July 8, 2014 10:18 pm -

The bakery is in Northern Ireland, which means bigotry is international.

…its owners refused to make a cake for the group QueerSpace Belfast featuring the characters Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street along with the message “Support Gay Marriage.”

The group was ultimately able to hire another bakery to execute the design…

Now, the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland is threatening to take legal action against Asher’s Baking Company, claiming it violated that country’s laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unless the bakery responds with “proposals to remedy your unlawful discrimination” within seven days, the commission said it would begin court proceedings.

The family that owns the bakery made a video defending their right to run their business according to their beliefs.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

No responses to Christian Bakery Refuses To Make Bert And Ernie Cake

  1. Anomaly 100 July 8th, 2014 at 10:20 pm

    This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of and that’s saying a lot.

    • Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 10:24 pm

      Not even the stupidest thing I see all day but I got up early and thanks to your Sarah Palin story I was on Breitbart earlier today. 😛

      • Anomaly 100 July 8th, 2014 at 10:26 pm

        I try to help!

        • Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 10:27 pm

          The things I saw there cannot be unseen!

          • Anomaly 100 July 8th, 2014 at 10:32 pm

            You’re welcome!

  2. Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    I think the bakery’s best defense in this case is to claim that it violated their Church’s ban on reproduction of Sesame Street characters.

  3. FieryLocks July 8th, 2014 at 10:31 pm

    Yet, these ‘Christians’ in Northern Ireland have used their religion to kill each other in acts of terrorism and sectarian war for hundreds of years…what hypocrites. Typical.

    • Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 10:40 pm

      Actually it was the Catholics in Ireland that used their religion to kill each other in acts of terrorism. Northern Ireland is a part of Great Britain and was guilty of discrimination against it’s Catholic minority in what became known as “the Cold Closet era” but they were the ones being bombed in that particular case. I’m not saying this to be “that guy” or troll or anything but the confusion between the two parts of Great Britain and Ireland has always been a bit of pet peeve. It’s a bit like saying “why can’t the North and South Koreans get along they are all Chinese?”

      • FieryLocks July 8th, 2014 at 10:51 pm

        Protestants and Catholics alike did this…not just Catholics. I know about the troubles in Northern Ireland, and I don’t need such a condescending ‘history’ lesson.

        Yes—and more frequently than the IRA. Between 1968 and 1998, loyalist
        paramilitaries killed an estimated 864 civilians (most of them
        Catholic), compared with an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestant) killed by the IRA. Experts say loyalist groups have often
        acted out of religious hatred,
        while the IRA has more often targeted
        British security officers—killing more than 1,000 of them—in an effort
        to further its political goal of ejecting the British from Northern
        Ireland .

        • Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 11:16 pm

          Sorry if you felt condescension. That is my fault for making my comment too snarky. It wasn’t my intention it came out wrong.

          I should have said:
          I have a pet peeve. It is the lumping all people from both parts of Ireland together and labeling them by “their religion.” There is a diversity of religion in Northern Ireland (because of it’s industrialization) unlike that in Ireland and while these bakers had no right to force their beliefs on their patrons in this manner, I think that lumping them in with the Troubles is a bit of a stretch.

          For the record, I don’t condone either side however I also don’t buy the IRA propaganda that somehow both sides acted badly and were equally at fault. Perhaps it is this belief of mine that clouds my judgement on the issue.
          UVF Ultra Nationalist were hoodlums looking for any fight and most of them were not even very religious in my experience.

          • FieryLocks July 8th, 2014 at 11:41 pm

            I don’t condone either side, but facts are facts. Both sides have made Northern Ireland a war zone and religion is a major part of the violence past and present.

          • Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 11:51 pm

            I need to learn to keep my mouth shut on this particular topic. I have personal reasons for hating the IRA that cloud my judgement.

          • burqa July 9th, 2014 at 12:29 pm

            Try not to let it compel you to join the Red Hand Defenders.

          • burqa July 9th, 2014 at 12:01 am

            Not really.
            The goals of each side are in the secular, political realm. I don’t see religious leaders leading any crusades there.
            Religion is something each side has to serve as a sort of social uniting factor, but the whole thing stems from British occupation of Northern Ireland and the Scots Protestants they moved there. Even if they shared the same religious sect, there would be resistance from Irish people to occupation by the Brits.
            Take faith out of it completely and the troubles would continue as long as the occupation goes on.
            Difference in faith exacerbates problems that would otherwise still exist.

