Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[Daniel2]

As has been anticipated by many, the battle ground over religious freedoms vs. civil rights related to sexual orientation isn't over.

The next issue seems to be public accomodations, as well as the ongoing issue of taxation of churches engaged in anti-LGBT civil rights initiatives (conservatives are likely to prefer the term "pro-religious liberty" or "defending the First Amendment" instead of being 'anti-LGBT').

Two recent issues in the press, unfortunately, illustrate these issues.

Quote

Mike Lee urges local, federal laws for religious protection in coming gay-rights fights

By THOMAS BURR | The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Jun 11 2015 05:24PM    •    Last Updated Aug 17 2015 06:42 pm

---

Scott Applewhite | AP file photo Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, second from right, will introduce legislation to exempt women from any requirement that they register for the Selective Service at the age of 18.

Advocates for same-sex marriage may be winning the debate in America, but those who support only heterosexual unions still need to fight to protect themselves from government intrusion, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, argued Thursday in calling for a movement to pass religious-liberty legislation in cities, states and Congress.

"This is a crucial point for those of us who work in capitals and county seats across the country," Lee said in Washington. "If the coming conversation about religious freedom is left to the judicial and executive branches of our government, all Americans — whether they know it or not — will lose that debate before it even begins."

Lee, a first-term Republican, says he will reintroduce legislation – dubbed the Government Non-Discrimination Act – that would protect religiously affiliated schools from mandates to recognize gay marriage and prevent any government agency from denying tax exemption, grants, contracts, accreditation, licenses or certifications based on a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Lee introduced similar legislation in 2013, though it was never heard in committee.

"We cannot hide this issue under a bushel and hope no one asks us about it," Lee said at Hillsdale College's Kirby Center near the Senate. "We will have this debate. The only question is whether we start a conversation or we let the fundamentalists pick a fight."

He said fundamentalists are extremists of any political stripe who cannot abide points of view diverging from their own.

Gay-rights activists say what Lee proposes would be, essentially, a license to discriminate by those claiming the shield of religion.

Lee couched his pitch to push for legislation at all levels of government as continuing the American tradition of welcoming people of faith – and people of no faith – to follow their beliefs without "interference or regulation from the state" and added that the nation's "turn toward intolerance" comes from the campaign to legalize same-sex marriages.

"Like many Americans, I personally do not believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional requirement, or a federal prerogative, or even good policy for that matter," said Lee, who clerked for Samuel Alito before Alito's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. "But today, those of us who hold these views cannot deny that our arguments are no longer winning the public debate. Sometimes in a democracy, the other side wins."

That isn't to say, Lee noted, that if same-sex marriage is the law of the land that individuals and business who disagree with it should be forced to bake wedding cakes, cater or perform marriages for those who support such unions.

Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, said most lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups support protections for religious liberty and don't want to force churches to marry people who aren't their members. But he added that Lee's plan is "dangerous and it's misleading and a gross distortion" of what religious liberty is.

"Religious liberty does not give individuals license to freely discriminate against people who they believe are sinners," Williams said. "Senator Lee wants to allow individuals and businesses to put up a sign that says 'No Gays Served Here' and that's not the America any of us want to live in."

Williams pointed out that the Utah Legislature passed a law this year – with support from Republicans, Democrats, religious, gay and straight groups – that extended anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. The law also clarified exemptions for religious institutions.

Lee, who is Mormon, also brought up his own faith, noting that the earliest followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were persecuted as they moved across the country but that founder Joseph Smith responded by saying that if he couldn't persuade others to his way, he wouldn't compel them.

"As witnesses to that truth, in our pursuit of protecting religious liberty, we must proceed with resolve and conviction, and also with cheerfulness and charity," Lee added.

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Another source frames the issue differently:

Quote

Senator Claims Anti-Gay Discrimination Isn’t A Big Deal While Trying To Allow More Of It

Passing the “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has been anti-LGBT conservatives’ top priority since the Supreme Court brought marriage equality to all 50 states. It’s part of the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) post-Obergefell plan and Republican presidential candidate pledge, and the Family Research Council (FRC) mentions it almost daily. Lee joined NPR this week to defend the bill, basically admitting that all it does is enable anti-gay discrimination.

Lee framed his concern as one about the government discriminating against religious institutions — for discriminating against people in same-sex marriages. It’s the latter he wants to allow by ensuring that the government never penalizes any religious institution that refuses to recognize a same-sex couple’s marriage, or employ them, house them, or serve them.

For example, he said that religious schools should be allowed to turn away gay students and faculty because those are “decisions on the basis of religious belief.” He explained, “The college in question ought to be able to decide what kinds of people that it wants teaching because that, in turn, influences what will be taught by the university. It becomes the university’s speech.”

Host Robert Siegel asked how far Lee’s protections would go, such as whether a neighborhood could ban the sale of property to same-sex couples. Rather than rejecting such blatant discrimination as wrong, Lee simply suggested “that would probably not pass muster” under the Constitution.

Lee seemed to reject the notion that anti-gay discrimination is a major problem. “We’re not, moreover, in a society in which people who are either gay or lesbian who are married to a member of the same sex, for example, are subject to widespread discrimination.” This is despite the fact that only 22 states even offer any kind of nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation.

In explaining why FADA is “so important,” NOM highlights Aaron and Melissa Klein, the Oregon bakery owners who have been fined for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Now that marriage equality is legal everywhere, NOM warns, “Imagine what will occur.” FRC similarly argues that FADA “protects individuals or entities that believe, teach or establish in codes of conduct that sexual intimacy is reserved for natural marriage.”

When Lee first introduced the bill in 2013 under the moniker of “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” following Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID), who first introduced it in the House, LGBT groups pointed out the number of ways it could be used to discriminate against same-sex families. As the Human Rights Campaign suggested as an example, the legislation would protect the job of a federal worker processing tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security applications could refuse to recognize a same-sex couple’s marriage and still be protected in his job.

The ACLU has since also explained that FADA would “eviscerate” the LGBT nondiscrimination protections President Obama established in the federal workforce last year, calling it “a Pandora’s Box of taxpayer-funded discrimination against same-sex couples and their children.”

Lee’s priority remains that “there ought not be a penalty attached to a religious belief.” In other words, anti-gay discrimination should be free to run rampant.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..if they start getting to where they are providing boundaries for others and what they believe and/or politics...they should be exempt.  Here we go....sad, too.  Everybody with respect really can have it both ways.  Leave it alone Mikey!!

[Daniel2]

As I mentioned previously, conservatives aren't the only ones taking action.

Fred Karger has long been a vocal critic of the LDS church's involvement in anti-same-sex marriage initiatives and anti-LGBT legislation.  And unfortunately (thought perhaps, not surprisingly) he's renewing his efforts again... 

I'm uncertain if the timing of the two incidents is related, but I'm frankly tired of both approaches!

I've tried posting the text of the SL Tribune's article on the matter, but for some reason, the site isn't letting me post it (I've written 5 posts attempting to copy the text here, but after hitting "Submit," nothing appears), so here's the link.

EDITED: Here's the text of the article...

Quote

LGBT activist plans ad blitz targeting Mormon church’s tax-exempt status

By TONY SEMERAD | The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Dec 08 2016 06:24PM    •    Last Updated Dec 09 2016 11:06 am

(Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune) Jake Kelly, 28, sits for a MormonTips.com commercial on Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016. Kelly, who is gay, said the church's policies on the LGBT community are forcing him and his husband to rethink where they want to live.

A prominent gay-rights activist and former U.S. presidential candidate hopes to build "the biggest, loudest and most comprehensive" legal case ever mounted for revoking the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church.

Republican political operative Fred Karger, a longtime critic of LDS Church involvement in California's 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, said Thursday he has amassed a network of lawyers, researchers, investigators and like-minded organizations to help take his fight to the IRS.

Karger, 66, visited Salt Lake City to stage on-camera auditions with young Mormons and ex-Mormons aggrieved by the Utah-based faith's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender policies.

A prominent gay-rights activist and former U.S. presidential candidate hopes to build "the biggest, loudest and most comprehensive" legal case ever mounted for revoking the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church.

Republican political operative Fred Karger, a longtime critic of LDS Church involvement in California's 2008 Proposition 8 campaign, said Thursday he has amassed a network of lawyers, researchers, investigators and like-minded organizations to help take his fight to the IRS.

Karger, 66, visited Salt Lake City to stage on-camera auditions with young Mormons and ex-Mormons aggrieved by the Utah-based faith's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender policies.

Some of these 18- to 24-year-olds, Karger said, will be featured in a series of TV commercials to be aired in Utah early next year, encouraging others to step forward with inside information on the church's business holdings and political dealings — including its efforts against same-sex marriage.

"Somebody has got to fight for these kids," Karger said. "It's inexcusable, the damage and suffering the church has caused for so many of these families."

The Mormon faith, he said, "needs to change with the times."

Contacted on Thursday, a public-affairs spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to comment.

Sam Brunson, a tax-law scholar at Loyola University in Chicago, has noted that no tax-exempt entity has lost its exemption with the IRS for violating public policy since 1978 — "much less," he said, "any church."

"Which is to say, the [Mormon] church will not lose its tax-exempt status," Brunson wrote in a July 2015 blog for the By Common Consent website soon after gay marriage became legal in all 50 states.

Karger, who in 2012 became the first openly gay candidate to seek the Republican presidential nomination, founded Californians Against Hate in 2008 partly to investigate underreported financial involvement by Mormons in support of Prop 8, which briefly banned gay marriage in the Golden State.

Karger said Thursday his probing of the LDS Church had fallen largely dormant after his failed presidential quest — only to be revived in the aftermath of the November 2015 LDS policy declaring gay Mormon couples "apostates" and generally barring their children from baptism until they turn 18. He said the policy's emotional toll — including what he called a spike in teen suicides — has been traumatic.

