I was contacted by an organization that wanted me to write a weekly column for them about job hunting for Millennials. This is exactly what I do, so I listened to what they wanted. They wouldn't tell me who was funding the website without signing a non-disclosure agreement. I signed.

Turns out it was a conservative PAC and they wouldn't let me have final say on any editing, so I turned them down. Didn't want my name on something that they could edit for their own purposes. I wished them the best of luck finding someone and they went on their way.

What if it had been a PAC supporting gay marriage? Would I now be in deep financial trouble as they attempted to destroy me? FWIW, I don't write for anyone I haven't known for years without the ability to accept or reject edits. (I'm pretty easy going so when an editor says, "I think it's better like this," 99 percent of the time I say okay.)

That's my problem with all of this. Creative work requires that the creative person have the ability to say no.

If I were gay and getting married, I'd simply ask the bakery beforehand if they have any moral objection to baking the cake. If they did I'd thank them for their honesty, wish them well, and take my business elsewhere. It's called mutual respectability and having the understanding that not everyone is going to agree with what you do. As long as they were reasonable and civil about it (most people would be) I wouldn't run their business through the mud online or in the media, let alone sue them. Schadenfreude gets you nowhere.

What if someone wants to have a bakery that specializes exclusively in gay weddings? Wouldn't it be the same thing if they don't bake for straight weddings? The reason is different but the end result is the same. I think someone should have the right to take that path in their business if they choose to.

You can believe in gay rights (I certainly do), but businesses and religions have rights as well. A little bit of humanistic understanding goes much further than demanding everyone change to accommodate you.

It's free money. Well, for some value of "free".

More than a few of these aggrieved couples shop around for the baker that says "no". Hey, it is just like an ATM...

I'm just waiting for the day when it is a Muslim baker...

I read something a few days ago that said the lesbian couple were friends with the bakery owners and that's why they asked them to bake their cake. They already knew they were against gay marriage before asking for the cake. They probably assumed their friendship would trump their beliefs and got all butt hurt when they were turned down anyway. Then they set out on a mission to destroy them.

You know the SSM issue is pretty much over when people are arguing about cake.

Gay Wedding Cake is the Freedom Fries of 2015.

It gets me why people don't understand that the government's ability to compel people to do things that they don't want to do should be extremely, incredibly limited. Actually, I know why: those people all think that being on the "right side" of an issue protects them. But political correctness has a way of turning on a dime, and if you don't support the rights of others just because their views differ from yours, you are likely to eventually reap the whirlwing you have sown. Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, etc.

Cousin Dave: reap the whirlwing you have sown

Hosea 8:7

After having discussed this issue with two friends who are lawyers, they gave me some interesting insights into the issue. First, in Oregon, homosexuals are a protected class. You could no more refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding than you could a black couple's wedding...or an interracial couple's wedding, for that matter.

However, another sees a fundamental difference in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and refusing service to gays altogether. He maintains that this bakery should only be charged if they refused any and all services to gay people. However, he insists they have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

(Of course, there might be a problem with this reasoning if the only service this bakery offered was wedding cakes, but what bakery does only wedding cakes and nothing else?)

I should suggest to him that he file an amicus curiae the next time one of these cases comes up.

I dream of the day when the baker is a muslim, and the couple involved gets a headache because they can't decide which aggrieved group has higher priority.

Here's a hint, using the govt. to MAKE somebody do something in exception to their religion, doesn't make them accept your lifestyle.

It makes them hate you more.

Asking for a BLT at a halal restaurant may well be met with hostility, because they KNOW you are doing that apurpose.

Now, this may all be mooted, if it turns out that SCOTUS rules that the marriages go forward based on sexual discrimination... at that point most laws align, I believe.

But that isn't going to make anyone accept SSM.

Convincing someone of the right of something is wholly different than forcing them to do something. Like most americans... the more you force them, the more stubborn they get.

How do you convince them? Most public discourse has descended into one of Dante's circles, where things are always diametrically opposed.

If you don't like something, you MUST hate it.
If you don't accept something, you must be agin' it.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THE CORRECT THING... YOU MUST BE EVIL!!11!!!111

So, how do you say it...
"I'm not asking you to bless my marriage, I'm asking you to bake me one of your incredibly delicious creations, so me and a buncha people I know can eat it."
See? That works no matter what religion or why you are doing this, because that ISN'T the question.

Can you force something through rule of LAW? Potentially. But ask yourself what import that is.

What are you trying to prove? There may well be an over-riding reason to force all this... but are you going to let that take precedence over you wedding?
Will you begin your walk of life with a person, leaving a path of destruction, and how long do you think it will last?

The answer on both sides is usually to KNOCK on the door, not try to break it down.
I garundamntee you try and break down my door, and I'll barricade...

