Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close

Midlife Crashes

In some respects I disagree with what the shop owners did. Jesus wouldn't say not to associate with gays or make a cake for gays. He, himself treated prostitutes and other outcasts of society lovingly. I'm not sure how they run their business but they could make it pretty clear that they are a Christian owned business. I'd like to see what would happen if it was an LGBT bakery that this happened to though.

A husband-and-wife bakery shop team in Oregon were forced to close their shop doors and move to cheaper digs — their home — after gay-rights activists hounded them and drove away contract business because they refused for Christian reasons to bake for a same-sex wedding.

Aaron and Melissa Klein own and operate Sweet Cakes by Melissa. In the past few months, they’ve faced heated scrutiny — some in the form of physical threats — from those in the gay-rights crowd who decried their May refusal to bake for a lesbian couple who wanted to marry.

The Kleins cited their Christian beliefs of traditional marriage when they turned down that business gig, The Blaze reported. But the lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state, accusing the shop owners of discrimination.

Since, they’ve been hounded by vicious telephone calls and emails.

Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple’s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.

And yet another wrote: “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.”

The couple said on top of that, their vendors were “badgered and harassed” into stopping all associations with the bakery.

The Kleins say they’re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash

tommy2bad

Over the top reaction, a simple head side to side while casting eyes to heaven would get the message across.
Remember when some chemists refused to stock condoms here!
The shop was wrong by the way, if you open your doors to the public you don't get to chose who to serve based on how they behave outside your doors.

dharma200

To refuse to make someone a cake based on their sexuality is disgusting. Deserve everything thrown their way and a bit of icing on top.

Sigourney

Ah, the gay rights crowd.

Sulla Felix

If it's the same shop I'm thinking of, they were happy to supply cakes for a bunch of other seemingly transgressional celebrations. Divorce cakes, etc.

Manach

The owners made a principled decision to turn away business based on their moral values, with the end result being hounded into closing by a policitised PC crowd whose radicalised concept of individual worth does not included those who disagree with them.

Goodshape

Sigourney wrote: »

Ah, the gay rights crowd.

Heh, yeah. Stupid gay people wanting not to be discriminated against because of who they are. Pathetic!

Let them not eat cake, amirite?!

Hitchens

Mick Daly would be proud! :pac:

georgieporgy

hell hath no fury like a two women scorned

Corkfeen

Manach wrote: »

The owners made a principled decision to turn away business based on their moral values, with the end result being hounded into closing by a policitised PC crowd whose radicalised concept of individual worth does not included those who disagree with them.

So if they refused to make a cake for a black couple (or even an interracial couple) because it conflicted with their principles, that'd be fine?

Benny_Cake

I'm sorry that anyone is threatened with violence, that's indefensible.

Getting to the broader issue, this couple chose to break the law, and discriminated based on personal preference. Perhaps they should have thought about that before opening any business in the first place?

BrianCalgary

I am not sure if it is against the law or not. I think a business should have certain rights to turn down business if they find terms unacceptable. Was there another baker the couple could have turned to?

I am sorry but the gay lobby went right over the top here and I do know that the gay-lesbian activists do target Christian businesses in order to get the reaction from the business so they can then lodge their complaints against the business and get the business shut down.

There is possibly a bit of anti-Christian bigotry going on by the couple that should not be ignored nor tolerated.

If I don't like a particular businesses' practices I just go somewhere else.

JimiTime

Its not unique. There are a lot of people who run scared of gay activists. Now more than ever due to their ever growing power. To even question, the very questionable "facts" they trot out can be met with serious verbal assault and accusation. They tried to do it to 'Chick fil et' because they donated money to a cause that fought for marriage not to be redefined and for traditional family values. However, as a chain, Chick Fil Et had the resources to cope with the smear campaign.

It was such tactics that was a big part in the APA removing homosexuality from their list of mental disorders too.

Article about it here:
http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture/18585-the-gay-bullies-strike-again

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm sorry that anyone is threatened with violence, that's indefensible.

