Satanic Temple: If Supreme Court Rules Against LGBTs, We’ll Make Anti-Gay Bakers Make Satan Wedding Cakes

Via press release from the Satanic Temple:

This fall, the United States Supreme Court will hear a case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. The argument has been contextualized as a matter of Free Speech versus Civil Rights. However, because sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (whereas race and religion are), there is a good chance that the right to discriminate against gay couples will be affirmed as a constitutional liberty.

Given the political persuasion of the majority of Supreme Court Justices, this outcome is even more likely. For this reason, The Satanic Temple (TST) has announced a plan for those who feel alienated or oppressed by the privileged status that religion holds over sexual orientation: Request your homophobic baker make a cake for Satan.

TST spokesperson, Lucien Greaves, explains: “Our organization has received a lot of concerned messages from people who are upset by the prospect of an environment in which the LGBTQ community are openly and legally treated as second class citizens. The laws of the United States require that no one may discriminate by way of refusal of service against an evangelical theocrat for their religious beliefs, but the evangelical theocrat may discriminate against LGBTQ people because of who they are.

“Because religion is a protected class, a baker may refuse service to LGBTQ people, but they may not refuse service based upon someone’s religion. If they aren’t willing to make a cake for same-sex unions, let’s have them make a cake to honor Satan instead.”

The Satanic Temple proclaims that if the right to discriminate against the LGBTQ community is codified into law by the Supreme Court, aggrieved parties who face discrimination should contact them. “If you can’t get a cake for your same-sex union,” Greaves said, “we’ll host a party in your honor at The Satanic Temple headquarters in Salem and order a cake that praises Satan from your offending discriminatory ‘religious liberty’ enthusiast.”

As you probably know, the Satanic Temple does not actually believe that Satan exists. They are essentially (and rather effectively) an atheist trolling outfit.

  • Do Something Nice


  • another_steve

    Sometimes I feel as if I’m married to Satan.

    Just sayin’.

    • vorpal 😼

      My husband sends his enthusiastic agreement.

      • another_steve

        Tell him I said hi.

        Mine is big and beautiful and quite gentle with me, a fey piece of shit.

        So it’s all good.

    • Duh-David

      You’re married to my ex- ?

    • Joe in PA

      You married your cat? Huh.

    • Todd20036

      I relate more to Priapus, personally.

      • another_steve

        You would, you slut.

        You continually try to out-slut me, Todd. Fail. I was born and raised in NYC and came of age in the years immediately following Stonewall. I was cute and hot to trot.

        You cannot out-slut me, gurl. I’ve earned a black belt when it comes to that stuff.

    • ColdCountry

      Is that good or bad? (Around here, you can’t really tell. Which is just one reason I love this place.)

      • another_steve

        I feel a Mae West coming on, but I’ll resist.

        Sweet and sour, honey.

        I like my men sweet and sour.

  • Tawreos

    Sometimes you can’t help but love The Satanic Temple.

    • Butch

      I’m thinking if they take donations (I don’t know if the organization does) it’s time to send one that way.

      • dagobarbz, fine Italian shoes

        They do. They take donations for their legal fund.

      • ColdCountry

        They do. They are also fighting for women’s right to abortion access on religious grounds.

        • clay

          As do some Reform Rabbis.

        • Jason R Tibbetts

          It would be hilarious if they were fighting for abortions to be held LITERALLY on religious grounds. 😀

    • Frostbite

      That’s why I am a card carrying member!

      • Phaius

        I haven’t gotten my card yet, but I am a member too!

        • LyndaBSchmitz

          Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleHomeMasterCashJobsOpportunity/simple/work ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!ra195l..,……

    • GeneInSJ

      I love them!

    • DonnaLee

      I’ve loved everything that they’ve done recently. They’ve taken religious freedom and run with it for all the best causes.

    • SockMikey

      Devil’s Food Cake….

      7 Layers?

      • Steven Tausch

        There are 9 layers to Hell.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    What makes it REALLY Satanic is the high fructose corn syrup.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Hey, I like to get the most fructose for my money!

  • Uncle Mark

    OMG…I told you red velvet cake was EVIL !! It’s sinfully delicious.

    • Butch

      “Devil’s Food.” It’s why Duncan Hines is secretly a satanist.

      • Bert_Bauer

        He and Betty Crocker had a love child – Sara Lee.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    A moment on the lips, an eternity in Hades….

    • Todd20036

      WORTH IT!

      • clay

        “the most beautiful chocolate cake”

  • Goodboy

    They’re assuming the Bakers even care. If their “faith” was ever a problem they’d be busy refusing every other person coming through their door.

    God had nothing to say about SSM but he sure did with things like Divorse.

    • Xuuths

      And hypocrisy.

    • Phaius

      I recommend reading what The Satanic Temple has said about it. Religion is a protected class, which is why they can’t refuse making a cake in honor of Satan for The Satanic Temple and neither can they refuse for any other religion. LGBTQ folks don’t have those protections yet.

  • Uncle Mark

    Wouldn’t devil’s food cake be against these Christianistas’ religion anyway?

  • Lumpy Gaga

    “Can we get a facepic on top, of the virgin child we intend to deflower at the ceremony?? No? Okay, just ‘Best Wishes’, I guess.”

    • Tawreos

      Will they put a picture of the baby that was the main course on it?

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Tricky, unless you go with frozen babies. I prefer fresh.

        • doninkansas

          I just hope they remember that babies, like veal, must be cooked very hot and quickly or very low and slow.

  • abqdan

    Makes me want to be a Satan worshipper. This could throw up an interesting problem – what is a religion in the terms of ‘protected class’ and does it have to have IRS status to be a religion? 🙂

    • clay

      part two– does NOT have to have IRS tax-exempt status to be legally recognized as a religion or religious group (seeking tax-exempt status would be an actual violation of some old-order, radically pacifist groups).

  • Ninja0980

    I love me some Devil’s food cake.

  • PickyPecker
  • Tawreos

    All this talk of cake is making me want some damn cake

    • clay

      I’m googling images of “satanic cake” in lieu of dessert.

  • PickyPecker
    • Tawreos

      I know what my friends and I are doing the next time an evangelist comes to town.

  • lizdhm

    SCOTUS won’t be ruling on federal law, they’ll be ruling on state law. LGBT protections at the state level have already passed constitutional muster and Kennedy has essentially never ruled against gay rights.

  • PickyPecker
  • Ham

    Just like Satan to get me all conflicted!

  • Ernest Endevor

    I am an ordained priest in the Satanic Temple. Which makes sense since I’m married to Satan.

    • Treant

      Is he eternally horny?

      • Ernest Endevor

        When he isn’t criticizing my personal choices, yes.

        • Treant

          Oh, dear. Have you considered couples counseling, because that sounds like it might be just a little co-dependent?

          • Ernest Endevor

            Only time we tried it he burst into flames. And he knows I hate it when he does that.

  • PickyPecker
    • jmax

      $6.99? You still gotta use money in Hell?

      • David Walker

        Well, yeah, but $6.99 is ahelluva good price. It’s considerably less of a burden than what one has to go through in heaven. If you’ve never heard it, listen to a minute of any video of “Our god is an awesome god.” A minute should do it. Then imagine a live and endless performance of it. I can cough up the $6.99.

        • jmax

          I wonder why they use U.S. dollars in Hell?

          • David Walker

            Because plastic credit cards melt?

      • Bad Tom

        WUT? Not $6.66?
        Satan is slipping.

        • doninkansas


    • Phillip in L.A.

      I’ll take the one on the right please. (Note to self: Remember to order fireproof suit soon.)

