ACLU Defends Gay Couple Refused Cake; Silent on Pro-Lifers Kicked Out of Coffee Shop

A gay Seattle coffee shop owner kicked out a group of Christians because they handed out an "offensive" pamphlet.

By Published on October 14, 2017

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has remained silent on the issue of a gay coffee shop owner kicking out a group of Christians, despite multiple requests for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The ACLU did not return multiple requests on an incident last week, when a gay coffee shop owner in Seattle, Wash., kicked out some Christians in his business for religious pamphlets they handed out.

TheDCNF emailed the national organization three times and called them multiple times looking for comment, as well.

Aclu-1-e1507657286831

Emails to the ACLU

Video released Oct. 1 by Abolish Human Abortion, a pro-life Christian group, showed the owner of Bedlam Coffee shouting at some Christians as they drank coffee in his shop.

“I’m gay, you have to leave,” the owner told the group, holding a pamphlet on sin and the Bible the group had passed out. “This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have the right to be offended.” He eventually forces the group to leave his business, telling them he’d “f*** Christ in the ass.” (Extreme language warning in video below.)

The ACLU in the past has represented gay couples in lawsuits against Christians who refused certain services to them. In one such lawsuit, the ACLU of Colorado represented two gay men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a cake for their wedding. When Jack Phillips, the owner, declined, citing his religious beliefs, the two men decided to sue the bakery owner.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, an attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project about the case. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

The cake case is now before the Supreme Court.

Follow Amber on TwitterSend tips to amber@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

Copyright 2017 The Daily Caller News Foundation

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    not surprised. The ACLU are hypocrites.

  • Andrew Mason

    While this story says the owner had a pamphlet the group had been handing out other articles state that the group took no materials with them when they entered the coffee shop – they were there simply for a break, and that he or a staff member had found the pamphlet outside the store. Had the group been handing out pamphlets he may have had a right to object, but treating people differently because of who they are (Christian) is discrimination.

    • m-nj

      If these are indeed the facts, it is very much like the case in Michigan (?) in which a Catholic farmer well outside the city limits (where supposed non-descrimination laws are not on the books) does not support use of his farm as a venue for gay “marriages”, but who is being banned from selling his produce at the farmers markets inside the city limits (where supposed non-descrimination laws are on the books).

  • Trilemma

    After looking at the pamphlet, I can see why the coffee shop owner was offended. The picture inside clearly says that the blood of aborted fetuses is on gay hands. In the cake case, the gay couple was not passing out inflammatory anti-Christian pamphlets outside the bakery. In the coffee shop case, the Christians were able to buy coffee. Not exactly an apples to apples situation.

    The Liberator article includes pictures of the inflammatory pamphlet. (Delete the space after the dot.)

    theliberator. news/2017/homosexual-coffee-shop-owner-evicts-peaceful-christians/

    • GPS Daddy

      I see the pamphlet as a contrast to one group that thinks their oppressed and another group that is clearly oppressed. One group that has a made-up right and the other group that is denied their right to even live. One group that has been made a protected class in our culture and the other group that has absolutely no ability to protect themselves and are hunted mercilessly.

      • Trilemma

        I’m sure that’s what the pamphlet was intended to convey but it didn’t do it as clearly as you just did. But the picture in the center of the pamphlet conveys a completely different message.

    • DR84

      You are correct, it is not an apples to apples comparison. The gay couples are demanding the baker create a cake the baker believes is offensive (or floral arrangements and photos demanding on which wedding vendor is being sued). The group that got kicked out of the coffee shop just expected normal service, they did not know what they were doing outside that shop would be both known by and offensive to the owner. They only got coffee at all because the owner did not figure out who they were soon enough.

      There is another issue raised here. You seem to want the coffee shop owners beliefs and intent to be taken into account; whereas, you dont want the beliefs and intent of the wedding vendors taken into account. I have a hunch that is what the ACLU is doing also. They think that Ben did not discriminate against that group because of their religion but instead because of their “offensive” and “hateful” conduct. Whereas, despite the various wedding vendors insisting they are discriminating because of the “offensive conduct” that is a “same sex wedding”, the ACLU insists they are really discriminating because of “sexual orientation”.

      • Trilemma

        Let’s say the coffee shop owner found out about the anti-gay pamphlets before the group came in for coffee. Let’s say he refused to serve them coffee because he didn’t want people seeing this group holding coffee cups printed with his shop’s name on them while handing out anti-gay literature. Now we have the case where both businesses refused to serve a customer because the businesses didn’t want their product associated with an activity they were offended by. But there is still an important difference.

