1. BearlyBob says

    It would have been much better if she used two same sex dog names to see what he would do. My guess is that he serves only heterosexual dogs too.

  2. BearlyBob says

    FYI – Before some of you go off on a tangent, discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal per Colorado code:

    Google Colorado Code 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation.

  3. James in Toronto says

    He’s been backed into a corner now, and if he backs down, he’ll lose face.

    On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how much $$$ his bigotry is worth to him.

    (Question? As an opinion, if he did close his business, could he still be sued for previous discrimination?)

  4. Doug says

    Why not just go somewhere else? I wouldn’t even want someone making my cake who I didn’t think approved of my marriage. Who knows what they might do to it that I would never even know, like spit in the batter or something. I would rather know and move my business elsewhere than have someone forced to do it. We can’t force everyone in the world to like us. I am sure there are plenty of bakeries that would make the cake. Just give them your money and business instead of giving it to the haters. Think about it.

  5. northalabama says

    just like it’s been pointed out before, “christians” are very selective of which “sinners” they will do business with, and which ones not so much.

    divorce? sure! fraud? no problem! rapist? we won’t ask if you won’t tell!

  6. says

    Doug, if we let a bakery get away with discriminating against lesbian and gay folks, what is to stop a doctor’s office, a pharmacy, a supermarket, or any other business from doing so?

    For LGBT people who live in big cities, sure, it isn’t a problem, they can go elsewhere. But LGBT people who live in small towns with one store, one mechanic, one doctor’s office- that ends up being a huge problem.

    Does this answer your question? Or do you think that maybe you deserve being treated as a second class citizen by a business that operates using the roads and utilities you paid for with your tax dollars, flagrantly violating anti-discrimination laws?

  7. Zeta says

    NorthAlabama, if you’re really from the South, then you’ll know that what you stated isn’t really true. The type of Christians you speak of are driven by ‘what would people think': so if a divorced couple are shunned by the community, then the Christian will also shun the divorced couple. If the gay couple are regarded as ‘one of our own’, then the Christian will make an exception for them. It’s always less about the actual ‘sin’ than about ‘are you one of us?’

  8. e.c. says

    Doug, “just go somwhere else” isn’t always that easy or practical. And if every bakery decide to discriminate then that wouldn’t even be an option.

  9. Zeta says

    Doug, I don’t think they will go anywhere else for the same reason they chose the shop in the first place: to prove a point. Unlike Blacks in the pre-Civil Rights era, (white) gays and lesbians are not restricted to what type of eateries or bakeries they can go to. There are no laws which state ‘Straights Only’ and ‘Gays Only’ with placards on the door and you have to live with it.

    Whether white activists see the difference or not, the difference is there.

    So anyway, what happens after they win (and they will win)?

  10. Zeta says

    I agree with you, BearlyBob. I don’t know why they used a ‘straight’ animal couple instead of a gay/lesbian animal couple, either. It makes for some unfortunate implications about how the two lesbians view marriage, after all.

  11. BearlyBob says

    @ J I T

    In short, yes. If found guilty, an order will be issued instructing him to cease discriminatory practices. Obviously, if he closes the business, that will be moot.

    In addition, it’s also a misdemeanor with the following penalties:

    (1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

    (2) For each violation of section 24-34-601, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

    So in other words, he can be directed to pay $50 – $500 to the people he discriminated against and he can be punished by a fine of $10 – $300 and/or a jail sentence of up to one year.

    The way that I’m reading this is first the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has to determine if anything illegal happened. They issue the cease and desist order. Then, the aggrieved party has to file in civil court to cause the defendant to pay the civil relief.

  12. says

    The “Why not go somewhere else?” argument misses the point of public accommodations laws. (Why couldn’t black people drink from the separate water fountains? They had water, after all.)

    Public accommodations laws, like the one in CO, are in place so that anyone who enters a public business has the reasonable expectation that they will be treated with respect and not singled out for discrimination because they are gay/black/Christian/old etc. (It doesn’t mean you can’t go elsewhere if you sense the owners are a-holes.) This bakery is in clear violation of the law because they refused to sell a product to a customer because they don’t like the group that customer belongs to. It would be no different if a bakery owner refused to sell a product to a mixed-race couple or a evangelical couple when they would have no problem selling it to atheists or white couples.

    The only thing the dog cake points out is that the owner’s so-called deep religious beliefs are nothing more than–surprise!–common, irrational bigotry.

  13. Peter M. says

    So let me get this straight (…)
    Wedding cakes for dogs: yes, no problem.
    Wedding cakes for gay people: no way.

    Ergo, gay people < dogs
    And, gay people = pedophiles

    Can’t you feel his Christian love?

  14. Acronym Jim says

    Of course dog on dog marriage is O.K. Dog on cat marriage though, no way.

    And what would a cake for a pedophile look like? “Congratulations on the new job as playground monitor?”

