Baked in the Cake

Butchers butcher, candlestick makers make, and bakers bake. Do they do so out of artistic passion, out of a strong desire to create, or are they engaged in a straight-up bourgeois practice of selling a product? And does it make a difference?

For me, the question answers itself. Although we can critically appraise a work of art along categories of artistic merit v. commercial appeal, human beings generally exist and act in both categories simultaneously. To the extent there is any kind of tension between the two, that is a fundamental tension within a person struggling to be authentic in his work.

And this is true in non-artistic endeavors too. We all know  the common distinction between so called 9-to-5 workers and those committed to doing the best job they can. Clock watchers are chronic problems, doing only the minimal amount to get by until they can get home to what they really want to be doing. The committed worker, however, is bringing his whole self to a job, investing it with his own integrity. In this, the person is trying to be as authentic as the artist, to make his work a vocation instead of a mere job.

It is this qualitative aspect of work that provides the key to our national Cake controversy. In all that we human beings do, there are aspects of the mundane, the ordinary, and then there are aspects more fundamental, that relate to us essentially as persons. Which brings us to bakers who happily bake and sell their cakes, except when they are asked to bake in celebration of a gay wedding.

Continue.......

The bakers of cakes in these cases are self-professed Christian bakers. As such, they are trying to bring their personal integrity in Christ into their work-life. In helping people to celebrate events in their life, they intend a witness as to the happiness their God has in them and in the cake recipient. For them, celebratory cakes, made with care and artistry, are in all events a celebration of the God Who created the baker, the customer, and indeed, the cakes themselves. For them, then, baking cakes is not just a job, not just what they do for money, but a vocation that is deeply connected to their Christian religious beliefs.

In other words, it's all about the message, not the medium.

Rick Moran of PJ Media relates this from the Defendant baker's counsel:

Phillips' lawyers argued in a prior Supreme Court brief that he "is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients," but that his religion compels him "to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs."

What's that? This baker will happily bake a birthday cake for a gay couple? A graduation ceremony multi-tiered cake for a gay man? Then, this is not about being gay per se; it must be something else that bothers this baker. What could it possibly be?

You see, this is not a case of discrimination at all. Discrimination is against the person, against some characteristic of a person that we deem to be irrelevant in a particular context. Here, the baker is not discriminating against these customers, but refusing to engage in an activity which violates his Christian conscience. You can see him making a similar determination if asked to bake a cake in celebration of a dog fighting event or of a satan worshipping conclave. In all these cases, it is not the people involved per se, but the message of acceptance conveyed by participation, a message this baker feels violates his duty to his God.

In sum, this is clearly a 1st Amendment case, not a 14th Amendment equal protection issue. And it's not even a pure freedom of religion case - it goes to the protection of freedom of speech itself. Because corresponding to free speech rights is the right not to be forced to communicate something I don't want to say. And, although I don't really hold to the notion that the Constitution has 'penumbras' that 'emanate,' if there are any penumbras, then most certainly the 1st Amendment gives rise to the general idea that citizens of this Republic have a general protection against infringements on matters of conscience.

What's really troubling is that this is even a controversial matter. Gays should be as concerned about this baker's freedom of religion, speech, and conscience as I am; and yet they (and the Left in general) are so blinded by their ideology that they are willing to throw over this most fundamental raison d'etre of the Republic in order to gain a partisan political and cultural victory.

Should they succeed, I don't think they will like what comes next.