Getting to the broader issue, this couple chose to break the law, and discriminated based on personal preference. Perhaps they should have thought about that before opening any business in the first place?

They didn't break the law, and were honest in their refusal. They could have said they couldn't do it for a multitude of reasons, but came out straight and said they weren't comfortable about doing a cake for a gay wedding. The activists then threatened them, and targeted all the businesses that they worked with threatening them if they continued to work with the bakery. Its inexcusable. By all means tell other businesses if you want, but to instigate a campaign of threat, in order to get the bakery closed. Let people form their own stance on it. This is part of the absolute intolerance afoot in LGBT activism. People need to open their eyes and see whats going on. These activists are the intolerant hateful ones, who cannot deal with the fact that some people are of the opinion that to have sex with members of the same sex is morally an issue.

Here is the next thing coming down the line too:
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.ie/2013/08/millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force.html

sheikhnguyen

Manach wrote: »

The owners made a principled decision to turn away business based on their moral values, with the end result being hounded into closing by a policitised PC crowd whose radicalised concept of individual worth does not included those who disagree with them.

Claptrap. Refusing someone service because they are gay is not principled or moral, it is bigotry. If the couple were Jewish or inter racial they would be condemned equally vehemently and rightly so.

Christians can't keep using their "morality" as an excuse to actively discriminate, denigrate and condemn others. If Christians disagree with same sex marriage then they should not get married to a person of the same sex. Nobody is forcing Christians to marry a person of the same sex so Christians should stop trying to prevent others from doing what they want. Live and let live.

Since this article was lifted from the Blaze, a website owned by Glenn Beck I doubt the reporting in it is anywhere approaching the truth anyway.

ThirdMan

Midlife Crashes wrote: »

Jesus wouldn't say not to associate with gays or make a cake for gays. He, himself treated prostitutes and other outcasts of society lovingly.

Because 'prostitutes', 'other outcasts of society' and gay people are all comparable?

<SNIP>
Mod: Personal abuse is not welcome here.

hinault

JimiTime wrote: »

They didn't break the law, and were honest in their refusal. They could have said they couldn't do it for a multitude of reasons, but came out straight and said they weren't comfortable about doing a cake for a gay wedding. The activists then threatened them, and targeted all the businesses that they worked with threatening them if they continued to work with the bakery. Its inexcusable. By all means tell other businesses if you want, but to instigate a campaign of threat, in order to get the bakery closed. Let people form their own stance on it. This is part of the absolute intolerance afoot in LGBT activism. People need to open their eyes and see whats going on. These activists are the intolerant hateful ones, who cannot deal with the fact that some people are of the opinion that to have sex with members of the same sex is morally an issue.

Here is the next thing coming down the line too:
http://watchmanafrica.blogspot.ie/2013/08/millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force.html

You'll find that Liberals are probably more intolerant than most.

sheikhnguyen

hinault wrote: »

You'll find that Liberals are probably more intolerant than most.

You are dead right liberals are being intolerant of Christians' intolerance. What monsters they are for not allowing Christians to hate on gay people anymore.

Peregrinus

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

You are dead right liberals are being intolerant of Christians' intolerance. What monsters they are for not allowing Christians to hate on gay people anymore.

But, in fairness, there is a distinction between displaying intolerance by not baking someone a cake, even when offered money to do so, and displaying intolerance by ringing someone up and saying that you hope he is raped and shot, and that his children get sick.

I don't either sympathise with or defend the stance of the bakers here, but the fact that they have displayed intolerance doesn't seem to negate the fact that they have also been the victims of what looks, from the report quoted, to have been rather more serious intolerance. And I think if we try to argue that liberal intolerance is justifiable if it's directed at Christian intolerance, that's problematic too; it looks like intolerance all on it's own.

sheikhnguyen

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, in fairness, there is a distinction between displaying intolerance by not baking someone a cake, even when offered money to do so, and displaying intolerance by ringing someone up and saying that you hope he is raped and shot, and that his children get sick.