          • burqa July 8th, 2014 at 11:52 pm

            I doubt any customers of this bakery walked in, saw or heard about this particular policy and despite resistance, left the store with a different opinion – that of the shop owners.
            To me, those would be those who had the shop owners’ beliefs “forced on them.”

    • burqa July 8th, 2014 at 11:47 pm

      Oh you think that’s bad, FieryLocks? Head down to your local library and see if they have a copy of The Black Book of Communism. There’s about a half dozen authors who put together this incredible history book.
      It documents, among other things, how, in about an 80-year period, people motivated by an atheistic ideology killed more people than in all the wars in recorded history, going all the way back to the Sumerians or something.

      Maybe it would be a better idea to stick to the issue at hand, rather than trying to look as bigoted as those you disagree with.

      • Dwendt44 July 9th, 2014 at 12:15 am

        And how many millions has christianity killed over the centuries? From the third century until the late nineteenth, the christian religion has killed many millions of those that refused to convert, didn’t toe the ‘party’ line completely enough, or dared to ask questions that embarrassed the faith. Not to mention those women that were killed, accused of being a ‘witch’ but in reality, owned property that the church or an influential leader wanted to get it’s hands on.

        • burqa July 9th, 2014 at 11:31 am

          fahvel: “as long as the book included the fine xians”

          Read harder.

          “The Black Book of Communism” is a highly regarded history text that details the crimes of the atheist system of communism in the 20th century some prefer not to address.

          Dwendt44: “And how many millions has christianity killed over the centuries? From the third century until the late nineteenth,”

          I do not have the number, sorry. This is not a debate you want to enter on that side, in terms of body count.
          First, we need to delineate the fact we are looking at different span of time for each. For Christianity, we’re talking about numbers killed over a 1,600 year period compared to 85-90 years for communism.
          Even with over 1,500 more years to work with, the numbers killed in pursuit of establishing and maintaining an atheist system dwarf those of not only victims of killers claiming to be Christians, but everyone else you can find to throw in the mix.

          In that 85-90 year period, the communists killed more people than the Christians, Buddhists, Shintoists, the Aztecs, Mayans, Zoroastrians and anyone else you can find going back to the earliest recorded history. The number of their victims is conservatively estimated at or above 100 million. They not only killed them directly but also through things like intentionally caused famines that caused people to resort to cannibalism. This happened several times in that relatively brief period.
          It’s been a while since I read it, but I think the number killed in China by Mao roughly averaged about a million a year for about 40 years, something like that.

          Please reconsider the scope here – on one hand you have the much smaller number killed over 6,000 years or so and a far greater number than that killed in a period of about 85 or so years.

          • Dwendt44 July 9th, 2014 at 12:01 pm

            You must also consider that the numbers attributed to christians is nearly always downplayed or under estimated while those killed by communists is generally exaggerated. Even in your post, you include supposed deaths from supposed ‘created’ famine. Let’s stick to killed ‘directly’.

          • treees July 11th, 2014 at 5:40 pm

            I guess that the fact he cited only one despot must have escaped you? He sat three other equally viscous leaders on the bench and looked at a mere 72 year time period. In an atheistic worldview operating along naturalistic mechanisms, killing human beings you see as a detriment is not only acceptable, it is considered honorable……..eradicating the obstacle to human evolution, and removing the barrier to it’s totalitarian implementation is seen as virtuous by those who adhere to this ideology.

            For those who struggle with language I’ll try to put it simply, those tyrants Burqa listed, they saw themselves as doing the world a favor.

          • burqa July 11th, 2014 at 11:24 pm

            Yes they did, treees.
            They believed that millions could be killed if that was the price to pay for establishing a utopian society. Even when Stalin’s crimes began to come out in the 50s, especially after Krushchev’s denunciations of them, the same argument was made by apologists.
            Forced to eventually concede, the fallback position was Stalin was unique, and that he deviated from what Lenin did and had in mind. But then the facts emerged that Lenin was mighty bloodthirsty too, and had the same attitude.
            The authors of The Black Book of Communism were quite meticulous in documenting their book. A lot was already known, but few, if any people had ever put it all together in one place the way these authors did.
            For those interested in 20th century history, The Black Book of Communism is required reading.

          • burqa July 11th, 2014 at 11:06 pm

            I don’t know what you are talking about when you claim certain numbers are over- or underestimated. The numbers attributed to atheistic communists in the book have not really been challenged. Indeed, the Black Book of Communism has been regarded highly for many years as an outstanding history book.
            It details how various regimes intentionally caused famines. They did not occur by accident, but were intended consequences.
            Dance around the facts all you want, but ultimately the fact you don’t like them does not mean they are incorrect.
            Check your local library to see if it has a copy. Occasionally I see it in a Barnes & Noble.

