I Will Not Bake Or Sell You A Gay Wedding Cake. Now Go Fuck Off.

I’ve been the handy-man-on-call for an elderly coupla dykes. Happy to do it, and they asked nicely and we were friends. And yea, lots of gay friends over the years. I understand how, like having black friends, that actually makes me anti-gay and anti-black—a total transparent, grandstanding mess for public opinion. Because, as you are well aware, I’m all about wide, public, positive fucking-opinion. I work hard at it. Get along. My motto.

But: friends. Do you get it? It was personal. I wasn’t forced and even after a rocky start with those two (both retired Sheriffs, too) we all came to find we couldn’t help ourselves. There’s so much more to a person than their political views. Jeanie died a few years back after multiple battles with various assortments of cancers. I loved her. And she always had Jamison’s for me. I’d have baked her and Sharon a cake for any occasion, because they were friends.

I can’t stand the gay agenda. It’s actually managed to become worse than the atheist agenda.

They can all go fuck themselves and I hope that if anyone is actually forced to bake a wedding cake for someone they prefer to not associate with, they mix in plenty of various mammalian sperm and other bodily fluids. Supposedly, it’s high in protein and what’s more, it may not require that 1/4 tsp of salt. …And nose boogers for texture. People will think it’s pineapple.

I’m glad those buttfuckers chose this battle. I will never again in my life speak in support of the gay lifestyle, and I used to be known to walk out on people in restaurants over the FREE ASSOCIATION principle of the matter.

Go fuck yourselves.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Jed on April 6, 2015 at 18:10

    Don’t forget to add buckets of potato starch to the cake so that everyone farts their brains out.

  2. Jeff Johnson on April 6, 2015 at 20:09

    Really ?
    This post makes no(as in none) sense –

    putting crap in people’s food is both a criminal offence and just disgusting –

    I don’t have a pie in the gay pie parade – but I do care about food serving standards –

    if you do not agree with the laws – just say so – and if you insist on putting crap in food – put it in your own food –

    Having to resort to the use of revolting prose doth not make the writter or the thinker –

    And no – I wont – as you already did it to yours truly

    • Richard Nikoley on April 6, 2015 at 20:29

      “putting crap in people’s food is both a criminal offence and just disgusting –”

      Which is more disgusting? Serious question to someone who has yet to develop a thinking mind. Giving you a pass because, though you didn’t make a distinction, you at least made a comparison.

      If you had to choose either legality or socially revolting, which would you choose, grasshopper?

      “I don’t have a pie in the gay pie parade – but I do care about food serving standards –”

      What standards are those?

      “if you do not agree with the laws – just say so –”

      Uh, I’m an anarchist who does not agree with any preemption in the use of force (the essential of all laws). I believe this blog has been pretty well on the record in that since 1993 and over 4,000 posts.

      But I get it, people make presumptions and expose their ignorance all the time. It’s a sport to make fun of them around here.

    • steven moffat on September 3, 2015 at 23:58

      Hahaha. Who cares. They can’t steal the word “gay” they are homosexual.
      Gay means happy and fun not discussing and abhorrent.
      More cabinet makers are needed to build closets.
      Personally I wouldn’t put anything in their consumables but I wouldn’t stop anyone else.

  3. Bay Area Sparky on April 6, 2015 at 22:11

    Wouldn’t your angry abandonment of lifestyle freedom advocacy basically be “throwing the baby out with the bathwater?”

    Also there’s a funny irony here. While I suppose one could argue that the LGBTs are misguided in their fight for equal treatment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts being passed by states right now are legislation written by anti-gays.

    In other words the heavy hand of government coercion is being wielded in this case not by gays but by anti-gays advocating for businesses that don’t want to serve gays.

    Gays are merely doing what you would reasonably expect any group would do when under attack.

    Personally I think businesses should be free to do as they please and let the chips fall where they may. Boycotts have a history going back at least to the 18th century. In this day and age, while some businesses would benefit from being anti-gay, most would be damaged. If “individuals” want to damage their own business, that should be their prerogative.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2015 at 07:28

      I firmly support the right of blacks to refuse to let whites sit in the front of the busses they own.

      Incidentally, this whole thing, going both ways, is a comlete bastardization of the freedom to associate both implicit and explicit in the US Constitution by bending the commerce clause out of all proportion.

    • John on April 7, 2015 at 07:55

      I’ve been to a few places where I wished they had just put a “no whites allowed” sign outside. Walking into a discriminatory environment with no advance warning sucks.

      I think its a matter of time before someone starts identifying gay owned bakeries, and orders cakes for their annual gay conversion parties. The stories would likely trumpet the virtue of the owners refusing service.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2015 at 08:20

      Ha, now that would be funny, John. Or, what is that “Baptist Church” that actively agitates, with signs like “God Hates Fags,” and such? Perhaps a gay sign painter should be forced to create the signs, or lose his livelihood.

    • John on April 7, 2015 at 08:50

      Since you brought up that church and opened the gay florist door a few comments down…

      “Hi I’d like to send flowers please. Yes, I would like the card to read ‘for all your efforts fighting the gay agenda. May Satan sodomize their souls into eternity. Signed, the Westboro Church’ Hello, are you still there?”

    • robm on April 7, 2015 at 09:29

      John, agree back in my younger invincible days we got lost in the “wrong part of town” for us. Logically thinking we needed beer we went in to the nearest c-store, picked up a 12 pack as the cashier yells at us, ” don’t know what you 2 smart arse white boys are trying to do but take the beer and get the h#ll out of my store. No sign needed.

    • bob r on April 7, 2015 at 09:54

      “In other words the heavy hand of government coercion is being wielded in this case not by gays but by anti-gays advocating for businesses that don’t want to serve gays.”

      The government usually does use coercion but in this case I’m not seeing it: how does saying “you cannot be forced to provide a service if it violates your beliefs” equate to “coercion”?

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2015 at 10:35

      Exactly, Bob R. Perfect example of an upside-down world where mush for brains can’t even think anymore and freedom for gays means coercing you into associating with them, or losing your livelihood.

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 7, 2015 at 16:48

      Ah good catch. Coercion was the wrong word. In this case simple “legislation” would have been better because these laws are not forcing people to do something but rather they’re allowing people to do something (discriminate based on their values).

      However my point remains the same… the legislation (Religious Freedom Restoration Laws) is driven by anti-gays, not gays. Put differently it’s legislation pushed by those who want to discriminate, not by those pushing for equal status under the law.

      As an aside, it’s ironic that many (most?) conservatives yell and scream about “communists/socialists” ruining our country with excessive government coercion (there it is!) but when the legislation fits their values, they’re all for it.

      As for the LGBT reaction it stems from the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. These folks naturally feel threatened by these laws so they rally and push back. I understand their reaction and I really don’t have a problem with any of it. There are many much more important issues that I save my anger for.

      And to re-state my position, I prefer that businesses do as they please and that there is no laws either sanctioning or prohibiting their “behavior.”

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2015 at 17:26

      Well, the proposed legislation is merely self defense. When interpretation of existing constitution and law gets twisted to mean that you must associate with whom you consciously find abhorant or give up your livelihood, the. The only way to counter it without resorting to killing lots of people–which I would not lift a finger to stop–is to create affirmative legislation to make statortory what is already I implicitly and explicitly constitutional and moral–the right to associate freely, on whatever grounds you like.

      And I’ll add this: that the “land of the free” threatens people with loss os their very livelihood, insulting them by invoking the commerce clause of the constitution, demonstrates what a depraved, evil country we are.

      I love discrimination on all fronts and all levels. We live our lives being discriminatory and it’s essential to survival. And, though I don’t personally discriminate exclusively on the basis of the popular special interest poor babies of the moment, I’m fine with those who do.

      I don’t know why, but I’ll discriminate against a trade carpenter over a trade electrician every time. 😉

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 8, 2015 at 17:46

      Minus the vitriol, schtick or not (and I’m certain you’re genuinely angry that a bakery is being damaged simply by being publicly honest), we more or less agree on this subject.

      As far as your comment that discrimination is essential for survival, I would agree only if discrimination is meant to be synonymous with discernment.

      Again I don’t question an individual or group’s right to discriminate against others but I would hardly call discrimination a virtue or a necessary survival adaptation.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 8, 2015 at 19:32

      “I would hardly call discrimination a virtue or a necessary survival adaptation.”

      Well, it’s baked into the evolutionary cake and happens on levels we don’t even understand, so this assertion is at once non-sequitur, and a false alternative.

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 8, 2015 at 21:11

      “Well, it’s baked into the evolutionary cake and happens on levels we don’t even understand, so this assertion is at once non-sequitur, and a false alternative.”

      I guess we’ll have to disagree on this one.

    • John on April 9, 2015 at 11:40

      That it is baked into the evolutionary cake, is this concept even controversial or debated?

      I find that I don’t discriminate based on color at all – though I discriminate highly based on appearance. I’ve got some mental stereotypes that get triggered when I see certain combinations in someone’s attire, hair, level of fake tan, etc. I find that when I have a gut reaction of “douchebag” or “bitch” or something like that, it is generally dead on, if I ever meet the person. Sometimes its just their facial expressions.

      The other day I saw this guy in the gym and, without consciously making an effort, I had “douchebag” flash in my mind. Steroid look, sleeves cut off shirt, fake tan, greasy hair – the major queues. A few minutes later, after I loaded some plates on a calf machine, he walked up, threw all the plates off, sat down on the machine, looked at me, and while laughing goes “yeah you were going to use all that weight?”

      Sometimes I’m wrong, but way more often I’m right. One of my best friends was a co-worker of mine that I didn’t have much interest in getting to know. His first day of work he showed up in a pink Abercrombie shirt that was too small, with the collar popped. Perhaps I put too much weight on that one trigger, though it was a huge “dickhead” queue.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 9, 2015 at 11:59

      Well, I see it as just another instance of watering down the plain meaning of words, conflating them with other things. If you look up the definition, it’s essentially “an unjust distinction,” but the concept has been around a lot longer that unjust prejudice has been recognized.

      Discernment, by contrast, implies some rational / objective basis for favoring one thing over another.

      Choosing to eat a ribeye steak over a warm pile of dogshit is en exercise in discernment. Choosing chocolate over vanilla is an exercise in discrimination.

      We discriminate every day over hundreds of things. Discernment is far more rare. Most often, we can’t give a rational or objective basis for why we prefer one thing over another, why we have automatic, positive or negative visceral reactions to various stimuli. The evolutionary angle is that those discriminations we tend to make are a part of our adaptation and survival as humans.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 9, 2015 at 12:48

      …To add to this, when I was growing up in the 60s, the word in common usage was “prejudice.”

      Now, consider why the egalitarian, commie left can’t tolerate the word prejudice, and it had to slowly evolve to co-opt the term discrimination. It’s because pre-judging implies that you have a right to judge, but that it ought not be hasty or flippant, but only after an honest assessment of all relevent information you can gather.

      But, since in the world of egalitarianism, equality of results, etc., nobody has the right to judge anyone else on any basis whatsoever.

      “Judge, and prepare to be judged.” – Ayn Rand

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 9, 2015 at 16:41

      Regarding discrimination we can go on infinitely with definitions and semantics.

      I use discrimination thusly: after consideration of the other, you decide to not like and not interact with that person or worse yet, you decide to treat that person poorly.

      It is THIS idea of discrimination that is not very likely to be a decision based on survival or virtue.


    • Richard Nikoley on April 10, 2015 at 07:07

      “I use discrimination thusly: after consideration of the other, you decide to not like and not interact with that person or worse yet, you decide to treat that person poorly.”

      But using the force of the state to compel a person to bake someone a wedding cake or potentially lose their livelihood is not treating them poorly.

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 10, 2015 at 16:37

      To reiterate, I think businesses should be able to serve or not serve whomever they please so again, I don’t think Religious Freedom laws which enable businesses to do that are discriminatory.

      This started with me responding to your statement that “We live our lives being discriminatory and it’s essential to survival.”