        In the cake case, the gay couple was not doing anything illegal. They were not saying anything bad about Christians. The baker refused to sell a cake simply because the couple getting married was gay. So, yes, the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. The offensive behavior was not directed at the baker.

        The anti-gay group on the other hand was doing something illegal by distributing a libelous pamphlet which put the blood of aborted fetuses on gay hands. The coffee shop owner kicked the group out because of the libelous material they were handing out and not because they were Christians. The offensive behavior was directed at people who are gay such as the coffee shop owner.

        Perhaps the ACLU is being silent because they are contemplating legal action against the anti-gay group.

        • GPS Daddy

          Your taking YOUR interpretation of that image WAY too far. YOU interpret the hands with the rainbow and the fetus as “the blood of aborted fetuses on gay hands.” No where in the pamphlet does it even insinuate that. Now I think that that image is in poor taste but poor taste is NOT illegal. If anyone tries to sue them they will loose for that “art” is protected speech. Its just like that painting of Jesus urinating.

          But you minimize the offensiveness of the LGTB movement. Marriage is sacred to the Christian faith. The Church (Female) is the Bride of Christ (Male). Same sex marriage is VERY offensive for that reason. So while YOU are not offended that does not mean that SSM is not offensive.

          The LGTB movement is closely associated with the abortion industry. I have found few pro-life LGBT people. The people who fund the LGTB movement also back the abortion industry legally.

          • Trilemma

            The church is not actually the bride of Jesus and is not actually going to marry Jesus. If all the males in the church marry Jesus that would be a lot of same sex marriages.

            Libel is not protected speech. The pamphlet does insinuate that the blood of aborted fetuses is on gay hands. The front cover of the pamphlet shows an upstretched fist in front of the gay rainbow flag as an obvious reference to the images of the upstretched fist in front of the communist flag. So, the front cover says that the gay community is oppressive like the communists in the Soviet Union were. So, who are they oppressing? The text on the next page talks about how we (presumably Christians) pretend to be oppressed (by the gay community) while quietly going along with the oppression and destruction of another group (by the gay community). So, who is this other group that’s being oppressed and destroyed? The next page reveals it’s fetuses being aborted at the bloody hands of the gay community. So, the cover picture says who the oppressor is and the center picture says who the oppressed is.

            However, over half of all women getting abortions identify as Christians so the blood of aborted humans is on Christian hands.

          • GPS Daddy

            You have your own made-up way of interpretation. What I have posted on the relationship between marriage and the church and Christ is core Christianity. You need to take heed, Trillemma for the bible warns that those who twist scripture endanger themselves with hell:

            2 Peter 3:16, “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
            matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
            which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
            Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

          • Trilemma

            The church as a bride is a metaphor just like the church as the body of Christ is a metaphor. They are not to be taken literally. The term, “Bride of Christ,” does not appear in the Bible.

          • GPS Daddy

            The speech is not libel:

            libel (law): a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.

            In order for that image to be “false” in the way YOU are interpreting it, the LGTB movement must be pro-life. Its not. But that is ONLY if YOUR interpretation is correct.

            The rainbow colors were around WAY longer than the gay movement. They do not have a copyright on them. No where in the pamphlet are gays refereed to.

            But let me ask you this, are you pro-choice? Do you support a woman having a right to kill their unborn baby?

          • Trilemma

            True, the rainbow colors have been around a long time. But the rainbow colors in the pamphlet are drawn in such a way as to depict a flag. The vast majority of people who see the pamphlet will see the gay flag and not the Genesis rainbow, especially in Seattle, WA. As such, the center picture blames abortion on the gay community which is false, thus libel.

          • GPS Daddy

            hogwash. Just because some people associate that way does not make it libel.

          • GPS Daddy

            But let ask this again: Do you support the claim that a woman has the right to end the life of the unborn baby in her?

          • Trilemma

            Yes, up to week 18.

          • GPS Daddy

            Then I think that image is a mirror. That’s why your so hot about it.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>so the blood of aborted humans is on Christian hands

            The aborted babies blood are on the hands of those who have aborted them and those who support abortions… Christian or not.

  • Fang

    Typical of the Atheist Criminal Liars Union.

  • tether

    It is only discrimination when it is against the LGBT’s, The general consensus seems to be they will decide what is or is not offensive and everyone else has to accept their ideas or they are branded a hater, bigot, etc and forced out of business. Typical double standards. Unfortunately for them those of us who know God, know also how this will end for them if they don’t repent, because God has made it very clear those who practice or live in willful sin, will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven but will spend eternity in the lake of fire prepared for Satan and the fallen angels. I pray for all who do not know God, who have accepted the truth for a lie, I pray that God will have mercy on their souls and reveal Himself to them that they might one day be saved. Amen

    • tasha63

      That is THEIR decision (assuming you are even right about this) – not your’s.