            Now, what do you have to compare with Mao’s 65 million killed in about a 50 year period, hmm?

            Match it or concede the point.

          • treees July 11th, 2014 at 5:40 pm

            Excellent post

          • treees July 12th, 2014 at 11:36 am

            The issue of accountability is fundamental to understanding the scope of the carnage that Burqa has presented.

            The religious adherents always have an objective source of accountability in which they view their actions. They have a view of culpability that is lacking among the communistic/atheistic view.

            The objective moral view always leads to an ultimate moral accounting, and reins in human nature. An objective moral view always holds that there is a Supreme law giver, and an ultimate day of reckoning, and that the moral standard is unchanging.

            A subjective moral view leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only moral laws are the ones that we create. In this view the individual is a law unto themselves. The standards can change with the whims of the individual. The extent to which the individual can wield power is limited only by his standing within society, and by the accomplices who share his views.

          • burqa July 13th, 2014 at 6:18 pm

            This may be a case of simply following the crowd. This is common on both sides of the political spectrum.
            One reason bigotry persists in this country to the degree it does is many only oppose it when it is expressed against certain groups.

            On the Left and the Right, there seem to be certain groups that are defended against bigotry and certain groups regarded by many as legitimate targets.
            The result is bigots know they can find refuge on the Left or Right, depending on who they hate. If they hate gays they can find sympathy and an uncritical reception on the Right. If they hate Christians, they can find the same safe harbor on the Left. In both cases there will be plenty who remain silent when their fellow Leftist or Rightist expresses bigotry. Others will make excuses for it.

            When the Left and Right agree that bigotry against all groups is wrong, bigots will have nowhere to run to and our society will see more progress.

      • fahvel July 9th, 2014 at 3:42 am

        as long as the book included the fine xians who slaughtered and degraded the left over natives of north, central and south america – no communists involved there – just good xian values.

  4. Robert M. Snyder July 8th, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    Does a bakery owner have the right to refuse ANY content requests that are within the law? Suppose that someone requested a cake with a photo of Obama’s face with an ape’s body and the N-word as the caption. I would NOT want to bake that cake, but would I have the right to refuse? The content, while highly offensive, is not illegal. Suppose they asked for 100 identical cakes and said they were going to be used at a KKK picnic. Do I have any right to refuse this request? If so, what is the general rule that I need to follow when deciding which orders I can refuse and which I must accept?

    • Eric Trommater July 8th, 2014 at 11:47 pm

      That’s an easy one. Yes you have the right to refuse because of the use of the derogatory racist language and because you don’t want to do business with a group because you don’t agree with them.
      You don’t have the right to pick and choose based on their, race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference. You have to be clever enough to come up with another reason.

    • Anomaly 100 July 8th, 2014 at 11:55 pm

      You’re comparing the KKK to the LGBT community. Apples, meet oranges.

      • Robert M. Snyder July 9th, 2014 at 12:01 am

        I sure didn’t mean to. The KKK is the most offensive group I can think of. I do not think the LGBT community is offensive at all. I was trying to come up with a hypothetical that would really test the principle of “do whatever the customer asks”. At what point can a baker say “no”, and where is the line? I’m looking for a general rule; a clearly-worded principle.

        • burqa July 9th, 2014 at 12:37 am

          Your original point was a good one, Mr. Snyder. A similar principle may be followed by different groups.
          You did not compare the KKK to the LGBT community, either.

          Let’s try this: Suppose the Obamas had a bakery and someone came in and wanted a cake baked that had the message, “We here at the Obama Bakery want everyone to vote for the Tea party candidate!”

          This whole thing sounds like a setup, not by the LGBT community, but by this one group that thought, perhaps, that it would be cyute to force a Christian bakery to make a pro-gay cake.

          I am as pro gay rights as anyone here, but I don’t care for troublemakers. We don’t need more troublemakers, we need more peacemakers. We don’t need more people stirring up passions and increasing the anger level, we need people to cool things out and to bring people together in a calm atmosphere where opponents are more likely to see one’s views and to respond to respect with respect.
          Starting this bit of trouble does not bring us closer to not just equality under the law, but acceptance in society as well. Getting people angry and emotional with their backs up makes it more difficult to persuade them and therefore delays progress.

          • Anomaly 100 July 9th, 2014 at 6:58 am

            Troublemakers =/= a Bert & Ernie cake.

            I am not ‘pro-gay’ anymore than I am ‘pro-heterosexual.’. I am for equality.

          • burqa July 9th, 2014 at 11:10 am

            Using the law to compel someone who disagrees with you politically to make a political statement they disagree with = troublemaker.

            I presume you concede the part you avoided.
            I am for equality, too.
            That is why I said I was pro gay rights because in America they do not have equal rights.
            I am also anti-bigotry. I oppose bigotry even when it is directed against groups I am not a member of or with whom I disagree on this or that issue.

        • Orrin Cratch July 9th, 2014 at 8:37 am

          “I sure didn’t mean to.”

          Yes, you did.

          I don’t believe you.

    • fahvel July 9th, 2014 at 3:39 am

      there’s a neat song that says, I only use my gun when kindness fails. Try the kindness part and you may not ask any more stupid questions.

    • Rusty Shackleford July 9th, 2014 at 8:29 am

      Here’s the thing about hypotheticals: they’re hypotheticals. The answer to your hypothetical is the answer to your hypothetical, and nothing else. Using it as a basis for what course of action to take in REALITY is fallacious.

      What if aliens invade tomorrow and the only way to stop them is to drink bleach? Is that a compelling argument for drinking bleach today, just in case? Of course it fucking isn’t.

      So tell you what, rather than equating LGBT people simply existing with white people consciously choosing to be racist and trying to extrapolate a convoluted argument from this offensive comparison, why don’t we actually deal with the real world that we live in today, where LGBT people are subjected to institutionalized and pervasive discrimination?

      Go make your KKK scenario happen in reality. See what happens, take it to court, and then we can all find out the answer to your dumbass hypothetical together. My guess: racist shitbags, because they are not victims of institutionalized or systemic oppression, are not a protected class of people, and can deal with it.

      • Robert M. Snyder July 9th, 2014 at 9:48 am

        “Here’s the thing about hypotheticals: they’re hypotheticals. The answer to your hypothetical is the answer to your hypothetical, and nothing else. Using it as a basis for what course of action to take in REALITY is fallacious.”

        I could not disagree more. My purpose in asking the question was to try to ferret out the underlying principles with regard to when a business has a right to refuse a customer request. How do people arrive at the principles by which they live their lives? Some people read holy books like The Bible or The Koran and do whatever they think it tells them to do. Some people just accept the rules and values of their parents without ever questioning them.

        But I think that a lot of us try to re-examine the attitudes and beliefs that we learned from our parents and/or in church in order to arrive at our own, authentic set of principles. We are guided to a large extent by life experience, but we can also learn from hypotheticals.

        Consider the parables of Jesus. All of these are hypothetical situations used to illustrate a point. Most people’s life experiences are somewhat limited. Thinking about hypotheticals allows us to test our beliefs in ways that our life experiences may not.

        Have you seen the TV program called “What Would You Do?”. The producers create artificial scenarios where most people are actors in order to see how unsuspecting citizens react. And then they interview the people to find out WHY they acted as they did. It’s a modern-day take on the parables. You imagine yourself in a scenario that you may have never encountered, and then you explore your beliefs to figure out what you would do.

        You said that using hypotheticals as a basis for what course of action to take in REALITY is fallacious. I suggest that you talk to the Supreme Court. They are constantly proposing hypothetical situations to the attorneys who argue cases before them.

        • Rusty Shackleford July 9th, 2014 at 9:52 am

          The Supreme Court cites scenarios, previous rulings, that ALREADY HAPPENED. They are extrapolating the possible ramifications of their current ruling on previous rulings. They are dealing with REALITIES.

          The show What Would You Do is finding out what you would do by MAKING IT HAPPEN. It’s staged, but it is still HAPPENING IN REALITY.

          Your KKKake scenario has not happened. Make it happen. Let’s all find out together. Otherwise you’re basing your view of reality on a fantasy.

      • treees July 12th, 2014 at 12:17 pm

        Your hypothetical in which drinking bleach is posited as beneficial to human survival is completely nonsensical.

        A hypothetical is valid if it is plausible.

        • Rusty Shackleford July 12th, 2014 at 12:25 pm

          What if you die tomorrow from a heart attack? That’s plausible. Does that make a compelling case for why you shouldn’t bother saving money today?

          • treees July 12th, 2014 at 1:24 pm

            It’s a case for not saving money, and the possible cause of death is fairly irrelevant. There are multitudes who have not saved for the future, and that’s compelling reason enough to believe that saving for the future is unnecessary. The only reason anyone saves money for the future is if they forsee a time of disability in which they will be unable to provide for themselves, or if they desire to leave some wealth for their offspring/dependents. At any rate, the basic principle stands, and that is the right to decide, and to make business decisions, from a personal liberty standpoint. You cannot compel others to accept, or adopt, your own personal behavioral practices.