      Webster’s has this definition of Discriminate:
      1) to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups

      2) to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

      You statement about “essential to survival” I believe references the 2nd definition. That’s why I mentioned “discernment.” When I say discriminate I mean the 1st definition.

    • Bret on April 10, 2015 at 20:24

      “When I say discriminate I mean the 1st definition.”

      Your arbitrary decision to define this word in only one connotation does not render other connotations invalid or irrelevant.

      Discriminate has indeed become a “bad word” to many people, thanks to the culture of lawyers and wimps that is gradually swallowing up the entire country like a cancer. In reality, it is only a “bad” thing when government does it, because all government actions are backed by force (and much less subject to the market competition others have to deal with constantly). And being that government is composed of and run by imperfect humans who discriminate whether they intend to or not, that is one reason (among many similar ones) that government should be kept as small as possible.

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 11, 2015 at 06:45

      “Your arbitrary decision to define this word in only one connotation does not render other connotations invalid or irrelevant.”

      My use of the word is not arbitrary.

      I was clarifying my usage vs Richard’s usage in which they are virtually different words.

    • Bret on April 11, 2015 at 07:13

      “My use of the word is not arbitrary.”

      Your preference of a single interpretation of the word, while disregarding or discounting others, is absolutely arbitrary, whether you clarified anything or not.

    • Bay Area Sparky on April 11, 2015 at 07:24

      I don’t “prefer a single interpretation of the word.” The word has more than one meaning. I am using it to mean prejudice, not discernment/differentiation.

      I’m done here. The last word is yours.

    • Bret on April 11, 2015 at 09:08

      I hear ya. And I don’t mean to come across so snarky and arrogant…I just see the whole concept of discrimination as a smart thing that people should do in most cases. I feel the definition of the word has been hijacked by political correctness, much to my displeasure.

  4. Jeff Johnson on April 7, 2015 at 01:25

    You and Woody
    Not knowing what an anarchist was really ?
    I googled and found that you and Woody Harrelson are both – who knew ? I found this quite funny.

    Myself – I lean towards being an arcanist – which is much like anarchist except the perceptions are turned inwards.

    I muddled over you asking me about legal or disgusting and I wondered why you asked ?

    Legal is a fine thing I suppose until it harms me or someone else and transposes itself into something illegal(by law or otherwise) – it’s often just a tool used to take advantage(an unfair advantage)
    Disgusting is a personal thing that we learn and ever imparts upon us something better – once we learn it and sometimes we need a teacher(myself particulary) –

    Eades wrote a good peice on Ornish last post – suppose you read it ?

  5. rob on April 7, 2015 at 04:21

    This is all a media creation, they find a small town business person who has never in his or her life even thought about the issue, get a soundbite out of them and ignite a controversy.

    The correct answer to “Would you cater a gay wedding?” is “Go fuck yourself.”

  6. Jen W. on April 7, 2015 at 05:28

    Amen. We (yes, I’m a lesbian) need to get our heads out of our entitled asses and stop trying to use force to get what we want. I’m reminded of something Jack Sparko said in a podcast about working in situation like this as a martial artist whose opponent is bigger and stronger then them: re-direction of energy. To the point, where not giving you what you want, makes your opponent look like a dumbass and the loss they is just not worth it. “When you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”

    If they don’t want your business, get your head out of your ass and just go somewhere else.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2015 at 07:56

      Amen back atcha, Jen.

      Beyond the vitriol schtick of the post, I do have to admit it’s hard to find sympathy for some of these business folks now being put in the position of “choose your livelihood or your conscience,” when no doubt many of them fervently supported all manner of restrictions on the freedom of gay peoples to freely associate, up to and including marriage—should they wish to be as miserable as the rest of us. 🙂

      But as they say, two wrongs doth not a right make, so basically, it’s a matter where everyone needs to STFU and mind their own goddammed business.

    • rob on April 7, 2015 at 08:01

      It’s a very easy problem to avoid altogether.

      “I’d like to order a wedding cake for delivery on Saturday April 18.”

      Why do they have to know who is getting married?

      If you’d like to top the cake with two little plastic men or women, do it yourself.

