Asking for Pro-Marriage Cake is a ‘Hate Crime’

FreedomPoet_LincolnDay

Hate_the_USA_smWhen it comes to the bottomless depths of the Left’s hypocrisy, you literally just can’t make this stuff up.

As reported by Hot Air and Right Wing News, not only is it okay for pro-homosexual businesses to refuse the business of Christians (while it is NOT okay for a Christian business to refuse to participate in immoral activities that violate the conscience), you might just get the FBI called out on you for the “hate crime” of asking for a cake that affirms a truth understood by every civilization throughout history.

Pastor Joshua Feuerstein in Arizona called a pro-homosexual bakery in Florida and asked for a pro-marriage cake. Not only was his business refused by these “intolerant bigots,” the bakery called the cops on him.

Last week we discussed the case of Arizona-based pastor Joshua Feuerstein who runs a popular Youtube channel. Feuerstein warned that Christians are coming under increasing attack by the state and that they should be very careful in this heightened anti-Christian climate.

Feuerstein also made a video where he called Sharon Haller, owner of Cut the Cake in Longwood, Fla. and asked her to make a cake that said “We Don’T Support Gay Marriage” on it.

She refused and Feuerstein posted the video of her refusal on his Youtube channel. Haller then demanded that Feuerstein take the video down and he did as asked. But then she reposted the video herself and used it to attack Feuerstein.

Then the shop owner called the FBI to demand that they charge Feuerstein with a hate crime.

Haller complained of “nasty” phone calls and “negative gestures.” She said she lost money and was investigating her legal options, noting that the recorded phone call is illegal in Florida. According to Lifesite, Haller said she had reached out to the FBI regarding a possible criminal case.

“I’m just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home,” Haller told News 13. Online, the bakery asked for help, “Please help put a stop to people like Joshua Feuerstein.”

So, let’s review: gays can get Christians arrested and their businesses shut down for not baking them a cake. But Christians can be denied service at any time by any bakery with no consequences.

Of course, Pastor Feuerstein is going to have to answer for violating recording law in Florida. Though it is legal in Feuerstein’s state to record a conversation if you are a part of that conversation, it is not in Florida.  However, as the article points out, police have some discretion in how they may or may not prosecute “crimes” where no real injury was done. Most of the time, nothing is done in such cases, and the only “harm” done here was the exposure of the double-standard and hypocrisy of the Left.

Yet I’m sure this pro-homosexual bakery will push the matter to the fullest; we wouldn’t expect anything less from the famous “tolerant” Left.

Once again, it is beyond crystal clear where the rank hypocrisy is ripe, where tolerance is extinct, where tyranny is lovingly embraced, and where the evil lies in the American culture war.

Despite the fact that so many Americans are tuned out of reality while they’re busy watching Survivor reruns and attending to their Twitter feed, sooner or later this abject hypocrisy and tyranny will penetrate the thick skulls of the American public, and when the American people wake up to the fact that the homosexual agenda is the epitome of tyranny, the pendulum will swing back toward reality and sanity will return to this land.

May God have mercy on us in the meantime.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    I’m going to lean a little toward “devil’s advocate” territory here. Don’t get mad at me!

    Frankly, it’s hard to come up with something that makes for a good counter-example to a “gay wedding” cake. In every day life, it’s probably not common for anyone to ask for a cake with any bluntly topical or political message on it. Asking for a “We Don’t Support Gay Marriage” cake seems a little too obvious of an issue-raiser, regardless of the validity of the point — or the fact that the point is clearly lost on the people it’s intended for.

    I’d like to know what would happen if a bakery run by people with anti-Christian sympathies was asked to make a cake with a message that was explicitly Christian but not explicitly trying to make a “anti-gay-marriage” point. Would the anti-Christian sentiment still raise its head if it wasn’t obvious to the people involved that they were being put to a test?

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      I agree that it’s difficult to make an obvious counter; after all, we’re used to over 200 years of Christian-flavored culture, so anything that comes down even slightly on the side of Right isn’t going to raise much of a flag. You almost have to come up with something that can’t be mistaken for its pro-Christian statement. The “anti” is rather obvious, because a sincere Christian pretty easily recognizes what runs harshly counter to his values. And do a sincere follower of Christ, a cake celebrating a counterfeit wedding is as “harsh” as a cake that says “We Don’t Support Counterfeit Weddings”.

    • franklinb23

      Here’s a better analogy: have a group like the American Family Association ask a gay caterer to provide their services for one of their fundraisers. The AFA is notoriously anti-gay (particularly Bryan Fischer). They would have to not ask for anything “special” or out of the ordinary except the same services the caterer offers to others.

      “Would the anti-Christian sentiment still raise its head if it wasn’t obvious to the people involved that they were being put to a test?”

      Most likely not.

      I think you guys forget the degree that gays are involved with various churches where they might disagree with a sermon or two. It’s relatively accepted that there are many gay men who are church musicians and choir members. They can live with some dissenting opinion, more often than not.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        But that’s just it, Franklin. The scenarios aren’t equivalent. Because asking (demanding?) a pro-homosexual caterer to cater an AFA event where the same services are provided as would be for, say, the Lion’s Club, is NOT equivalent to demanding that a serious Christian do something that violates their conscience, i.e. provide goods or services which lend credibility to an activity that is immoral. Selling two dudes cookies or snacks makes no statement about a particular behavior or institution. A wedding and/or a wedding cake makes a very specific statement about a particular behavior and institution.