          • Rusty Shackleford July 12th, 2014 at 2:31 pm

            No one forced you to open a public accommodation. You could have opened a private cake club for heterosexuals and handed out memberships at church. But you didnt. You agreed with the state that you would serve the public, but suddenly decide there’s members of the public you don’t want to serve. Too bad for you.

          • treees July 12th, 2014 at 2:43 pm

            While no one forced me to open, it would seem that you feel empowered to force business decisions upon me. As a business owner I reserve the right to refuse business. I don’t have to do business with you, and that is my right.

          • Rusty Shackleford July 12th, 2014 at 6:11 pm

            It’s not your right when you operate a PUBLIC business. Don’t open one if you don’t want to serve the public.

          • treees July 12th, 2014 at 9:21 pm

            I don’t lose my rights because I choose to operate a business. I operate a business, it is entirely my right to run it as I see fit. If someone were to come into my place of business and demand that I serve them I can refuse service and actually have them removed, yes, physically removed, from my place of business. I am the owner, and you are not. My rights to operate my business trump your rights to run my business…..

          • Rusty Shackleford July 12th, 2014 at 10:24 pm

            When you operate a PUBLIC business and obtain a license to do so from the state you’re operating in, you willingly forfeited your right to discriminate. No one made you do that, but you did, and now you’re whining that you agreed to do a thing you don’t want to do.

          • treees July 12th, 2014 at 9:49 pm

            Your argument is ridiculous. It amounts to this, I operate a restaurant that serves only meat, you a member of the public, enter and demand to be served a specific meat that I don’t carry….when I inform you that you cannot purchase that particular meat in my restaurant, as I dont provide that specific item, you demand that I do and claim this privilege to purchase this item as a “right”.

            The cake shop owner sells cakes, he is not required to sell you a specific cake of your own design and you have not been denied the opportunity to purchase a cake., your argument to the contrary is as ridiculous as your false assertion that all hypotheticals are invalid.

            You do not have the right to be offensive.

          • Rusty Shackleford July 12th, 2014 at 10:26 pm

            They didn’t order off-menu. The cake shop offered printed cakes. They ordered a product that the bakery offered, and were refused. Your analogies suck ass.

          • treees July 13th, 2014 at 9:01 am

            They ordered something not on the menu, we wouldn’t have anything to discuss if it were otherwise.

      • treees July 12th, 2014 at 1:35 pm

        Here’s what’s really interesting about hypotheticals. The entire “green” movement is based uppn hypothetical assumptions…..

    • Dwendt44 July 9th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

      One could assume that they could indeed refuse to make an obscene cake (penis cake) or write obscenities on one. The KKK is an obscenity. So they could refuse to make one of those.
      Two people of the same sex who love each other is hardly in the same ball park.

      • Robert M. Snyder July 9th, 2014 at 2:11 pm

        You described a penis cake as being “obscene”. But some people would disagree with that characterization. If everyone had the same point of view, there would be no need for tolerance. So the question that interests me is how to think about situations where one party is uncomfortable with something that another party is comfortable with.

        If I were the Irish baker, I would have made the cake. No questions asked. But if I were a magistrate and the dispute were brought before me, I am not sure whether I would compel the baker to make that cake.

        There is no doubt that the baker cannot discriminate against people based upon race, gender, orientation, etc. That’s not the issue that troubles me. The question is whether the baker can refuse to print certain messages, without regard to who is requesting it?

        For example, if a liberal newspaper sells advertising space, and a conservative group submits an anti-abortion advertisement for publication, can they refuse to run the ad strictly because of its content? What if the liberal newspaper had a written policy stating that it does not accept advertising that contains anti-abortion messages?

        My gut feeling is that nobody should be compelled (by the state) to print or publish a message with which they strongly disagree. I think I would NOT compel the baker to make that cake as long as he had a clearly written policy stating which kinds of images and messages he objected to, and he applied that standard equally to all customers.

        So if he makes a rule stating that there will be no penis cakes, then he shouldn’t be making penis cakes for anyone. He can’t say “I don’t make penis cakes for gays” while still making them for straight couples. That would clearly be discriminatory. But if he consistently applies the policy to all customers, I think he is within his rights.

  5. mea_mark July 9th, 2014 at 9:15 am

    We’re religious and don’t like gay stuff but we promote savoury sausage rolls and coconut snowballs. Oh Myyy, that sounds kinky.