The Week In Doom — You WILL Bake The Cake Edition

The Week In Doom — You WILL Bake The Cake Edition

Item Again: Masterpiece Cakeshop Sued For Third Time For Refusing To Make A Cake That Conflicted With Owner’s Religious Beliefs

Transgender woman Autumn Scardina filed a second lawsuit against Phillips last Wednesday in District Court for the city and county of Denver, Colorado.

In the new lawsuit, Scardina claimed that Phillips violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act and Consumer Protection Act by refusing to bake what the plaintiff labeled a “birthday cake.”

The “birthday cake” as described in the lawsuit, which was to be blue on the outside and pink on the inside, was supposed to symbolize Scardina’s transition from male to female…

In the past year alone, Phillips has declined several requests to create custom cakes because of the messages that they would have communicated or the events that they would have celebrated. Phillips believes that many of these requests are not genuine; rather, they are setups designed to get him to decline the desired message. Phillips believes that the originator of a number of these requests is attorney Autumn Scardina. In late September 2017, someone emailed Phillips asking for a custom cake “to celebrate” Satan’s “birthday.”

The customer requested that the cake have “red and black icing” and include “an upside down cross, under the head of Lucifer.”

The customer described the cake as “religious in theme” and reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.”

Phillips declined to create that cake because it included designs that would have expressed messages in violation of his religious beliefs. A few days later, someone called Phillips asking for a similar custom cake. Phillips noticed that “Scardina” appeared on the caller-identification screen. Phillips believes that the caller was Autumn Scardina. The caller asked Phillips to create a “birthday” cake for Satan. The caller requested that the cake feature a red and black theme and an image of Satan smoking marijuana. Phillips declined to create that cake because it included designs that would have expressed messages in violation of his religious beliefs. On June 4, 2018, the day that the Supreme Court issued its Masterpiece decision, someone emailed Phillips claiming to be “a member of the Church of Satan.”

Trannies are insane, which is still, at this writing, the official medical view. But that will change as the perversion becomes more common. A tranny lawyer is anyway the worst of two worlds.

Our nation’s highest religious ideal is sexual perversion. So bend over and take it. You will bake that cake. Or sell those flowers.

Item Court Rules Christian Florist Broke Law by Refusing to Participate in Gay Wedding

The Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Christian florist broke the law when she refused to participate in a gay wedding ceremony.

Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by declining to provide floral arrangements for the 2013 same-sex wedding of Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed…

“The state not only went after Barronelle’s business but also sued her in her personal capacity—putting all her personal assets, including her life savings, at risk,” said Alliance Defending Freedom’s Kristen Waggoner, who argued on Stutzman’s behalf before the Washington Supreme Court in 2016.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney John Bursch said they plan to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court — setting up a clash over gay rights and religious liberty.

The court is packed with progressives and progservatives, with only two reliable reactionaries. Sodomy is more appealing to the majority than Christianity. Yet they do have the explicit written words of the Constitution to overcome. Not that they can’t. But that it will have to be an act of supreme contortion (get it? get it?).

My guess is that Stutzman loses; i.e. Truth and Reality loses. They’ll simply argue that if you’re in the flower (or whatever) business, than you have to provide for all. That you, the florist, are not participating in perversion, you’re only making flower arrangements. Flowers are only flowers. What people do with them when they get them out of the shop is their own business. And that you’re free to “practice” your religion (i.e. Christianity) in church. That is, after all, the trend.

Item Failure to find a sexual partner is now a DISABILITY says World Health Organisation

But now in dramatic move the World Health Organisation will change the standard to suggest that a person who is unable to find a suitable sexual partner or is lacking a sexual relationship to have children – will now be equally classified as disabled.

WHO says the change will give every individual “the right to reproduce”…

Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems…

Josephine Quintavalle,from Comment on Reproductive Ethics added: “This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman.

“How long before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?”

But Dr David Adamson, an author of the new standards, argued it is a “big chance” for single and gay people.

Not for the last time I link to Logan’s Run. Notice, though, what is happening. The LGBTQWERTY crowd (“community”) engages in non-procreative sex-like acts; almost all acts are masturbation in one form or another. It follows that no child can follow from masturbation. Yet some of these masturbators (a sexual “orientation”) desire children.

The fix for this is obvious. Stop masturbating and have sex—with a spouse, because if anybody has rights, it’s children, who need both mater and pater.

Anyway, deaf ears and all that. Less obvious is that since every right entails a responsibility or duty, that masturbators have a “right” to have children given to them, since they cannot reproduce, somebody has a duty to provide those children. And you thought slavery ended at the Civil War.

Item HBO’s Explicit ‘Euphoria’ Courts Controversy: How Much Teen Sex and Drugs Is Too Much?

Thirty penises in one episode? Zendaya’s new series, filled with graphic nudity, violence and drug use among young people, is so extreme that one star quit mid-shoot, but the network hopes that authenticity will help the show break through: “It’s not sensational to be sensational.”…

“There are going to be parents who are going to be totally f[—–]g freaked out,” says Euphoria creator Sam Levinson

One guesses this will not be a Christian drama, then.


  1. Hoyos

    The worst part is the process becomes the punishment, exactly what English common law worked so hard to prevent. They don’t have to “win” conventionally, just make the process so onerous that it has the desired effect.

  2. Sheri

    HBO, the new porn channel. I guess it saves money. You get movies and porn all for one low price.