I don't either sympathise with or defend the stance of the bakers here, but the fact that they have displayed intolerance doesn't seem to negate the fact that they have also been the victims of what looks, from the report quoted, to have been rather more serious intolerance. And I think if we try to argue that liberal intolerance is justifiable if it's directed at Christian intolerance, that's problematic too; it looks like intolerance all on it's own.

Intolerance should not be tolerated by anyone against anyone. However
I am doubtful the phone calls were ever made. The report is from Glenn Beck's "news" website afterall......

ArseBurger

JimiTime wrote: »

They didn't break the law, and were honest in their refusal. They could have said they couldn't do it for a multitude of reasons, but came out straight and said they weren't comfortable about doing a cake for a gay wedding.

They discriminated against the couple based upon their sexual preference. So yeah, they broke the law.

Tipsy McSwagger

The ironic thing is Jesus was probably a homosexual.

Peregrinus

sheikhnguyen wrote: »

Intolerance should not be tolerated by anyone against anyone. However
I am doubtful the phone calls were ever made. The report is from Glenn Beck's "news" website afterall......

Oh, your suspicion may well be correct. But your earlier stance (in post #18) looked to me more like it was defending the alleged behaviour rather than questioning whether it had ever occurred.

sheikhnguyen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, your suspicion may well be correct. But your earlier stance (in post #18) looked to me more like it was defending the alleged behaviour rather than questioning whether it had ever occurred.

Not at all, I was referring to the nonsense spouted above about liberals being the ones who are intolerant. I don't condone violence or intimidation of anyone.
I am extremely tired of hearing people say that liberals are intolerant because we don't respect their "profoundly held" religious beliefs to hate gay people for being themselves.
It is astonishing that conservatives and christians whine about people being intolerant of their beliefs when those very same beliefs are intolerant and bigoted.

Peregrinus

JimiTime wrote: »

They didn't break the law, and were honest in their refusal . . .

ArseBurger wrote: »

They discriminated against the couple based upon their sexual preference. So yeah, they broke the law.

The jury's out, so to speak. The offended couple filed a complaint with the state Attorney-General, who passed it to the Bureau of Labor and Industry's Civil Rights Division, who commenced an investigation, which is apparently ongoing.

Possible outcomes are:
- A finding that the claim is unsubstantiated, in which case no further action is taken.
- A finding that it is substantiated, in which case the parties are encouraged to try to negotiate a settlement.
- A finding that the claim is unsubstantiated, followed by failure to achieve (and sometimes failure to attempt) a settlement, followed by prosecution, which may result in either conviction or acquittal.

The goal of the process is not to close down offending businesses, but to ensure that members of the protected class can access goods and services without discrimination. Relatively few cases ever come to prosecution. A common negotiated settlement is an apology to the person who has been discrminated against, an offer to provide goods and services as requested and (sometimes) a donation to a relevant charity, e.g. an LBGT charity. The offer to provide the goods and services originally sought is commonly declined.

Benny_Cake

My earlier post was a little ill-tempered in retrospect. It was my understanding that the law was broken here, but, as Peregrinus said, the jury is still out. Fair point.

I think that what irritated me most about this case is the sense of entitlement. Look, if you're going to run a business that deals with the general public, then you'll have to deal with people whom you don't like. We're all sinners, after all. The point has already been made, but it bears repeating: What if this was an interracial couple? It was only just over a decade ago that Bob Jones University lifted their ban in interracial dating, a ban they had been happy to defend on religous grounds. Open the door for one form of discrimination and others will follow.

None of this defends any bigotry, intolerance, or threats of violence shown to the bakery owners though. Personally, if someone refused to bake me a cake based on some aspect of who I was, my reaction would be to walk out, shake the dust from my feet, and never go near the place again. The thought of going to a solicitor's office wouldn't occur to me.