      “I’d like some flowers delivered to the Eastside Unitarian Church. Oh by the way it’s for my big gay wedding.”

      Who does that?

    • Richard Nikoley on April 7, 2015 at 08:23

      Well of course, rob. There’s no doubt that this is all grandstanding for attention.

      Flowers should be no issue, though, since all florists are gay anyway. 🙂

  7. Gina on April 7, 2015 at 10:03

    A law to address a problem that didn’t exist being protested despite it not causing anyone problems.

    But, hey, it diverts attention away from anything of actual consequence, so there’s that. Plus, we all get to pick a side and feel smug.

  8. rob on April 7, 2015 at 11:01

    I called my local bakery and asked them if they would bake me a cake featuring Baby Jesus sexing a Narwhal.

    They refused.

    I have set up a GoFundMe account to help me deal with the trauma of this experience, please donate generously.

  9. Wenchypoo on April 8, 2015 at 06:27

    Honestly, other than the ornament at the top, how is a hetero wedding cake any different from a gay wedding cake?

    If I were gay, cake would be THE LAST THING I’d want at my wedding! If we’re going over the top here, let’s do it for real–bring on the prime rib or something. What the hell–Daddy’s paying for it anyway, right? 🙂

  10. Ataraxia on April 8, 2015 at 11:37

    For the sake of argument : Et tu, Brute? First the supreme court says corporations are people too and now you. Granted, small bakeries and most businesses don’t enjoy the same protections as big business, but skin-in-the-game is reduced so how do they claim the same freedom of association as any other Individual freedoms? By the very rules of the game they’ve agreed to play, they don’t get the same freedoms. They don’t like the game? Well when they fail to change it, maybe it’s time to think of opting out of a coercive system altogether.

    Harsh, Sure (esp. when thinking of small stores/livelihoods), but hiding from reality is a mass delusion that’s been far more destructive, why support it by choosing sides in a crooked game, whether LGBT or opposing business owners, religious or otherwise?

    the devil was having a quiet day 😉

    • Richard Nikoley on April 8, 2015 at 11:57

      I actually didn’t make any distinction in terms of proprietorships, partnerships (same thing, essentially), and various corp entries, which are formed under specific statutes.

      It would be reasonable to argue that as a corporation that enjoys various protections via statue (limitation of liability being the big elephant), that other side of the coin is that it must follow essentially the same rules as state funded entities do (i.e., limitations on the basis of what flavor of discrimination is allowed).

      But not for a person or partnership of persons who enjoy no such statutory protections. In the former, it’s a choice between conscience and statutory protection (reasonable) and in the latter, a choice between conscience and livelihood (unreasonable).

    • Ataraxia on April 8, 2015 at 12:38

      Yes, you didn’t make any distinction and neither does the religious ‘freedom’ law being considered That’s all.

    • Ataraxia on April 8, 2015 at 12:41

      Typo, no emphasis meant on the “That’s”. The phrase should read : “…being considered. That’s all.”

    • Richard Nikoley on April 8, 2015 at 13:05

      Well, what’s being tagged as a “religious freedom” law is a contradiction in itself, testament to how Royally fucked up America is, in body and mind. It’s self-defense law, is what it is.

      I maintain: it was the original intention of it’s founders that Mrc’n people freely associate with whom they please, under whatever fucktarded sets of religious doctrines any and all the fucktards want; but, importantly, to include NONE: for the smart 0.01%. See how it all shakes out. You can’t read the original writings of these men and not come away impressed, even given the patriarchal context of the times. They were thinkers, trying to grasp The Animal, but in a social context that’s adjudicated by the Animals, not higher authorities. They got a lot right, a lot wrong— but what’s critically important is that they were the first and it’s up to us to carry the essential idealism forward.

      That people are agitating over creating laws to reaffirm what’s explicit and implicit, and then trying to rule such laws “unconstitutional,” to me, makes—yet again—a lafing stock of the world I want no part of. I’ll probably keep my passport for convenience, but I have lost all grams of love for this country.

      What a shame.

    • Richard Nikoley on April 8, 2015 at 13:24

      I’ll add to myself.