    No one has the “right” to reproduce. They may, and I mean MAY, have the right to not have their ability to reproduce ended without their consent, but they do not have the right to reproduce or to be given children someone else produced. (They also do not OWN their child just because its DNA matches theirs. If they fail their responsibilities or hurt the child, they lose the privilege of having one. Yes, the privilege.) It’s not slavery, it’s chattel because there are not enough brain-dead women who will pop out babies for perverts. Money will have to be involved. It might be slavery if the wome were raped and then were forced to bear the child while locked in a compound. It could come to that…..Weren’t we just discussing how businesses love abortion??? These people are eating each other at an astounding rate.

    More Christians need to go in to liberal cake makers and ask for “Married, straight and Moral” on a cake then sue when they don’t get one. More and more courts are siding with these Christians and ruling that it works BOTH ways. Until Christians are willing to push back, the stupid will only grow and grow. Evil thrives in inaction. (Yes, Briggs, I know you’re yelling as loudly as possible. It’s hard to reach the deliberately deaf, but keep the shouting up. Maybe one day…..)

  3. Ray

    Well, I have the APA definition of gender and I’m confused. Could somebody explain gender to me?
    “Gender (n): the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and SEX reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)”

  4. The destruction of Normal America picks up pace. Doominess.

    Just happened to run across a semi-related piece today–regarding American Christianity’s embrace of PC-Prog destruction of Normalcy–from 2011.

    Wondering what the situation is in the “Emergent Church” 8 years later?

    While Normal Christian Americans have been distracted for the last 18 years (since 9/11), with fake “conservatives,” doing the bidding of foreigners, flooding their inboxes shrieking about “Sharia!”, their churches have collapsed.

  5. Paul of Alexandria

    “How long before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?”
    About 10 years. Work is being done on artificial wombs now.
    For a good idea of where this can go, read Louise McMaster Bujold’s Science Fiction series the Vorkosigan Saga ( This series, which features a planet settled by conservative Russians which has been separated from the galactic transportation network for a few centuries, studies the effects of such things as single-sex planets (all male), planets on which genetic engineering is taken for granted – and a family’s genome is controlled by the state, and another planet full of rogue genetic engineers that can produce any kind of slave to order. Bujold is one of the best writers of any kind around and she addresses this stuff without standing on a soapbox. Very scary stuff indeed.

  6. Briggs


    Holy moly but that is a rich source of information. Great find, and thanks.

  7. Michael Ozanne

    “That you, the florist, are not participating in perversion, you’re only making flower arrangements. Flowers are only flowers. What people do with them when they get them out of the shop is their own business.”

    well isn’t that the basic truth? Now I see issues… can you provide those flowers with a long column of pinks and a helmet crown of purple petunias…. otherwise aren’t flowers flowers and shouldn’t you sell those to anyone who asks

  8. I wonder what the courts rule if the florist/baker /etc. decides that, instead of outright refusing to fill the order, he will charge a ruinous fee, perhaps in the vicinity of five figures, perhaps halfway to six?

  9. DAV

    Arkanabar T’verrick Ilarsadin,

    Won’t work. It would be on the same level as charging blacks more than whites for a hotel room. Clearly, you would be indicating you would be willing to provide what is being asked for the right price; personal ethic be damned. Better to refuse outright.

    Frankly, I think the florist is pushing it. Flower arrangements aren’t particularly works of art and the florist would be hard pressed to show her arrangements are unique among florists. She isn’t expressing a message with her arrangements nor being forced to actually participate. She makes the arrangements; delivers them and is finished. Why should she care where they will be displayed?

    If it really bothers her, I think she would be better off saying: “Sorry, I’m completely booked.”

  10. Milton Hathaway

    I admit to being a bit annoyed when I hear conservatives say something along the lines of “I don’t want to force my principles on others, but I will defend them when attacked”. This is clearly a war now, and in war you either understand that the aggressor sets the rules, or you lose the war.

    One approach might lie in the principle applied when SCOTUS “ruled that the government has an obligation to act neutrally with regard to religious beliefs”. Other rulings mentioned in the linked material above also seem to give great deference to this principle.

    The conservative activist groups should consider shopping around for a bakery to make, say, a Trump cake celebrating his Pro-Life accomplishments, or perhaps a gay couple being prodded by demons with pitchforks in the fires of hell.

    Why can’t “just shut up and bake the cake” work both ways?

    P.S. Professor Briggs, your website has developed some issues. Lately I’m getting error messages like “The page isn’t redirecting properly; {Browser} has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.” I got to the post by perusing the page source for a direct link to the article, but that’s a bit tedious.

  11. Briggs


    Thanks! If you can, please use contact form (or here) to tell me exactly how you tried to access the site.

  12. Joy

    Or the florist could pass the order to another florist and pass the order on at cost to save litigation.
    Why does any buyer want to get involved in such a fight? Particularly when proper weddings are supposed to be happy times.

    Why do they bother getting involved in litigation when there’s always another place they can go? Like a department store? How many did they try before finding one that refused?
    Because they’re looking for a fight, not a wedding accessory.
    Plastic people.

    My great Aunt Hilda used to work for a cake shop and made wedding cakes. She was once so cross the cake wouldn’t go right she threw one out of the widnow saying, “tickle it!” (Lancashire thing)
    Maybe the vendors could say they had a decorator called Hilda who was angry with the cake.
    She never got the sack and was well loved where she worked but you know some days inanimate things just don’t do as they’re told.

  13. c matt

    “Married, straight and Moral” on a cake then sue when they don’t get one.

    That presumes they would refuse. They probably wouldn’t care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *