregate with any white supremacists but from your experience from hanging out with them I will have to take your word.

          You probably don’t know how many businesses you’ve patronized that were owned by Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other haters that are dying to deny you service because of your atheism, anti-theism, etc. Except that is a world of your imagination that has nothing to do with reality. [Pssst, Jon, Chick-Fil-A has a poison chicken sandwich at every location waiting for you to order.]

          And here I thought you were chiefly concerned about pregnant women being monitored and harassed by the local police. Just how do you spend your free time?

  3. Jinx II

    Apparently, Catholic “standards” support the heinous crime of molesting children, and have for decades and even centuries.

      1. Matt 10:22 When you take pictures of young women and harass them verbally when they are entering a clinic that, among other things provides abortion services, do you feel “joyful”? Maybe you do. Maybe you hate those women so much it makes you happy when you harass them.

        1. Are you defaming me for acts I have never done? Are you trying to convince people I’ve done something I have not done? Do you have an attorney?

          Thankfully, we have never met. You, too, seem like a soul with no joy. Merry Christmas!

          1. Matt 10:50 Are you defaming me for acts I have never done? Are you trying to convince people I’ve done something I have not done?

            I took down the post you are referring to. I apologize for that.

            What I am saying about you is you remain out of touch with the real world. The real world includes white supremacists who are hoping the supreme ct. introduces religion as reason to deny service to gays so people can deny service to interracial couples or people of non white races. I cannot explain it any more simply than that. Such craziness opens to door for crazy Protestants to refuse service to Catholics and visa versa. It is so obvious — well, I give up trying to explain the obvious.

          2. To associate that repugnant “white supremacist” movement with either political party, conservatives, Catholics, etc. is wrong. I denounce that small minority of people. What appears to be true is that BLM, antifa and some other movements are much more intimately tied to the Democrat party. They commit acts of violence, hide their identities and are rightly designated as terror organizations.

          3. Matt 1:01 To associate that repugnant “white supremacist” movement with either political party, Catholics, etc. is wrong. I denounce that small minority of poeple.

            In today’s news Iowa’s U.S. House Representative, Steve King, is quoted from his tweets. He says diversity is not a strength but is a weakness. Right beneath the surface of such a comment is white supremacy. King has been reelected several times. What I take from that is there is a considerable group of voters who will support segregation based on religion when the opportunity is there. And, it seems to me to be coming.

    1. Catcher 11:36 Anyone have to wait for a call for a supervisor to check out bacon when a Muslim refuses to so so?

      Yeah, that too. Somehow, it is hard for some people to see where a road leads, even when it is right there on the map.

      1. mark anthony

        Jon, that’s the slippery slope argument in spades. I assume that you would get all hissy when pro-life people use the same line of argument in the context of today’s bioethical brouhahas. And while I’m at it, I think that the slippery slope argument in the latter context makes more sense that the Muslim at the bacon counter example.

        1. mark 5:55 Why is my argument not a sound one? Are there never ever any slippery slopes? Please elaborate.
          …you would get all in a hissy if pro life people use the same line of argument in the context of today’s bioethical brouhahas.

          What are you referring to there?

          1. mark anthony

            of course there are slippery slopes. what I am referring to, however, is the pro-life prediction that free wheeling abortion would lead to euthanasia and other repugnant medical and research practices. a prediction that most certainly was on the mark. and which was widely ridiculed by pro-abortion people. actually, however, I don’t much like linear slippery slope arguments (a causes b which causes c, etc.). it’s more complicated than that, as in x causes a, b,c, etc. in other words there is a philosophical, ideological mind-set which underlies and bubbles up, so to speak, reifying a, b, c, etc.

          2. mark 9:45 ..the pro-life prediction that free wheeling abortion would lead to euthanasia and other repugnant medical and research practices…

            You seem to be saying this has happened. Evidence please.

            And, yes, the view that abortion will lead to euthanasia has been widely ridiculed by those of us who favor abortion rights. That is because one fertilized egg is not a human being as anti abortionists claim. Thus, abortion is not related to murder or loss of human life in any context.

            I might mention to long time readers “mark” is the poster formerly known as “nemo82”, a devout prolife Catholic who refuses to admit that is what he is. He always said he has trouble stopping himself from posting here and we see he comes back time after time.

    1. mark/nemo 10:11 Thank you. My speculation comes from your style of writing, no caps, your convoluted arguments and that you have the same email address and use the same computer. Probably lying is not the best way to be accepted here.

      1. mark anthony

        I thought that folks who post on this site could identify themselves in anyway they choose (as some obviously do), Guess you have some sort of hang up with Nemo. Maybe you could explain. However, if you choose not to do so, that’s your problem. Looks as if you and Noah want to go on hammering each other (for no particular reason). Interlopers not welcome?

        1. mark/nemo 8:17 Maybe you could explain

          I’ll try. Probably it will make no sense to you or some others. I get no pleasure from dumping most of your posts or those of others. In fact, the larger the volume of good posts here on the discussion page the better.

          My main interest is in keeping the readership as large as possible. It is not easy to attract and keep readership because only a small slice of the public knows this blog is here and among those only a few find it interesting. The number of visits past 1.1 million a while back so it is doing OK but keeping the traffic is always on my mind.

          For this reason I dump most one line insult posts. It’s not because I mind being insulted, it is because I don’t think readers will scroll down these posts to look for something interesting. Then, I dump a few posts like yours because they are very unfounded and require me to make long responses. I don’t want ridiculous claims to go unanswered but dealing with them will take more time than I want to give. Most exchanges here need to be simply assertions followed by simple replies so readers can speed read them and move on. Your post which said (paraphrasing) “Why don’t gay couples just go to another cake baker?” reflects a person far removed from the complexity of the entire 100 year history of the civil rights movement. Where does one start with such a question?

          You mentioned Matt. Matt works well here because he admits his views come from his religion. I think our exchanges represent those which take place everyday in real life. In your case, I feel I have to dump many of your posts because they do not fit what I need here. Thanks for you efforts, nevertheless.

  4. mark anthony

    OK, got it. your response tells me a lot about your attitude, none of it particularly edifying. and none of it very convincing.. what I was attempting to do was to bring a philosophical perspective into these discussions. and, as I said before, philosophy is not theology. as to the gay business, all I said is that some of the cake brouhaha might be the work of agents provocateurs. if that is the case, shame on your homosexual buddies.

Comments are closed.