Peregrinus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

My earlier post was a little ill-tempered in retrospect. It was my understanding that the law was broken here, but, as Peregrinus said, the jury is still out. Fair point.

I think that what irritated me most about this case is the sense of entitlement. Look, if you're going to run a business that deals with the general public, then you'll have to deal with people whom you don't like. We're all sinners, after all. The point has already been made, but it bears repeating: What if this was an interracial couple? It was only just over a decade ago that Bob Jones University lifted their ban in interracial dating, a ban they had been happy to defend on religous grounds. Open the door for one form of discrimination and others will follow.

None of this defends any bigotry, intolerance, or threats of violence shown to the bakery owners though. Personally, if someone refused to bake me a cake based on some aspect of who I was, my reaction would be to walk out, shake the dust from my feet, and never go near the place again. The thought of going to a solicitor's office wouldn't occur to me.

Yes, but if the reason they had refused to bake you a cake was, e.g., because you were black, would your reaction be any different?

As a middle-class, middle-aged, heterosexual white male from a first-world country, I'm pretty well set. Western society is pretty much set up to cater to people like me, to be attentive to my needs, to be open to my influence. And if this shop won't sell me a cake, much the easiest recourse for me is to go down the road to that shop, which certainly will.

But if I belong to a group historically victimised, exluded and marginalised by prejudice, their refusal to sell me a cake raised much bigger issues than simply my lack of immediate cake. It's part of a pattern of behaviour which has had, and continues to have, serious consequences for the community to which I belong. And I think I'm entitled to a stronger emotional reaction, and its understandable that I would want to take more action than simply removing my custom to another shop.

And I think gays are very much in that position. Even if we are talking about a gay couple who are middle-class, members of the dominant race, culture, etc, who live in a place where there is a substantial degree of social acceptance and approbation for their sexual orientiation and they'll have no difficulty finding alternative sources of cake, they'll be very conscious that they didn't achieve that degree of social acceptance
by accident; their community had to work for it and fight for it, and in many places not that far removed gays still have not acheived this. And therefore the refusal of cake had a signficance beyond simply the need to find another cake shop; it points to a much bigger issue, and a stand still needs to be taken.

If a black person was refused service, we would not say that they ought simply to go and find another cake shop, would we? And we wouldn't say that even if the black person concerned happened to be wealthy, well-connected, powerful and generally well-set-up in life?

Benny_Cake

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but if the reason they had refused to bake you a cake was, e.g., because you were black, would your reaction be any different?

....

If a black person was refused service, we would not say that they ought simply to go and find another cake shop, would we? And we wouldn't say that even if the black person concerned happened to be wealthy, well-connected, powerful and generally well-set-up in life?

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I too am from a privileged background (white heterosexual male in his 30s with a dependable job), so I really don't know what it is like on an emotional level to be the subject of discrimination. Walking away would probably be my gut instinct, but is it the right thing to do? Probably not. People should have every right to vindicate their rights through the courts if they feel they are infringed.

Your last paragraph reminded me of the recent case involving Oprah Winfrey. Apparently she was refused service in a Swiss shop on the grounds that the sales assistant judged from her skin colour that she'd be unable to afford to shop there. Much was made of the fact that the bag she was attempting to buy cost $30000. The point is surely that discrimination is discrimination even if it's directed at someone who turns out to be insanely wealthy and willing to spend an obscene amount of money on an accessory.

crazygeryy

jesus no wonder the world is so ****ed up.
it's a cake for christs sake.just make it take the money and move on.

Goodshape

Everyone here defending the shop's right to refuse service, I assume you're OK with this sign too:



Otherwise, please, explain to me the difference.

Ash.J.Williams

Manach wrote: »

The owners made a principled decision to turn away business based on their moral values, with the end result being hounded into closing by a policitised PC crowd whose radicalised concept of individual worth does not included those who disagree with them.

The reaction was over the top but your post is up there with it. You give the impression it's ok to discriminate if you feel you have the moral "principled" high ground.