      But, it is YOUR decision here on earth, here and now, how you will treat people of differing sexual orientations. And, the Bible makes it pretty clear..”do onto others…love your neighbor as yourself…”

      • GPS Daddy

        You sure like to take scripture out of context…
        Your absolutely correct. It is their God given right to be transgender. God gives us the right to sin. But God will also hold us accountable for the sin. IF the bible is right then NOT telling someone that their behavior is in error is NOT loving. Like it or not, tasha63, it all comes down the a cross, a tomb, some guards and two women.

      • tether

        Tasha63 it is absolutely their decision and I hope and pray they choose wisely. Eternity is a long time.

        As for the question of what the Bible says here are a few of many examples. Not my words, from the Bible.

        1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
        1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
        1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

        Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
        Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
        Gal 5:21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

        Eph 5:3 For let fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness not be once named among you, as becomes saints,
        Eph 5:4 neither baseness, foolish talking, jesting, which are not becoming, but rather giving of thanks.
        Eph 5:5 For you know this, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous one (who is an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
        Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience.
        Eph 5:7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.
        Eph 5:8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light

        1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments.
        1Jn 2:4 He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
        1Jn 2:5 But whoever keeps His Word, truly in this one the love of God is perfected. By this we know that we are in Him.
        1Jn 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked.

        1Jn 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
        1Jn 3:5 And you know that He was revealed that He might take away our sins, and in Him is no sin.
        1Jn 3:6 Everyone who abides in Him does not sin. Everyone who sins has not seen Him nor known Him.
        1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does righteousness is righteous, even as that One is righteous.
        1Jn 3:8 He who practices sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the Devil.
        1Jn 3:9 Everyone who has been born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
        1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the Devil: everyone not practicing righteousness is not of God, also he who does not love his brother.

  • tasha63

    If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a Christian baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean a Christian gun store owner participated in the murder?

    • Charles Burge

      No, because a cake with unique decorations is a work of art, and a gun is not. The issue with Masterpiece Cake Shop wasn’t about selling. Mr. Phillips made it clear that he would be happy to sell the couple any of the pre-made, generic cakes that he had in stock. He (rightly) drew the line at using his artistic talents for the creation of a message that he objected to. Also, bakers are typically responsible for setting up cakes at the scene of the wedding reception, since they are often quite complex. No such parallel exists with guns.

    • GPS Daddy

      False equivocation. The gun store owner is not selling the gun to murder someone. IF they did they would be an accomplice to the murder. The cake store owner is putting his own art into the cake for the purpose of the wedding. Forcing the cake store owner to make a cake for a purpose that is against their conscious would be the same as forcing the gun store owner to knowingly sell a gun for murder (assuming that murder is against the gun store owner). Now murder and a wedding are not on the same level of “offense” but your the one who made the analogy.

      Let me ask you this, show a Muslim cake store owner be forced to make a cake showing Muhammad desecrated? Do you support that the Muslim cake store owner is obligated to make the cake?

  • tz1

    Sigh.
    Has anyone actually ASKED the ACLU of WA or USA about the incident and whether they think it violates any laws or even principles?

    While silence may give consent, it cannot be an indication of guilt. Or have you not read the 5th amendment or its context?

    • Charles Burge

      Reading comprehension not your strong suit? The second paragraph of this very article says “The ACLU did not return multiple requests on an incident last week”.

      • tz1

        Today I regard as “multiple requestes” “but we emailed you twice”.
        Internet words are cheap. Did they call? Did they pester?
        We are held to a higher standard, as Jesus was.

        • Charles Burge

          Maybe you didn’t make it all the way to the third paragraph?

          “TheDCNF emailed the national organization three times and called them multiple times looking for comment, as well.”

          • tz1

            I stand corrected.

  • Philmonomer

    I fail to see the double standard. I’m pretty sure you get to kick people out of your shop for passing out pamphlets inside your shop. It doesn’t matter what the pamphlets say.

    • Ed

      They didn’t hand out pamphlets in the coffee shop, they had handed them out elsewhere and then went into the coffee shop for coffee. Apparently some fellow leftist told the owner they were Christians they’d seen handing pamphlets out elsewhere and he went over and told them they had to leave because he was offended by their beliefs. Try researching facts before trampling rights of others

      • Philmonomer

        Yeah, it would have been great if those facts were included in the article here. I just re-read this article, and my understanding that the pamphlet was passed out in the shop is entirely consistent with the article. You are saying I should have gone to other articles before commenting here? Please.

        Thanks for the more info.

Inspiration
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us