      It is easy to judge the past in terms of the present. Making it more easy is that we won’t be around in 200 years when people judge us harshly for largely going along with how things are now. Or, maybe they’ll be of more omnicentric mind, by then.

      Mrc’s founding roughly coincides with both the Enlightenment and economics as a pursuit of science.

      I believe the founders existed in a unique place in time where, the development of civilization by means of slave labor was collapsing. Get over the morality of it. Lincoln was a politician who feared having his influence cut in half via secession of many states, and was willing to kill 650,000 Mrcns to shore up his 16th Rule. It worked. Ought to have been the end of politics, but it only gave it a shot in the arm, which is the point where you know the founders’ experiment utterly failed.

      Division of labor in the context of wages and eventually, benefits, is what ended slavery (plus industrialization requiring true skilled labor). I’ll not take the time, but pensions, health care, and on and on were exclusively created by enterprise—coopted by the State for the purpose of antagonizing the 99.9% mush-for-brains fucktards who are such fucktards as to think the President forced their boss to sign their paycheck.

    • Ataraxia on April 8, 2015 at 13:40

      Yup, sad and by the trends of history, inevitable. Every freedom-oriented major socio-philosophical change went off-track the first time/s it was tried on a large scale (obviously, or we’d be living in a utopia right now). Changing minds is the hardest part, maybe because real change is effected person-to-person, not drummed up in crowds for more than relatively short periods? One mind at a time;-)

    • Richard Nikoley on April 8, 2015 at 13:47

      “One mind at a time;-)”

      Absolutely, dahlin.

      It’s what we have to work with, so grab those balls, squeeze ’em for all they’re worth.

    • Ataraxia on April 8, 2015 at 14:16

      You bet.
      now the devil’s done

    • Richard Nikoley on April 8, 2015 at 14:48

      Hey girlfriend. Could you take note to close your open tags? 2nd one I had to fix in two posts. Wouldn’t mention it but, 2 in a row…

    • Ataraxia on April 8, 2015 at 14:55

      Sure except…they don’t show open at my end. I’ll just stop using them, easier.

  11. Bret on April 8, 2015 at 18:55
  12. Lance Rockwood on April 9, 2015 at 18:49


    You fucking rule. You say all the shit I’m usually thinking. Good on ya, mate.


  13. bioking on April 10, 2015 at 16:29

    I know it wouldn’t bother you, but have you had any cancellations at your accommodation venues as a result of a view expressed in one of your posts?

    • Richard Nikoley on April 10, 2015 at 16:49


      Quite the contrary. They only thing I’ve ever had is people looked me up and expressed approval. I assume others didn’t but counted their vacation as a higher value to them, and I’m very good at 5-star, expensive vacations if you want one. 🙂

  14. Penny Peehole on August 22, 2015 at 10:53

    I love how everyone here, host included, have allowed themselves to be jerked around like puppets on strings by the media. It’s both sad and funny to the point that one might even call it bathetic. To paraphrase the title to a 10,000 Maniacs song “You Angry Puppets”. LOL!

    So frothing-at-the-mouth gang, where was your ire when these same businesses were required to serve black people and women and divorced folks and all manner of religiously condemned human detritus? Hmm? That’s how it’s been for decades now but suddenly it’s the gays who get blamed for upsetting the apple cart. Get real! (Insert dramatic gay eye roll here.)

    You’re all a bunch of hypocrites, but then again, most Right wing echo chamber bigots are, go figure.

    No cake for you! 🙂

    • Richard Nikoley on August 22, 2015 at 12:08

      You’re barking up the wrong tree, fancy pants.

      I fully support the right of any black business owner to refuse to server crackers at their lunch counter.

    • Bret on August 22, 2015 at 15:02

      …and of whites to refuse to serve blacks, for the same reason. Freedom of association, which exists because no one (least of all government officials) can read minds.

      If I, a white guy, own a restaurant and I kick out a group of loud, obnoxious, black people causing a disturbance, did I do so because they were causing a disturbance, or because they were black?

      A plaintiff lawyer could have a lot of fun with that situation, and a gullible jury of retards could easily swoon.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k