Fund-raising campaign to help bakery threatened by gay fascists

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Defiance: The Colorado baker who is threatened with bankruptcy and even psychatric evaluation because he refuses to bake same-sex wedding cakes due to his religious beliefs has begun a fund-raising campaign to support his fight.

There are those who think I am being unkind by describing the attackers of this baker as fascists. Well, consider this tidbit from the above story:

He declined to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple in July 2012, citing his Christian beliefs, after which the bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, became the target of protests and angry phone calls. “The calls were so vile, Jack would not allow the employees to answer the phone for weeks. The second day, a caller threatened to kill Jack as well as anyone in the bakery,” said the Continue to Give write-up.

It is important to note that no one is oppressing any homosexuals here. They are still free to practice their lifestyle. The only one being oppressed is the Christian, who is being threatened and denied the right to practice his lifestyle.



  • Phill O

    Yup, certainly seems like Germany under the Hitler regime.

  • Cotour

    Its probably not quite as bad as Hitlers Germany, there is an intermediary bureaucratic legal logic to it, like it or not. And until otherwise established through the legal process the bureaucratic system demands paper work related to law that informs it otherwise. The Constitutional logic of primary precedence must be established in order to straighten this out.

    Q: Can the government establish what someones religious beliefs are or are not?

    A: No.

    This of course is much more complicated than just answering that question, there are states rights and laws and the rights of others involved. So the states are not so much being “Nazi” like, although it can be established that some in government pushing and pulling the levers of power absolutely have an agenda in regards to the subject, but the people who feel they are being oppressed and discriminated against tend to be the ones that act in Nazi like ways. It is very easy in this day of technology to launch threats and intimidate someone who you may disagree with of you so choose.

    My feeling on this is that those who feel so adamant about who they will and will not serve based on their personal religious beliefs and choose to do business with in a public context who may come under the focus and actions of those who would be unreasonable and vindictive are going to have to tailor their activities so as to not be open to any legal action. That may not be ideal to some but it is the reality of the moment.

    In addition although an ordinary business may not be formally “licensed” by the state their existence is sanctioned by the state and from that point this entire legal gambit is being played. And if you are licensed by the federal or state government, for example in the sale of any federally or state controlled items or you collect sales tax you are further restricted by actual “reasonable” behavior on the business’s related to discrimination based on race religion or sexual orientation, no matter your personal religious beliefs.

    I site this story from recent news as an example of taking it inappropriately and legally too far:

  • Edward

    Unless there is a religion that forbids Muslims, I do not see any parallel between your link and the topic under consideration. Either way, the shopkeeper in your link seems to be acting not from religious conviction but from a legal requirement to not abet felonies.

    To conscript a citizen into the service of another citizen is an act of tyranny. It is just as tyrannical to force someone to participate in a religious rite against his own religion as it is to tell someone whom he can and cannot marry.

    As for the fascism of the oppressors:
    “1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

    Considering that our government has complete power over the oppressed baker (and currently is led by someone who behaves and rules as a dictator); that these are actions intended, through intimidation, to discourage opposition and criticism of the policy; that strict discipline is being applied to such commerce; and that this is being treated as a nationalist rather than federalist issue, it seems to me that we are looking at the complete definition of fascism.

    If we consider that this is being applied to only certain religions while other religions are allowed to violate the policy, we may be able to replace the “racist” part of the definition with “religionist” (if I may coin a new term).

    As for Hitler’s Germany: only one religion seems to be the target, as though that religion were the root of all evil. Was that not Hitler’s excuse?

  • Cotour

    My link relates to the government, in this case issuing a special license to sell firearms. The seller is required to act within certain criteria in order to be able to legally sell what he sells. He can not make up his own rules of sales criteria, in this case he implies the “he will not sell to Muslims who are threat to the nation”. He may have been being provocative but I assure you he was visited by the ATF so that he could clarify his statements.

    I wonder what would happen if this firearms guy said that he would not sell to any gay Muslims who were a “threat” to the nation?

  • Cotour

    Correction, there are no gay Muslims.

  • Edward

    My mistake. I thought this was supposed to relate to the topic under discussion.

  • Cotour

    No worries, It is directly related.

  • Edward

    So, are you just going to leave me hanging — wondering how you think it is directly related?

    You wrote: “The seller is required to act within certain criteria in order to be able to legally sell what he sells.”

    Are you going to explain why you believe that it is correct for government to act in a fascist way: to let the public own their own businesses but to strictly manage their operations?

Leave a Reply

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