        I’d still be willing to be a truckload of money (if I was a betting man) that the pro-homosexual caterer would still refuse the business, just because of the hatred for AFA and other pro-family groups.

        I know there are a lot of homosexuals involved with a lot of churches out there. But again, we’re talking about serious Christians here, ones who are interested in obeying God. Any church that affirms and accepts homosexual behavior as legitimate or morally upright is NOT serious and is NOT obeying God.

        • franklinb23

          Well, the scenarios are equivalent in the sense that, in both cases, two business owners are being asked to provide their services in a setting that violates their own conscience. Neither are being asked for a change in the nature of the product itself. It’s just the closest analogy that can be made.

          Understand that for many folks, gay civil rights is not just a matter of freedom but a moral issue as well. I know you disagree, but people disagree on other ethical issues as well.

          “we’re talking about serious Christians here”

          I don’t think anyone can judge the sincerity of anyone’s conclusions regarding what is ethical or what is not ethical, because even if one claims to uphold Biblical morality, we all read Scripture through the lens of our own experience and understanding.

          I, for one, don’t doubt the sincerity of the faith of the Phelps clan of Westboro (though I disagree with it). I think their view of God is distorted based on their abusive upbringing and their emphasis on punishment over anything else (not to mention their hyper-Calvinist interpretation). Nevertheless, I believe that THEY believe it, though, and they’re as serious as a brain tumor. I know Shirley Phelps once confided in someone that she feared one of her children who died prematurely was not one of the Elect and was in Hell.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Actually, as I have pointed out in another article, asking a pro-homosexual business to provide services in a pro-morality effort doesn’t violate the conscience of the pro-homosexual; the conscience is not violated for morally affirmative actions, it would just ask him to do something he didn’t want to do. And he has no religious freedom basis upon which to refuse service, because no religion in the world condemns authentic marriage.

            But I still support his right to do with his business as he pleases, regardless of whether it is on the basis of conscience or religious freedom.

            And the scenarios still aren’t the same for the reasons I already outlined.

            Yes we can judge sincerity based on one’s adherence to Biblical teaching. The Bible is extremely clear in both Old and New Testaments that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God. You cannot deliberately ignore what God has repeatedly made clear and still make a credible claim to being sincere or serious about your alleged religion.

            Would you consider a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) a “sincere” member if they were known to repeatedly and unapologetically drive drunk? Would you consider a doctor a “sincere” physician if he encouraged his patients to smoke, drink, use recreational drugs and live an unhealthy lifestyle? Would you consider a cop who brazenly broke the law himself and let off favored people who broke the law to be a “sincere” representative of the law?

            I think the answer to all of these questions is obvious, and neither can someone who deliberately disobeys what God has made clear is wrong be viewed as a “sincere Christian.”

            The Westboro clan, though sincere in their beliefs, are not sincerely Christian. Though they rightly recognize that homosexual behavior is immoral, they make a mockery of the Gospel (almost as bad as the pro-homosexual apostates within the church) by telling homosexuals that God hates them and wants them to burn in Hell. Every Christian has a duty to convey the Gospel (which is “the good news”) clearly, with its condemnation of sin and the avenue of pardon God has provided through Jesus Christ. The behavior of the Westboro rabble is pretty much as starkly wrong in one direction as the pro-homosexual crowd is in the other. The Westboro clan is steering homosexuals toward Hell (by giving them the false impression there is no HOPE for their redemption) just as surely as the pro-homosexual “Christians” are steering homosexuals toward Hell (by giving them the false impression that there is no NEED for redemption). And if God has made it clear that we are to try to point people toward Heaven, ignoring God’s teaching and pointing people toward Hell is likely to purchase a ticket there for yourself.

            BOTH groups ignore the clear teaching of God.

      • DCM7

        “Most likely not.”
        You could be right, depending on the business in question.
        Of course, we did see this happen a few years ago: When Chick-Fil-A simply catered a very standard, Christian marriage conference, there were protests and calls for boycotting from “gay” groups. (This was before the better-known protests with the “Kiss at Chick-Fil-A” stuff.)
        The point being that a lot of “gays” seem to be really determined to stamp out anything that even looks like disagreement with them. That implies some pretty deep insecurity, among other things.

  • retiredday

    “the homosexual agenda is the epitome of tyranny”

    I think that says it all. The politically correct “crime” (or should I say politically incorrect?) is that the customer was “wrong” to ask a pro-homosexual business to make a product with a pro-heterosexual message. They are unable to consider it equally “wrong” when the shoe is on the other foot. That’s because in their thinking they’re “right” and traditionalists are “wrong”, period. And we should not be allowed the freedom to disagree with them. So, their tyranny is justified in their own mind.

    This point is painfully obvious if you consider the relationship between printers and political parties. A Democrat would not insist that a Republican print his fliers. He would want to give his business to someone who shared his political views. Candidates for political office try to win over supporters, not subject them to their will. It’s only after they are elected they become tyrants (tee hee). I guess the gays feel they have a mandate that justifies their in-your-face, screw you attitude.