Geomy

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The reaction was over the top but your post is up there with it. You give the impression it's ok to discriminate if you feel you have the moral "principled" high ground.

I think if you have a conscience and empathy, you wouldn't close the door in anyone's face.

Being Christian isn't about turning anyone away, its about sharing and caring, I really don't understand all these contradictory Christian ways. ..

Ash.J.Williams

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The ironic thing is Jesus was probably a homosexual.

Jesus didn't discriminate between males and females!

lmaopml

I think it boils down to a right to refuse service - if that right should exist, and under what circumstances it should.

My own personal feelings would be that it should exist, and business owners should be able to exercise discretion. I also think that individuals to a certain extent should be able to exercise their right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

I don't think either side came off very well in this particular case - As a Catholic, I think people deserve to be fed one way or the other and a cake comes under this category don't care what the cake was for....

Possibly the case is more nuanced than this however, as most are and the courts will go through the motions and decide if the refusal was legit and why...


At face value however, I think the business owners should pick their battles a little better. I would tend to draw the line at forcing a Christian to do something that they consider immoral like for instance to marry a gay couple as the real battle ground, or indeed selling contraception as it goes against a fundamental tenet of their faith, and comes under a right to exercise religious freedom (as opposed to merely a right to worship, two distinct things ) - Feeding people, not so much....

pa4

The gay rights activists really done themselves justice here, destroying the couples business and getting harassed with vicious calls and emails.

I have nothing against these people and think the bakers should have just made the cake, not like it would have been a sin or anything, but the activists have really put themselves in the wrong too here by going OTT. Problem is it was probably just a small minority of these activists that have made the rest look bad.

lmaopml

pa4 wrote: »

The gay rights activists really done themselves justice here, destroying the couples business and getting harassed with vicious calls and emails.

I have nothing against these people and think the bakers should have just made the cake, not like it would have been a sin or anything, but the activists have really put themselves in the wrong too here by going OTT. Problem is it was probably just a small minority of these activists that have made the rest look bad.

Indeed, it's like everything - There are people who are Christian and identify as Gay who would be shocked at this behaviour from a minority of the LGBT community - There are Christians who would be shocked too that a cake could cause such a fuss...

Corkfeen

pa4 wrote: »

The gay rights activists really done themselves justice here, destroying the couples business and getting harassed with vicious calls and emails.

I have nothing against these people and think the bakers should have just made the cake, not like it would have been a sin or anything, but the activists have really put themselves in the wrong too here by going OTT. Problem is it was probably just a small minority of these activists that have made the rest look bad.

I don't approve of violence or threats. However I have no issue with them shutting down or business being driven away because of them refusing to serve people of their sexuality. They did break the law through discrimination. I'd have as much of an issue with a business that refuse to serve people because of their race or religion. I'd suspect many posters that support what this business has done would condemn them if they were refusing Christian customers.

Manach

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The reaction was over the top but your post is up there with it. You give the impression it's ok to discriminate if you feel you have the moral "principled" high ground.

So pardon me while I pretend to care on your opinion.
The state in in modern times has extended its legal powers and then by implication imposing a moral stance on whom a business may do business with. Businesses exist as ententes outside the state social charter and exist to make profit - any discriminatory policies they they peruse will by their nature effect their own profit margin - that should be the implicit control mechanism and not being dictated to by PC mobs. By allowing such state interference in the private sector it makes a mockery of the historical concept of toleration, the ability to hold non-mainstream and popular opinion as per JS Mills.

fatmammycat

You know, there's a very strong possibility their business shut because they weren't very good business people, and it's easier to blame the 'gays' for it. People vote with their feet, and they support businesses with their wallets, if this bakery failed, I imagine the owners and their business model had a LOT more to do with it that anything else.

hinault

Why didn't the homosexuals simply go to another baker without orchestrating the destruction of this business?

Benny_Cake

hinault wrote: »

Why didn't the homosexuals simply go to another baker without orchestrating the destruction of this business?