And now a Satanist in Missouri says she's going to challenge her state's 72-hour waiting period before an abortion because it violates her sincerely held religious beliefs. Dunno if she'll actually do it or if it's just a publicity stunt, but here you go:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/missouri-satanist-72-hour-waiting-period-for-abortions-violates-my-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs/

So gay donuts are fine but gay cake isn't? It's disinegenious to say "I'm not refusing gay people service in my shop - but my religion keeps me from allowing you access to all the services I provide to non-gay customers".

There's a very big difference between the first point about being hired to write FOR someone, as that has the implication of further use beyond a personal service. I think there may be creative commons issues at okay as well, but it's really not a fair comparison to "cake".

We are taking "sincerely held religious beliefs" to new and unheard of levels in attempts to legitimize discrimination. I've said it before - if you want to run a business but can't stomach the idea of having to serve ALL customers, operate as a private club. The Cake Club will bake cakes for any of our Members. You can decide who gets membership in you private cake club. Otherwise stay out of business and don't pretend the world owes you something for being butthurt over following public accommodation laws...

There should be no public accountability laws, forcing someone to do work they don't want to or have a moral objection to is wrong, it is akin to slavery.

Some correction and clarification of facts.

First it was not a judge elected by the people or appointed by the legislature. It was an administrative law judge hired by the Labor Commissioner. There was no jury. The Labor Commissioner can ratify, modify or reject the decision. The decision can be apealed to circuit court. As a practical matter in Oregon the outcome in a Circuit Court would have been similar.

Second, my recollection is that at the time the "crime" occurred the state of Oregon did not legally recognize same sex marriage.

"But how about the lesbian couple? They went to considerable effort to make trouble for the bakery -- and the effort succeeded. It was driven out of business. Could that not be described as an expression of hate?"

Yes, it is hate what they did to the bakery owners. I cannot think of any better word to describe such a relentless "make them pay" attitude.

Let's turn the tables and have a socially conservative group demand that someone from, oh, I don't know, maybe the GMHC (Gay Men's Health Crisis) in New York come and give a talk to the youth of their group. And demand that the speaker from GMHC only talk about "abstinence" as the only acceptable sex education and also demand that the speaker from GMHC talk about the "evils" of gay sex.

How much would some folks claim the moral high ground then?

A few comments.

First, the idea that baking a cake counts as endorsement or participation is patently ridiculous. When was the last time you thought the baker who made you the cake for your child's 12th birthday was part of the birthday celebrations? Let me take a wild guess - it never crossed your mind. If we are willing to accept that providing cakes and pastries count as endorsements - do Christian bakers endorse Halloween? Funnily enough, the vast majority of these Christian bakers admitted in court that they made Halloween cakes - are they endorsing witchcraft or paganism?

Second, this is not a case of freedom of speech. These Christian bakers are free to proclaim as loudly as they want that they are against gay marriage. They can take out ads in the newspapers to that regard. They can even put a big ad in front of their shop highlighting their work fighting against marriage equality. No one's stopping them. But as a society, we have compelling interests in making sure that businesses do not arbitrarily deny service. If a Christian baker can deny wedding cakes to gay couples, why can't a real estate agent deny his services to gay couples looking for house?
LGBT people have the right to conduct commerce and access services on an equal basis to all other citizens without fear of humiliation, intimidation or discrimination.

Third, there are so many practical solutions to this that Christian bakers don't take: (1) The bakery could have asked staff members who don't have problems with gay marriage to make the cake. (2) The Christian bakers can simply get out of the wedding cake business and only make birthday cakes or pastries. Just as doctors who disagree with abortions don't choose to be gynaecologists, and climate-change skeptics don't choose to join green non-profits. There is no constitutional right to a career. You may disagree with abortion, and are free to state that disagreement loudly - but you do not have a constitutional right to be a gynaecologist free from the determinations a democratic legislature has made. (3) The Christian bakery can sub-contract out the cake if it so disturbs them. Instead of causing gay couples embarassment, they can simply redirect the cost of the purchase to another baker to finish the commission, but deliver the cake themselves.

Charles, that is where your arguments go off the rails. Cake isn't speech. Giving a talk at an event obviously is speech. No one is forcing Christians in churches to accept gay marriage. Christians are free to state their disagreements loudly, even obnoxiously in all types of public forums. No one is jailed. No one is fined. No one is penalized. Respect is a different matter. Christians don't have a right to respect. If society begins to think of Christians as bigots and intolerant people, the only recourse is for Christians to try and persuade them otherwise through their arguments or behavior. Christians don't have a right to be respected or have the statements accepted without disagreement.

The other poster who speaks about asking for non-halal food at a Muslim restaurant gets it completely wrong too. The analogy fails, because the Muslim baker doesn't have to serve non-halal food. But whatever types of food that it does serve, it must serve all customers equally. It can choose not to serve pork sandwiches, but if it chooses to provide them, it can't decide that only straight couples can buy them, but gay couples cannot. Similarly, the Christian bakers are free to get out of the wedding cake business entirely: by not providing wedding cakes to both straight and gay couples, it does not run afoul of the anti-discrimination laws. They can continue to make birthday cakes or pastries or lousy hot dog buns.