Protecting Cake From Gays
If the gays get cake, it's over folks. Creation Date Thursday, 02 April 2015. Hits 1897
It's days like this when I almost want to go Stephen Colbert on an article and pretend to support something absolutely ridiculous and make an equally ridiculous extremist case for my alleged view. To be entirely frank, I could do it with both sides in this case. I am speaking, of course, of the Indiana law which, amongst other things, has brought back the unfortunate saying that historically never was "Let them eat cake". The gays, of course. Because people are trying to keep the gays from eating cake? Well, not exactly. Because the gays are trying to turn bakers gay? No, not that either. The problem? We have businesses that want to act like 6 year olds and unfortunately, the gays are 5 1/2.
If you're expecting a detailed breakdown of the Indiana law, feel free to move along now because it isn't coming. I don't care about the law, and neither should you. Why? Because 19 other states have similar laws and you're just now hearing about it. If this is truly apocalyptic, shouldn't we have found that out by now? So why the big fuss? Because we have become a society of adolescents. Take the bakery incident with 111 Cakery, which has become the Boston Tea Party moment of this whole scenario. From their own words, here is what happened.
That is why this week we told a man that requested a cake for a same sex ceremony that it was against our policy but we would be happy to help him with anything else. It was not that we wanted to deny them a cake it’s just tough to create something that goes against your beliefs.
Seriously? You have beliefs against cake, yet you opened a business called the "Cakery"? No, of course not. They don't have beliefs against cake, they have beliefs against gay marriage. Yet they weren't asked to create a gay marriage. They were asked to bake a cake. Probably because they do run the aforementioned business called 111 Cakery. Now, there were several ways that these folks could have handled the situation that would have resulted in little to no controversy. They could have said...
- I'm sorry, but we're booked solid right now and we won't be able to get a cake of this size and detail done in time for your ceremony.
- I'm sorry, but we're not taking orders right now.
- While we feel that homosexuality is a sin and we may not agree with the ceremony you are about to have, we love you as a person and appreciate your business so we will be happy to bake a cake for you.
See there? Problem solved from every angle. In 1 and 2 you don't have to bake the cake for the guys, and in 3 you bake the cake but still get to preach at them. And let's be honest here, isn't that what this is all about? Does the Bible declare homosexuality to be a sin? Absolutely. But does it not also declare fornication to be a sin? I wonder, if a single never-been-married mother came into the bakery to buy a birthday cake for her child, would the bakery refuse to bake a cake because they don't want to "be part of a ceremony" that celebrates the 8th anniversary of her act of fornication? Of course they wouldn't. Why? Because that would be stupid and uncomfortable because society has largely become accepting of that sin, so they would be judged harshly for their own judgement of her.
Now before you get to feeling good about me, my gay friends, you're not off the hook in this either. Let's be honest here. Nothing set back gay access to cake worse than Michael Sam's draft day video (see below, then come back after you vomit). And yes, you can judge me if you wish but I don't mind saying that was disgusting. Is it perfectly okay for Michael Sam to eat cake off his gay lover while making out with him? Yes, it is. Did it change my opinion of him in any way? No, it didn't. Did it make me throw up in my mouth a little? You're damn right it did, and you can't change that. That, my friends, is what tolerance is.
---the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
You see, by definition I have to disagree with you in order to be tolerant of you. So by nature, my tolerance of you is based upon the fact that I think it is really bizarre that you gay guys out there are attracted to other dudes. When I see you make out with another dude, it is like watching a dog eat vomit. I don't think less of the dog, because it is in a dog's nature to do this, yet there is something disgusting about it to humans who do not have it in their nature to eat vomit. Likewise, it is not in my nature to make out with a guy. I don't judge gays for it, I just say "Yuck, I'm glad that is over" when they are done.
We are a generation removed from this issue being permanently put to bed. Why is that? Because socially, these things take time. Take the book The Scarlet Letter for example. It is the story of a woman who bore a child as the result of an act of adultery. For this, she was shamed by being forced by the governing religious class to wear a scarlet letter "A" so others would be aware of her sin. Why? So they could discriminate against her, look down on her, and ensure she properly atoned for her sinful act. However, as adultery became more and more commonplace, society no longer cares if you have done it, and while individuals still view it as a sin, it no longer carries the stigma it once did. Likewise, today's youth are more and more comfortable with homosexuality because they see it more. They may not agree with it, they might believe it to be a sin, but they don't want to force you to wear a scarlet "A"... or in your case, a pink "G", but you get my point.
As a 41 year old man, I'm in that uncomfortable gap. My parents grew up when "gay" meant "happy". I grew up when gay meant "stupid" and/or "homosexual", but a homosexual would be uncomfortable with being called gay because most were in the closet. My kids are growing up in a world where gay means "homosexual" and if you use it to mean "stupid" you are a bigot. Translation? We're getting there. Soon enough a christian baker will think no longer nor harder about baking a cake for your gay lover to lick off of you on draft day than they do of baking a birthday cake for some woman's 5th kid by a 4th different father. In the meantime, could you gays bear with society a little bit and just buy your stupid cake from a bakery that actually wants your business? And perhaps you bakeries could remember what the actual point of owning a bakery is in the first place. It's to bake cakes, not to promote your views on social issues. Perhaps if both groups try to act like adults, one of you will pull it off and there will be no need for anyone to have an opinion one way or the other on laws like the one in Indiana.