    • Sheila She

      > millenial sexfest
      lololololoololol im there

  • JWC

    Then Gay people lets make our movement a f religious order , More protection under the laws and no taxes

    • Michael R

      Call it ” The Gay Agenda ” just to be snarky

      • blackstar

        if I recruit people can I get a free toaster ?

        • clay

          You mean you haven’t, already?

        • Prost Seattle

          Is that what the kids are calling poppers these days?

    • m_lp_ql_m

      “Religious”? Sure. But “order”? Since when have multiple gay guys been able to agree on anything?

      • JWC

        Oh Honey that is so true Why colors and Hairstyles alone are major major

      • Michael C

        That’s okay, Christians can’t agree with each other on anything, either!

  • Hank

    OT: Relief for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

    I just called my Democratic Congressman for FTL and Senator Bill Nelson’s Office, as well as sent an e-mail to Senator Chuck Schumer to speak out over the lack of aid to our citizens. Every JMG member should do likewise!!! Also complain about Herr Drumpfs refusal to overturn the Jones Act!!!

  • Gustav2

    If your Lutheran Church is preforming the ceremony between two men, are they discriminating against your particular religion?

    • Beagle

      Or discriminating against some other Lutheran church? (I grew up Missouri Synod. Which would disapprove, to say the least.)

      • Gustav2

        ELCA it is up to the congregation/pastor.

  • Treant

    I’m in. I’ve been with Uncle Devil since I was a wee tot.

    • easygoingmister

      What the fuck!?

      I am so working “Mister Wish-puppet” into EVERY conversation come October.

      • Treant

        I know, right? It was the trippiest TZ episode I’ve ever seen.

  • iambu

    Love it. Love everything about it.

  • Bluto
    • derklempner

      I thought the saying goes: “Fat kids are easier to kidnap because they don’t run as fast.”

  • mikeinftl

    A gay satanic wedding cake! Red velvet?

  • Lazycrockett
    • iambu

      In the full video, the toaster bursts into flames, causing its owner to shriek in very believable “surprise!”

  • Barry William Teske

    Here I was thinking in some ways religion was a sexual orientation unto itself…

    • Friday

      Really, they can’t discriminate based on a customer *not* being of their particular religious branch, so the ‘religious freedom’ argument is full of fail anyway. BUt actually it’s perfectly legit not to make a cake with *actual religious messages* you don’t espouse: Christianists can’t force you to write professions of *their* faith just by waving a credit card, for instance.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      They do tend to mate with their own.

  • Vinnie NYC
  • Vinnie NYC
    • Paula

      Damn, those guys are deformed. /s

    • easygoingmister

      I have a hard time believing Satan is waxed. Prob just silly of me.

      • OdieDenCO

        dude is bathing in fire daily. hair has a snowball’s chance in hell

        • easygoingmister

          Excellent point. I’ll have to rethink my Satan stereotype now.

  • skyweaver

    Oh and what a trolling outfit they are. They are brilliant!

  • clay
  • WitlessProtection

    Yeah I am joining them ASAP…

  • Phillip in L.A.

    “because sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (whereas race and religion are), there is a good chance that the right to discriminate against gay couples will be affirmed as a constitutional liberty.”

    The first clause is technically true, but deficient; some federal courts have elected to treat sexual orientation as “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (See, e.g., Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., (1998) 523 U.S. 75 (holding that Title VII’s protection against sex discrimination applies to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex); Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) 490 U.S. 228 (reversing D.C. Circuit and holding that discrimination based on a person’s failure to conform to a certain set of gender stereotypes constituted sex discrimination under Title VII); Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll. (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) 853 F.3d 339 (discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Act); Renee v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (gay male employee who was taunted by co-workers for having feminine traits could sue for sexual harassment under Title VII); contra, e.g., Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital (11th Cir. 2017) 850 F.3d 1248, Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed, (U.S., Sept. 7, 2017) No. 17-370 (dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under Title VII for workplace discrimination, where she alleged discrimination based ‘only’ on sexual orientation); Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble (2d Cir. 2005) 398 F.3d 211 (same).)

