If I knew you were comin’ I’d’ve baked a cake


You know, I’ve pretty much stayed silent on the SCOTUS ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop.

But it isn’t because I don’t care.

It’s just that I figured other folks – who have more legal knowledge than I – could probably do a better job of writing about it.

I’m a simple gal.

So I look at things simply.

And it seems to me, business owners have the right to refuse to serve someone. Otherwise, all those “No shoes, no shirt, no service” signs would get you thrown in jail.

And, lest we forget, recently a judge ruled that a bar could refuse to serve someone in a MAGA hat.

Now if I owned a bakery, I would bake a cake for a gay wedding.

But I don’t think anybody would want me baking a cake for anybody’s wedding. Which is probably why I don’t own a bakery.

I make a mean salad, though.

And toast – I’m really good at toast.

But as I said initially when SCOTUS ruled in Obergefell, I have no issue with gay couples choosing to formalize their partnerships. Though I did object to the ruling.

My issue was that it was too damn broad.

Besides, marriage laws are a state issue and should be determined by each state.

And basing it on the Fourteenth Amendment made absolutely no sense to me.

But we’ve pretty much already destroyed the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, haven’t we?

Yes, I am a Christian. And I know what the Bible says about homosexuality.

But my faith and my conscience instructs me to love my neighbor. Because it is through this show of love that I can carry the message of salvation.

I’m just not a fire and brimstone kinda gal.

I read the Gospels and I see the Pharisees getting hot under the collar because Jesus spent time with “tax collectors and sinners.” They gave him a heck of a lot of grief about that.

And it is Jesus’ response that I take to heart: “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

What the Pharisees missed, of course, is that they too were sinners.

I do not shun people. Because although I know that homosexuality is a sin, I also know that I too am a sinner.

As Paul said in Romans, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

If I choose to surround myself only with the righteous, I’d be pretty lonely. And, I wouldn’t be able to surround myself with … well … me.

So I show love, compassion, understanding.

Now with that being said, I do not think someone whose conscience won’t allow for him to, say, bake a cake for a gay wedding, should be forced to do it by the government.

While it’s true that we don’t live in a Theocracy.

We do live in a country where the government cannot force anyone religious to go against his or her religious conscience.

So if a baker cannot in good conscience participate in a gay couple’s wedding, he or she should be free to refuse.

Back in the day, those of a faith that eschewed military service on religious grounds were exempt from the draft. That person was what was called a “conscientious objector.”

Quakers, for example, were conscientious objectors. Their faith would not permit killing of any kind – even as a soldier in war.

And the government could not compel them to serve against their religious conscience.

This is central to our religious freedom.

And the First Amendment guarantees us the right to be free of government intrusion on our faith.

So my feeling is, if a baker doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, he has every right to refuse.

If you can refuse to serve someone who’s wearing a MAGA hat, you can refuse to supply a wedding cake for a gay couple’s wedding.

Being in the minority opinion-wise doesn’t deprive you of your unalienable rights.

We aren’t the Borg.

And if every single American in the country, except one man, had no problem with baking a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, that one man still has the right to refuse.

Now, with all that prelude, let me get to the point of this post.


I just read a pretty good column by Kurt Schlichter titled Nothing Narrow About this Huge Win in the Culture War.

And if someone is better at making a point than I am, I’m going to point out what he says.

Here’s a taste:

Commentators, largely 20-somethings whose courtroom experience seems to be repeated viewings of Legally Blonde, kept insisting that the ruling was narrow. It wasn’t – it was a broad rejection of pogroms against people whose religious beliefs clash with trendy secular shibboleths. Here’s the thing – most of us, had we the confectionary artistic qualifications to get paid to design wedding cakes, would have gladly taken the money. Many of us don’t believe that taking the couple’s cash would be morally compromising.

But this Jack Phillips guy did. See, rights don’t exist to protect the majority because the majority doesn’t need protecting. The law recognizes rights in order to protect good people whose views society largely does not share, like Jack Phillips, and also applies to loathsome scummy dirtbag Nazis, creepy commies, KKK idiots, and Antifa morons. Rights exist to protect minorities, people who, statistically, you probably disagree with. If you don’t recognize that rights come to us via our Creator you should at least appreciate the utilitarian rationale that you might personally find yourself in the minority someday.

That last sentence is a winner.

But you should definitely read the whole column. It’s worth it.

Hit the Tip Jar!

Every dollar makes a difference! Hit the DONATE button in the side bar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE. If you cannot afford to contribute, please whitelist PatriotRetort.com in your ad-blocker. Ads help pay for this site. And, as a promise to you, the ads are not obnoxious or overbearing and will never interfere with your enjoyment of PatriotRetort.com.

6 thoughts on “If I knew you were comin’ I’d’ve baked a cake

  • June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    I hope people read and understand this without throwing vituperation and calumny at you. ..btw totally agree with you I am glad you said it. …can I use these points in discussion

    • June 7, 2018 at 5:28 pm

      I’ve had worst thrown at me.

  • June 8, 2018 at 8:06 am

    I agree with what you said, tho I might actually have been unable to assist a gay wedding as it corrupts what is ordained sacred between God and Man.

    Having said that I do not look down upon anyone be they Christian or not who would choose to make the cake. That is the essence of the Greatest Commandment, aside from the instruction that we are NOT to assume that we can judge the salvation of another, we are called to Love our fellow man. That instruction does NOT say that we are to Love our fellow man as long as they are Christians, or as long as they agree with us politically, or as long as they decide to not bake the cake. The instruction is to Love our fellow man despite how sin filled and broken they are, because our Savior Loves us and we KNOW just how sin filled and broken we are.

    It always amazes me that the left looks down their collective noses at Christians and claims that it is the Christian who is the hypocrite for refusing to bake the cake, yet it is those on the left who refuses to Love those with whom they disagree that proves the point.

    Anyone who might be forced to work to make an idol for a foreign god is not free, but have they sinned if it is forced? Those who accept the idol have sinned, but whose sin is worse?
    1. Those who wish to worship the idol
    2. Those who force the innocent to make the idol
    3. Those who stand around and applaud the show

    MSG Grumpy

  • June 8, 2018 at 8:36 am

    The Liberal demands we live and let live.

    By demanding that, we (traditional Christians) are forced to allow and accept all manner of fringe beliefs, values and behaviors into our society regardless to our personal beliefs and the impacts they have on our families and children especially. In the process, traditional values are attacked by people from this fringe community with no respect paid to the Christian rights at all.

    The irony is that the Christian Baker is not allowed to live acting in accordance to his religion. Where is the let live part??????

    Liberals like one way streets if they head in the direction of their choosing. All others are closed and blocked off.

    This issue is far from being settled. This ruling is not the blanket conclusion that will definitively protect the Christian from the tyranny of the left.

    They, the left wing fringe activists, will be back and will be even more determined to subjugate the Christian community once and for all.

  • June 8, 2018 at 10:02 am

    Actually you don’t have the right to refuse service to anyone…but you should under the 1st Amendment. Foolish people on the left do not realize misapplying could apply to them one day.

    The reason ‘no shirt…’ has been allowed is because local, state, and federal safety and health and safety codes back that up. Heart of Atlanta case took your ability to freely associate away and the courts will eventually have to tackle this but it being overturned is a long shot despite the fact that it should be.

Comments are closed.