The lying bullies in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case lost this time around, but the fight for free speech and religious liberty is far from over. The Left will now double its efforts to punish Christian business owners for the crime of being Christian. They will keep at it until the Supreme Court gives them the ruling they desire, which is the effective abolition of the First Amendment.
When the gay lobby settles on its next target, we can be sure that it will tell the same lies it is telling now. It's important for us to recognize and understand those lies, so that we can sufficiently debunk them every time they are uttered. To that end, here is the first and most essential lie:
The Christian baker refused service to gay people.
This is false, and the people who say it know that it is false. Phillips never turned any customer away due to their sexual orientation. The two gay men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were welcome to purchase any item in the store. They could have bought all the brownies and cookies and pies that their hearts and stomachs desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake. Their romantic interests were of no concern to Jack Phillips. He was not discriminating on that basis or any basis.
Jack Phillips did not refuse service to gay people. He refused service to a gay wedding. He declined to make a special cake — a work of art — for a particular occasion that he determined to be morally objectionable. They could have still bought whatever baked good they preferred, and served it at their wedding reception. Phillips was merely refusing to specially design a particular cake for a gay wedding. This is the very clear, very easy to understand distinction that is purposefully overlooked by dishonest people.
It is relevant to note that Phillips had a habit of refusing to make customized cakes for morally problematic events. He wouldn't make lewd bachelor party cakes. He wouldn't make Halloween cakes (I don't think Halloween is morally problematic, but Phillips does, and he's entitled to that belief). He wouldn't make cakes for divorce parties. Does that mean he was discriminating against divorced people? Would it be fair to say that he "refused to serve the divorced"? Of course not. He just didn't want to direct his creative energies towards making something that would celebrate divorce.
Recall the case of the Hands On Originals t-shirt company, which is making its way to the Kentucky Supreme Court. They were targeted for legal retribution after declining to print a t-shirt advertising the local gay pride festival. Similar to Masterpiece, Hands On had done business with gays many times in the past. They never turned any customer away based on sexual orientation. They simply couldn't make a t-shirt specifically promoting an event they (correctly) found to be objectionable and offensive.
If a business owner is going to accept and welcome all people, must he then accept and welcome and willingly promote all events that those people partake in? That is a ludicrous suggestion. It is obviously possible for someone to love gay people and support them, and yet object to a celebration of homosexual sex in the streets of an American city. It is likewise possible to love and support straight people and yet object to a similar display of heterosexual debauchery.
And, though this concept is very difficult for some to grasp, it is also possible to love and support gay people while disagreeing with gay marriage. Gay marriage is an event, an activity, a thing you do. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is not the point, as far as the First Amendment is concerned. The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad, and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it. If he decides against, he is not denying or rejecting a person. He is denying and rejecting the particular thing a person is doing. There is a difference. A blatantly obvious, incredibly important difference. A difference that the Left pretends it cannot see.