    I thus do not agree with the conclusion reached in the second clause.

    • Blake Paine

      And it makes no difference if the feds protect sexual orientation or not, this is about Colorado recognizing sexual orientation as a civil right as they are allowed to do via the 9th and 10th amendments of the federal Constitution.

      There is a reason that the ADF is using this ‘artistic expression’ ploy, any attempt to say that the state’s can’t enumerate rights not recognized in the federal constitution would require a Constitutional amendment.

      And you don’t have to use the Church of Satan. If some moron said they were Southern Baptist and their beliefs say they can’t sell me flower arrangements for my same-séx wedding, I’d reply that’s fine, I’m a Lutheran and God blesses all marriages regardless of male or female with the retort – if you felt you couldn’t serve people of all faiths why did you invite the public, a group comprised of all faiths?

      • Phillip in L.A.

        It makes a BIG difference if the “feds protect sexual orientation” (imo); but I agree, this wedding-cake case is NOT about Title VII.

        • Blake Paine

          To my understanding the only thing the SCOTUS can do regarding Colorado’s civil rights laws would be to declare them unconstitutional, they can’t micromanage internal state law or change that states have a federal constitutional right to acknowledge rights internally that the feds don’t.

          • Xuuths

            But, the states can’t have fewer rights than federal law, which is kind of the point.

          • Blake Paine

            Not sure what point that is other then that is the eye of the needle any ruling against our interests would have to thread. The customers even in this case have a right to their beliefs that include weddings for same-séx couples and the team needs to make sure the court understands that.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            True. But there are many reasons why I think it still matters, not the least of which is the EEOC (since most folks can’t afford a lawyer to handle cases of employment discrimination, especially when they get fired from their job!) and the hopefully favorable “trickle-down” effect on State anti-discrimination law.

            This is one of the things that bugs me the most about the decision in the Arizona Supreme Court case from last week (holding that the “presumption of paternity” applied to a female same-sex married couple who had a child through artificial insemination)–even though there was an INDEPENDENT STATE-LAW BASIS to affirm the judgment (estoppel), those Arizona justices went out of their way to base their decision on FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW–as if to say, “Please reverse us, U.S. Supreme Court.”

  • TampaZeke

    LOVE these people!

  • Cackalaquiano

    I like the idea, but couldn’t the bakers just refuse based on their Christian beliefs? Like, THATs the point right?

    • Blake Paine

      No, because the law can literally not put one citizens rights above another. If they invite the public they do so knowing ahead of time that they can’t refuse a customer because of their beliefs.

    • easygoingmister

      Hmm, protected class vs. protected class. Interesting conundrum. Wonder what the logicians would say about that.

    • Palmer

      Ah, but then it becomes a battle of whose rights are more righteous!

    • BearEyes

      but then whose religion “wins”? Which religion is placed above the other religion. It’s a never ending downward spiral.

  • Paula

    I can’t wait to see the first case that hits the news.If they won’t do it, they are pushing their religion onto you. That is violating your religious beliefs.
    Da jeeby wone like dat!

  • KnownDonorDad

    sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (whereas race and religion are),

    And religion isn’t an intrinsic quality.

    there is a good chance that the right to discriminate against gay couples will be affirmed as a constitutional liberty.

    Given the political persuasion of the majority of Supreme Court Justices, this outcome is even more likely.

    I don’t know about that. Gorsuch effectively copies Scalia, so we’ve got the same SCOTUS that heard Obergefell and Windsor. Not saying it’s a foregone conclusion, but I don’t think optimism is entirely unwarranted here.

    • Blake Paine

      It will all depend on the skill of the Colorado team. They need to establish:

      That they never required any particular employee of Masterpiece Cakeshop to do anything, but rather only required the business owner to operate his business without civil rights discrimination as required by state law and supported by the Colorado Constitution. They can do that by letting a willing employee decorate cakes other employees have religious objection to decorating (Star Trucking) or by just not offering the public the option to buy the type of cakes that the owner feels they can’t sell without civil rights discrimination.

      Point out that at the time of the infraction the business website made it clear that you get a wedding cake by selecting a base model and then having the business customize it exactly as the customer desires, i.e. there is no ‘creativity’ of the business being asked for, they acting as manufacturers of the customer’s desires and offered as such.

      And most importantly, if the business knew ahead of time they couldn’t serve people of all creeds – even those that have weddings for same-séx married couples – why did they advertise to the public, a group comprised of all creeds? If they want to only sell to the right people they need to operate as a private membership organization and be making the offer to just the membership.

      The last two rulings like citizen’s united and hobby lobby the court has been able to lead the team astray with hypothetical questions they weren’t prepared for. And this very political court will have conservatives working to figure out questions that do just that.

    • David Walker

      PA offers us no protection and there are a few employers and businesses that have taken advantage of that. I’m convinced that the more recent ones have been to demonstrate their hate cred among their fellow travellers. It still amazes me that straight folks assume that marriage equality gave us the rights they enjoy. PA is among the majority of the “Married on Sunday, Fired on Monday” states.

    • FredDorner

      Note that with Scalia they didn’t even have 4 votes to hear the Elane Photography case which arguably had a far stronger argument about “artistic expression” and which required the attendance of the photographer at the wedding, something not required of a baker.

      So the only reason this case is on the docket is because Gorsuch is even dumber than Scalia. But that still only gives the bigots 4 votes at most.

  • Christopher
    • Treant

      Is that just a random dead person? If so, I don’t approve. They may be dead, but simple respect still applies.

      If it was, like, Jerry Falwell, have at.

      • ETownCanuck

        It looks to be the grave of the mother of Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church fame. He himself is dead so I don’t know why this guy isn’t doing it to his grave instead. I don’t think she really deserves this sort of disrespect, she died when he was 5 so it’s likely not any of her fault he turned into such a raving lunatic.

        • Treant

          OK, then I don’t approve. Mrs. Phelps bears none of the responsibility for what her son did if she checked out that early.

          If he were doing it to Fred’s grave, I wouldn’t blink. I might join him.

          • NZArtist

            You think parents bear no responsibility for the beliefs, prejudices, bigotry of their children?
            While some of us had the strength to break free of our upbringing, many weak people (especially those infected with religion) dont have that strength.
            And then there are arseholes like Fred Phelps who actually embrace and amplify their fucked-up-ness.
            You dont think Donald Trump’s parents share the blame for the dickwad he is?
            No-one is born religious, or bigoted, or racist. Those are learned traits.

          • Treant

            She died when he was five, or just about learning to tie his shoes.

          • NZArtist

            And when do you feel children are first indoctrinated into religion?

        • JCF

          It says “wife of Fred W Phelps”

          But since she died in 1935…was the infamous Fred Phelps, Fred Jr?

          • ETownCanuck

            Must have been 🙂

    • David Walker

      I doubt that it’s the falwellian gravestone. Not nearly grandiose and self-aggrandizing enough. And it’s with…ugh…other graves. I don’t want to do a search for his death marker. I’m good with knowing he’s dead.

      • Christopher

        It’s the gravestone for the mother of Fred Phelps.

        • David Walker

          I’d prefer he did that elsewhere, but he does have nice balls and they do deserve to be seen.

    • Karl Dubhe

      Holy crap. I looked up to see where Fred Phelps was buried.

      Arlington. He was a soldier…

      • Christopher

        Double holy crap!

        Well, there’s the one new thing I learned for the day.

        Now, on to drinking heavily!

  • Michael C

    This is stupid. It muddies the issue of civil rights laws and it sets us back in educating people on how those civil rights laws work.

    Gay people don’t ask for wedding cakes decorated with wording and imagery celebrating homosexuality. They just order wedding cakes. This group is equating ordering a cake decorated with wording and imagery celebrating the Church of Satan to gay people ordering a cake no different than what the business already sells to straight people. This is a grossly fallacious comparison. Yes, any baker would be permitted to refuse this custom order.

    Also… while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does protect people from discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of their religion, a business selling custom wedding cages would not be considered a “public accommodation” under the Civil Rights Act’s definition.

    It appears the Church of Satan is just as ignorant of the law as are Christian bigots.

    • Xuuths

      Disagree. It seems you are confused about “how those civil rights laws work.”

      • Michael C

        It seems you are confused about “how those civil rights laws work.”

        Look up the cases related to Azucar Bakery in CO, Cut the Cake in FL, and Hands on Originals in KY.

        Also, here’s the definition of a “public accommodation” according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

        42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

        I don’t see anything in there that would include the sale of custom wedding cakes.

        • Xuuths

          HINT: “civil rights laws” are NOT just the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I’m glad that you can cut-and-paste from it, that does not represent the totality of “civil rights laws” — in particular the ones the bakers are breaking.

          • Michael C

            Thank you. I am aware that state civil rights laws often define “public accommodations” more broadly. I was specifically responding to the claims made by the Satanic Temple (who I have no opposition to, in a general sense).

          • FredDorner

            Colorado’s law also protects religion and the state supreme court has already found that “custom wedding cake bakers” are businesses subject to public accommodations laws. That’s the final word on the matter as far as that state law is concerned.

            Whether the 1964 CRA would be relevant here would depend primarily on whether interstate commerce is involved, and in this case the customers were from Massachusetts so it likely is involved regardless from where the baker gets his supplies. The CRA simply doesn’t (yet) protect the class in question in the present case.

          • Michael C

            Yes. Thankfully, Colorado is one of the minority of states to protect lgbt folk from discrimination. Yes, bakeries that offer custom cakes are considered “public accommodations” by Colorado law and are thus subject to all state and local civil rights laws.

            It was nit-picky of me to point out The Satanic Temples misunderstanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That was basically a side-note to my actual issue. I am completely shocked by their basic lack of understanding of civil rights laws in general.

            My main point is that no bakery under any civil rights law in the country would be required to make a cake decorated with Satanic imagery even though “religion” is a protected class. The Satanic Temple is trying to be clever but they’re actually hurting our ability to accurately educate the ignorant about this very important issue.

          • FredDorner

            I agree 100% and made a similar comment in another forum.

            I also think this case is more than a little silly since the court will not and cannot rule for the bigoted baker. Not only isn’t there a credible legal basis to give greater weight to the “free exercise” or “artistic expression” claims rather than the societal interest in regulating public accommodations, but the chaos resulting from such a ruling was predicted in 1878 in Reynolds v US:
            “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

    • Macbill

      If the baker was told it was for a hetero Satanic wedding, but the same design as normal (but black flowers), the baker would bail. And that’s when you’d have them.

  • Willys41

    “As you probably know, the Satanic Temple does not actually believe that Satan exists.”

    But of course making a claim like that would serve Satan’s purposes because if there is no Devil there can be no God lol.

  • Gene Perry

    Cool idea! Can they make a Flying Spagetti Monster cake as well?

    • Bad Tom

      States have been forced to allow “religious headgear” such as pasta strainers to be worn while driver’s license photos are taken.

      So, why not?

  • juanjo54

    Give me that old time religion…..

  • Karl Dubhe

    That’s a strange way to boycott a business. Buy stuff from them. smh

    I’ve a better idea, be a patron of the other cake shops. The ones that want to make money.

    • FredDorner

      That’s already happened with all of these bigoted bakers – they’ve either closed shop or lost the vast majority of their business. The bakery in this case is now open only by appointment.

