Bake Me a Cake—Or Else—Taken to Its Illogical Conclusion

by on

Shackford also notes:

The show ends up taking this role reversal to a weird and terrible conclusion. Grace, who hates Trump and all he stands for, pushes the bakery to make Karen’s MAGA cake, going so far as to raise the specter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) coming after them. To its credit, the show takes the argument to its natural, terrible conclusion: The episode ends with the baker reluctantly baking a customer a cake with a swastika on it.

12 Comments for “Bake Me a Cake—Or Else—Taken to Its Illogical Conclusion”

  1. posted by JohnInCA on

    After years and years of folks being willfully obtuse about why non-discrimination laws don’t force anyone to bake swastika cakes, it’s really weird to see those same people suddenly jumping on a TV show for making the same error.

  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    We are a few months from a decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which will begin defining the legal parameters. Then, assuming that the Supreme Court’s decision changes the existing legal parameters in any significant way (finding a “free expression” exemption to public accommodations laws, but trying to limit it to wedding cakes in same-sex marriage cases), we’ll see a decade’s worth of related cases interpreting the change and apply the change to related situations.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    [snort] isn’t “IMAGAY” the signature logo of the “Gays for Trump” crowd?

  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Oh, well, formatting is hard: “IMAGAY”.

    • posted by Jorge on

      isn’t “IMAGAY” the signature logo of the “Gays for Trump” crowd?
      …
      Oh, well, formatting is hard

      You have an excuse. The person who put the signature logo upside down and a superscript on LGBTs instead of a subscript does not.

      I think the gays for Trump have gone quieter and quieter as the president’s Twitter account has gotten louder and louder. The president has sliced through nearly all his bases. He needs to get out more.

  5. posted by Jorge on

    “To its credit, the show takes the argument to its natural, terrible conclusion: The episode ends with the baker reluctantly baking a customer a cake with a swastika on it.

    But in doing so… the show doesn’t even grasp the basic idea that the bakery has speech rights too.”

    I find it hard to reconcile that example with that conclusion. Perhaps the article is saying the episode nails the social argument and ignores the legal argument.

    Well, evidently the shows producers believe there is no legal argument and that there is naught but a social point to make. And given the history of the gay rights movement over the past 15-odd years, I think that’s a reasonable assumption.

    I sincerely disagree with the article that “The argument about gay wedding cakes is fundamentally about what counts as speech and expression.” I think the progressive movement is rapidly evincing a willful indifference to such questions with its continuous boundary-pushing and boundary-breaking. I think the wedding cake controversy is fundamentally about whether or not it is acceptable to compel speech in the first place.

  6. posted by MRBill30560 on

    Meanwhile, Gays for Trump founder is being stupid: http://www.newsweek.com/gays-trump-trans-people-mentally-challenge-845251

    • posted by Jorge on

      And this woman is being even stupider.

      “We also know that gun control… and immigrant rights are indivisible from LGBTIQ rights.”

      (What kind of idiot thinks gun control is a gay rights issue? It is far and away the other way around! And as for immigrant rights I think Europe is having the opposite experience.)

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        What kind of idiot thinks gun control is a gay rights issue?

        Most everyone? Whether we’re talking about conservative gays saying that we need to relax gun control so we can arm gay folk for their own self-defense, or liberal gays saying we need to enhance gun control so our aggressors can’t be armed, claiming it’s related to gay rights isn’t unusual.

        For that matter, take any issue with a partisan divide and you’ll find conservative/Republican gays using some argument about how it’s really a gay-rights issue, and some liberal/Democrat gays using some argument about how it’s really a gay-rights issue. That’s how politics, coalitions and intersectionality works.

        You are, of course, free to not like it and prefer “single issue advocacy groups”, but it’s not new or unusual.

      • posted by Matthew on

        Disarming gays leaves us with one less method of recourse against anti-gay bigots.

  7. posted by Matthew on

    sWILL & disGRACE is one of the least funny, most anti-gay TV shows ever. I mean that both as a gay man and as as someone who has watched a lot of sitcoms over the years. For one thing, it’s not remotely funny. I have never once laughed at anything related to it that I have been subjected to it. That could make me forgive a lot of the characters’ flaws, but since it’s not, then no dice. For another thing, it’s misogynistic. That scene of Will & Jack grabbing Grace’s tits was one of the least funny sitcom moments in history. Sean Hayes uncle tommed himself and stayed in the closet throughout the show’s run, a message reinforced by Matt Damon saying gays should stay in the closet after doing this stupid show and then playing Liberace’s lover. And the show’s treatment of gay Republicans and conservatives is beyond despicable. The message of the show is that it’s only okay to be gay if you’re a liberal and a slut. That’s not pro-gay in any way, shape, or form.

    SOAP, by contrast, still holds up 40 years later as a comedy.

  8. posted by line pc on

    Helpful info. Fortunate me I discovered your website unintentionally, and I am shocked why this coincidence did not came about earlier!
    I bookmarked it.

Comments are closed.