If the couples rights under the law were being infringed, they were entitled to take a case. How is this any different to a restaurant which refuses to serve someone based on skin colour?

As for "orchestrating the destruction of this business", I have no idea why the business closed down but it's unlikely that it's the result of some shadowy conspiracy. They must have received a lot of bad publicity out of this though.

Ash.J.Williams

hinault wrote: »

Why didn't the homosexuals simply go to another baker without orchestrating the destruction of this business?

i'm sure they did in the end...however what sort of a world would we live in if we let discrimination get the better of people?
In the church fair enough, you don't want them it's your rules...however in the real world you must obey the law.

hinault

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i'm sure they did in the end...however what sort of a world would we live in if we let discrimination get the better of people?
In the church fair enough, you don't want them it's your rules...however in the real world you must obey the law.

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

Ash.J.Williams

hinault wrote: »

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

There is a possibility the customer wouldn't notice and take the cheaper cake and eat it, however this is the sort of practice that travellers experience regularly and yes it would be discrimination of course it is. Not all gay people are sexually active by the way, and is it all foreplay the church disagree with or just anal penetration?

Corkfeen

hinault wrote: »

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

Yes, yes it would be. I take it you'd be fine with doing the exact same with a Christian because a business doesn't agree with their religious persuasion. :rolleyes: You don't have a right to discriminate, that's a simple fact. A religious body or institute is legally allowed to discriminate on certain grounds which I have no problem with. A business is not a religious body.

Ash.J.Williams

Manach wrote: »

So pardon me while I pretend to care on your opinion.
The state in in modern times has extended its legal powers and then by implication imposing a moral stance on whom a business may do business with. Businesses exist as ententes outside the state social charter and exist to make profit - any discriminatory policies they they peruse will by their nature effect their own profit margin - that should be the implicit control mechanism and not being dictated to by PC mobs. By allowing such state interference in the private sector it makes a mockery of the historical concept of toleration, the ability to hold non-mainstream and popular opinion as per JS Mills.

if we were talking "PC" then fair enough ....however we are talking about basic human rights.

Benny_Cake

hinault wrote: »

There is no discrimination in the Church with regard to homosexuals.
What the Church objects to is the sexual behaviour of homosexuals.

Let's assume for a moment that the confectioner has an objection to homosexuality. Or has an objection to unmarried heterosexuals living together, just to broaden the discussion.

If either group approached the confectioner and the confectioner decided to exercise his right to object to their lifestyle by charging an extortionate price for a cake so as to ensure that they take their business elsewhere, would this too be discrimination?

It would almost certainly breach national and EU pricing legislation. An Internet cafe in Dublin got done for something similar about 10 years ago, they'd displayed one price in Chinese and another in English. Perhaps the logical step to take in such a case would be to simply not cater for any weddings at all.

hinault

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

There is a possibility the customer wouldn't notice and take the cheaper cake and eat it, however this is the sort of practice that travellers experience regularly and yes it would be discrimination of course it is

Everyone is free to choose who they wish to trade with.

No one is obliged to trade with travellers, or homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Ash.J.Williams

hinault wrote: »

Everyone is free to choose who they wish to trade with.

No one is obliged to trade with travellers, or homosexuals or heterosexuals.

you are actually

Benny_Cake

hinault wrote: »

Everyone is free to choose who they wish to trade with.

No one is obliged to trade with travellers, or homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Actually, in Ireland, sexual orientation and membership of the Traveller community are both grounds under which discrimination is unlawful.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_authority.html

hinault

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It would almost certainly breach national and EU pricing legislation. An Internet cafe in Dublin got done for something similar about 10 years ago, they'd displayed one price in Chinese and another in English. Perhaps the logical step to take in such a case would be to simply not cater for any weddings at all.

There are many ways in which a business can refuse to trade with a particular party without disclosing their bias.

Those who object to homosexuality just have to be a bit smarter - as smart as the radical homosexual lobby -as to how they go about it.