    • Dicky

      Isn’t that the argument though?
      Public accommodations laws are in place because there is a non-zero chance that within the boundaries of the country, there will be effective monopolies (usually posited as hardship in patronizing other business with similar products, due to distance or price), and since they are the lone commercial purveyor of the good or service, they are required to supply such to all persons, regardless of their “deeply held convictions” about certain groups of persons.
      That’s the issue with all of the Christian healthcare hospital buyouts for one, though that one tends to also decrease the number of products that you can receive from them.
      Obviously, the easy answer is “let the free market destroy them by halting patronage,” but depending on the product and/or location, monopolies happen, as seen in the healthcare industry, and it cannot always be hoped that a competitor can establish itself in a timely manner so that public accommodations law is unnecessary.

  • Halou

    Didn’t journalists once call up some of the bigot bakers asking for price quotes for a variety of “unchristian” cakes? Getting, if I recall, confirmation for divorce cakes, satan cakes, stem cell research, and in one instance a cake to celebrate an abortion.

  • SFHarry

    Thank you Satanic Temple!

  • stvnc44

    You all are not going to like this, but, Satanism is part of christianity, just the other side!
    I purposely did not capitalize the “c” word as that mythology deserves NO respect, of course the “S” side does!
    I want one of those cards!

    • joe ho

      You aren’t going to like this. But the Satanic temple doesn’t really believe in Satan. It’s an anti-religion operation.

    • NZArtist

      That’s part of the point. It’s mocking those crazy christianists. And by claiming to be a religion they get all the same crazy protections as crazy people with imaginary friends.
      There’s absolutely nothing in the law that says you actually have to believe in an imaginary friend to be part of a religion.

  • kaydenpat

    I hope SCOTUS does the right thing and decides against the bigoted cake makers. A ruling in favor of bigots would be devastating.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada
  • WarrenHart
  • Is that like jalapeño red velvet cake with cinnamon icing?

  • fuow

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

  • NZArtist

    Time to make ‘Gay’ a religion.

  • FredDorner

    While the Satanic Temple is correct that this would be a good strategy if SCOTUS ruled the wrong way, I think that outcome is vanishingly unlikely since it would undermine all public accommodations laws in the country including the 1964 CRA.

    Also this is a state law and states are free to regulate businesses and protect whatever classes they like, particularly those not already protected by federal law.

  • Jorg Donde

    Absolutely awesome.

  • supasugacrisp

    YES!!!!! I would gladly donate to that cause!!!

  • David Wickham

    Devil’s food?

  • TheManicMechanic

    All hail Baphomet!

  • Phil

    A person can make a pretty penny by visiting numerous bakeries. Those who don’t make the cake can be sued.

    Lather. Rinse. Repeat = big money.

  • Manley Hood

    Idiots think that religious freedom gives you power to force someone bake a certain kind of cake. Get ready for some butt-hurt, dumb snowflakes.

  • Jeremy Russell

    I like everything the ST does. They’re awesome. Except Brian Werner, what a disgrace.

  • I don’t think this author knows what he or she’s talking about. This case has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether its ban on discrimination based on “sex” includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. (There are other cases like that making their way through the federal courts, but this is not one of them.)

    The Colorado non-discrimination law that Masterpiece was charged with violating includes sexual orientation explicitly. The question is whether a public accommodation can be excused from following Colorado law because the religion of its owner says they should be allowed to discriminate on that basis.

    If the Supreme Court says “no”, then Colorado’s public accommodations non-discrimination ban will stand, as will non-discrimination laws in 20 other states and DC. But it wouldn’t affect the 29 states that don’t ban sexual orientation discrimination, such as Ohio.

    Of course, if the Supreme Court says “yes”, then it like wouldn’t matter that CRA1964 doesn’t include sexual orientation, because if a business can violate state law with a religious exemption, then they could probably violate federal law on the same basis. Hopefully that won’t happen.