Do these two women look like they need more carbohydrates? Are they so starved for calories that their access to baked goods constitutes an emergency requiring government intervention? Alas, these two Democrats in Oregon took advantage of a law against “discrimination” that makes it mandatory for bakers to provide cakes for obese women who want to marry each other. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed:
The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out a lower court ruling against two Oregon bakers who had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The case involved Melissa and Aaron Klein of Oregon, who shut down their small bakery after a state agency fined them $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians. The agency said the Kleins had violated the state’s public accommodation law.
The Kleins, though, cited their Christian beliefs as the reason they would not provide services for the gay couple. The case followed another from last year, in which Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker.
The high court sent the Klein case back to a lower court “for further consideration in light of” their Colorado decision.
The Oregon case involved Rachel Bowman-Cryer, who went to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon, in January 2013 and inquired about a wedding cake. When Aaron Klein asked for the name of the groom, Bowman-Cryer said there wasn’t one. Klein told her the bakery does not bake cakes for gay weddings.
The Kleins were ordered to pay $135,000 to the couple for “discriminating against them in violation of a state public accommodations statute,” Fox News reported. The couple was forced to shut down their bakery.
This is the second time in a year the Supreme Court has ruled against the LGBT totalitarians. Last year, the court struck down a Colorado “civil rights” punishment against Masterpiece Cake Shop.
In the sidebar at AOSHQ, Oregon Muse comments:
I don’t understand why there never seems to be a judge in these cases that is willing to ask the obvious question “Hey, why can’t you just go to some other shop that will bake you your damn cake?”
This involves what I’ve called “The Compulsory Approval Doctrine.” LGBT radicals do not consider it sufficient that their basic rights of life, liberty and property should be protected, as the Constitution requires; they believe they are entitled to public approval of their sexual peculiarities, and that the force of government should be exerted to compel this approval: Dissent is “hate speech” and must be silenced.
Common courtesy once forbade the civilized person from making mention of what is called “sexuality,” and you can call me old-fashioned, but I lament how the Left’s identity-politics agenda has ruined our manners as much as (or arguably more than) it has ruined our morality. Homosexuality and transvestitism are not recent inventions, but public discussion of such behaviors was once more or less prohibited. Nowadays, everyone is expected to “come out” and publicly proclaim their carnal appetites, their fetishes and “gender” delusions, and we’re all expected to applaud them for their courage in “coming out.”
What have the Bowman-Cryers done to deserve our applause? You’re not allowed to ask such a question. Skepticism is also “hate speech,” and you’re likewise not permitted to speculate why these women are the way they are. To suggest that homosexuality can be explained from a perspective of developmental psychology — that deviant behavior might result from some causative factor in the circumstances of a person’s early childhood experience — contradicts the “born that way” narrative. We are therefore required to ignore any evidence that the homosexual’s preference might be, for example, a psychological reaction to family dysfunction. But consider this information:
They met when they were 19 and Laurel Bowman was on medical leave from the Navy. . . .
They had both grown up without a family. Rachel’s mom kicked her out at 14 for being a lesbian. Laurel had bounced from home to home after her father and brother died in a car accident when she was 3.
Laurel proposed after a year, but Rachel turned her down. Rachel hadn’t believed in marriage since her parents divorced when she was young. . . .
After her younger brother came out as gay, Rachel persuaded her mother to move with him to Portland.
What a completely random coincidence, said nobody ever.
Of course, there is no certain combination of circumstances that automatically lead to someone becoming homosexual, but as I’ve often said, there’s always a backstory. Back in the heyday of Freudian “talk therapy,” analysts often focused on their patients’ relationship with their parents as the best clues to the origin of their emotional problems, and there was extensive research about the correlations between certain disorders and various childhood factors. From this research emerged a number of observations about developmental patterns. For example, it was observed that the male homosexual was typically the son of a so-called “smother mother” household — “too much closeness to mother and a distant negative relationship with father.” We are no longer permitted to notice such patterns, apparently because any curiosity about the “why” of sexual deviance threatens the self-esteem of deviants.
So the fact that Rachel and her younger brother are both homosexuals, and that their parents divorced when they were young, is not something we can explore from the perspective of developmental psychology. Why? Because this might hurt their feelings. This quasi-therapeutic attitude of protecting the allegedly fragile self-esteem of Victims of Society is what justifies the Compulsory Approval Doctrine. We are supposed to believe that homosexuals are delicate creatures, emotional weaklings who are just one insult away from committing suicide, and therefore everyone must constantly applaud them for their courage.
Well, excuse me for not volunteering as an LGBT cheerleader, but it so happens that I know actual gay people, and in general they don’t seem to be suffering from a deficit of self-esteem. The real-life gay people I’ve actually known were not emotional basket cases, trapped in a slough of suicidal depression; quite the contrary, in fact. Exactly how this myth of gay victimhood became part of our cultural narrative is a subject worth studying, but my point is that this whole bake-me-a-cake business and the endless witch-hunt against “homophobia” is misguided, and contrary to First Amendment freedoms. If you have a right to say what you believe, how then can anyone compel you to say something you don’t believe? Certainly, in a free society, you cannot be forced to pretend that you approve of homosexuality if you don’t. As I say, old-fashioned courtesy would impose a polite silence in regard to such matters, but it’s difficult to remain silent while radical gay activists are attempting to shut down any business that does not endorse their agenda.
As for the Bowman-Cryers, I would suggest that they skip the cake altogether, and perhaps instead try a tasty salad with low-fat dressing.