  15. says

    @yuninv: The owners have the Freedom of Speech. They’re free to say they don’t like gay people; they’re not free to use their personal prejudices as an excuse to refuse service in violation of state law. For those who believe public accommodation laws shouldn’t exist and that any business should be able to hang out a NO … ALLOWED sign, you’ll have to fight the law. Meanwhile, why have non-discrimination laws if businesses are allowed to ignore them any time they want?

  16. northalabama says

    @zeta, my point is – if the “christians” don’t have a policy posted in the front of the stores of which “sinners” are desirable as customers, and then fail to perform background checks on every customer that places an order to see if they match the policy, they are involved in selective discrimination. and, if that’s the case, they should be shut down.

    for some reason, i keep having this vision of “straights only” signs posted in the fronts of businesses, in the name of religious freedom, of course.

  17. BearlyBob says

    @Bob R

    That would be great, wouldn’t it? CO law allows $50 – $500 per occurrence as civil relief to the customer. The fine is $10 – $300 and/or up to a year in jail. Cakeboy won’t be homeless, but at least it’s something.

  18. says

    @Doug, here is a less jackass response.

    You aren’t wrong, it is better to go to another bakery, but we need people making a stink so that you know not to go to that bakery. I used to like the gay yellow pages that came out in Seattle when I was in college, I would always try to go to a gay friendly business if I could.

  19. Gabby says

    Hate only breeds more hate. I am a Christian and I support LBGT’s. With all the bad in the world I say love who you can and as long as you can. Christians are told to love one another (everyone) the single unwed mothers, the fabulous ladies and gentlemen in drag, as well as the sick, broken, and the evil. I have many friends who a bi – male and female. I have a nephew who is a transgender. I love them. I will stand beside them. Phillips is wrong for letting his pride get in the way… but hating on him is only going to make him think he’s right. Then he wins, even if he loses in court.

  20. BearlyBob says


    It’s great that you’re like that, but sadly many of the others are not. At least you got the message. The rest of them are too busy listening to the sounds of their own voices to hear it.

  21. says

    @Gabby: I echo what BearlyBob said. Also, Phillips should (though probably doesn’t) understand that the same law would protect him from discrimination if he was denied service by a anti-religion business owner who turned him away only because he says he’s a Christian.

  22. says

    Ther’s a beautiful truth in this nonsense – just like with Porp 8 and the “gays can’t marry!” crowd – they have excuses, but no consistent reasons. Excuses and Reasons, of course, are two very different things.

    These people magically only become Conscientious Christians when “the gays” are somehow involved – and as we still live in a bogus world of “gay panic defenses” and the idiocy that allows antigay bigotry to be presented as “a mere differing opinion” it has led these fools to believe that it’s ok if they’re being discriminatory to us.

    it ain’t.


    you cannot discriminate. but since you tied to, all buyers with brains should take note, and boycott your @ss into the unemployment line.


  23. Mike B. says

    strategically speaking, it’s a bit early to be targeting baker bigots. they’d be much softer nuts to crack later down the road; if we assume limited resources, those resources are probably better directed to more fundamental rights.

  24. Jim says

    The baker is a pig. He and his fellow bible thumpers need to be taught a lesson that they’ll never forget: obey the law. Fine him and lock him up for a few weeks. While in the slammer he can think twice about what it means to thumb his nose at the law. Peddling cakes has nothing to do with religious freedom.

  25. Bernie says

    now I feel so much better finding out this owner won’t make cakes for pedophiles! does he make cakes for morons?!?! this guy’s logic is irrational, illogical and totally stupid

  26. Mary says

    I have a feeling that when the bakery owners agreed to provide a cake for a “dog wedding” they did so with the undestanding that this was a silly joke. Thee is no such thing as animal marriage or animal civil unions. Since animals don’t have higher reasoning powers they aren’t capable of something like commitment, which requires understanding and consent.

    I’m not defending the bakery owners here.A better analogy would be (human) wedding cake that said “Love is better the second time around!” for two prospective hetereo spouses each who has been married before and divorced. I can tell you that if I owned a bakery I’d be reluctant to make a cake with this saying written on it since it implies that everyone should have a SECOND marriage.

    However, even when I was an opponent of marriage equality I would have made a cake for a gay couple. I couldn’t see hurting the feelings of two people in love by telling them that I didn’t approve of their wedding. I mean they’d only get the cake from somewhere else anyway. And I’m really bad at telling people “no.”

  27. Jeff says

    Why should they be forced to do something they do not believe in? Is this not America anymore? Why is it alright if gays disapprove of Christian’s beliefs but the other way around gets the worthless POS ACLU involved? Why try and force someone to do something they do not believe in, isn’t that bullying?

  28. Zeta says

    I guess all you “Just use another bakery” folks also think Rosa Parks should have just taken another seat on the bus.

    Posted by: tanner | Jun 7, 2013 2:29:05 PM

    Rosa was sitting down, and a white man wanted her to move so he could sit in her spot. Rosa also had no alternative public bus transportation option in that city.

    The lesbians have alternative private bakeries who would be willing to make them a cake, be the bakers pro-gay or just pro-greenbacks.

    These two lesbians are not in Rosa Parks’ league. Their issue is different. Their issues is valid, but it’s different.

Leave A Reply