The IRS case may take a year or more to build, Karger conceded. "We're really going to dig," he said, adding the filing would be accompanied by "hundreds of boxes of documents," including internal church memos and videos that already have been leaked.

His California-based Rights Equal Rights also has launched a website, MormonTips.com, to encourage LDS whistleblowers.

"That," Karger said, "is where we'll get our best evidence."

Federal law prohibits churches and other tax-exempt entities from participating or intervening on behalf of political candidates.

In past comments, Mormon officials have been adamant they have kept within legally appropriate lines. The LDS Church maintains a neutral stance in partisan matters, but reserves its right to speak out on issues with "significant community or moral consequences."

While motivated by what he sees as the harmful social impact of the LDS Church's LGBT policies, Karger said, his IRS push focuses on political and business activities that he argues have compromised its assertions of remaining on the political sidelines.

He alleges LDS Church involvement in opposing same-sex marriage initiatives in as many as 26 states and the use of Mormon meetinghouses for political organizing.

Karger said he is also working to substantiate assertions that LDS Public Affairs officials assisted Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid behind the scenes. Romney, who lost to President Barack Obama, became the first Mormon to head a major party ticket in the U.S.

Karger said he also is targeting taxation on the church's vast commercial and land holdings, including retail operations such as Deseret Book and City Creek Center, the $2 billion shopping complex in the heart of Salt Lake City.

"These activities cross the line," he said, "and nobody has challenged them on it."

Edited December 12, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..if they start getting to where they are providing boundaries for others and what they believe and/or politics...they should be exempt.  Here we go....sad, too.  Everybody with respect really can have it both ways.  Leave it alone Mikey!!

While I fully agree with what you wrote above, Jeanne, I had the same reaction about Mr. Karger....  I really wish HE would just leave the LDS church alone, just as I wish conservatives would drop fighting for equal protection for LGBT citizens regarding public accommodations laws.

Neither of these approaches is warranted, IMO, and neither seeks the middle ground.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Daniel2 said:

While I fully agree with what you wrote above, Jeanne, I had the same reaction about Mr. Karger....  I really wish HE would just leave the LDS church alone, just as I wish conservatives would drop fighting for equal protection for LGBT citizens regarding public accommodations laws.

Neither of these approaches is warranted, IMO, and neither seeks the middle ground.

Thank you for better clarification.  I see where you are coming from now.  I just don't want any more "rock the boat" moments.  I hate to see two steps forward and three steps back.  Merry Christmas Daniel2!

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..if they start getting to where they are providing boundaries for others and what they believe and/or politics...they should be exempt.  Here we go....sad, too.  Everybody with respect really can have it both ways.  Leave it alone Mikey!!

I am curious as to your thoughts about this:

Quote

{If you’re an active American Latter-day Saint} You should meet the man who wants to strip your church of its tax-exempt status, deprive your tithes and offerings of legal recognition as charitable gifts, and single your faith out for punitive action by the Internal Revenue Service:

“LGBT activist plans ad blitz targeting Mormon church’s tax-exempt status”

If you support the moral teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he says that you’re motivated by hatred and he regards you as a hater.  He runs an organization called “Californians Against Hate.”

As I see it, the LDS Church and its members exercised their constitutional rights.  And Mr. Karger is seeking to use the government to punish the LDS Church and its members for so doing.

One of the commenters makes some sage points:

Quote

Okay I need to rant for a second. This is one of the most insane displays of true intentions of whats been going on these past few years. Let me explain.

1) His charge that Deseret book and city creek center don't pay taxes is LAUGHABLE. Here is a quick reminder to anyone confused by the funding of these ventures: THEY ARE NOT PAYED FOR WITH TITHING BUT OUT OF MONEY FROM DESERET MANAGEMENT CORP A FOR PROFIT TAX PAYING BUSINESS ARM OF THE CHURCH. To imply they are actually tax free made with tithing is to imply one of the most in your face tax frauds in history. No one is a fan of the IRS but they are not stupid. This lack of basic understanding of the structure of the Church speaks volumes of his self professed knowledge about the Church as a whole.

2)Using the government to punish those who don't agree with your politics is the most un-American thing I can think of. Your rights DO NOT end where my feelings begin.

3)This 100% vindicates the Apostles. They have been blowing the horn on coming attacks on religious freedom for years now. One of the fears of the SSM ruling was people using the law to attack the Church. People laughed at that idea and proponents of SSM would reassure that it was just paranoia and all they wanted was marriage recognized by the government. No slippery slope here.

4)I am excited to see his campaigns against those who also sided with the church included but not limited to: The Islamic community, the Catholic Church, the other Christian groups, the Jewish communities, the black and hispanic communities of California(who overwhelmingly voted yes on Prop and many more!

Dan Peterson also makes some points in the Comments section:

Quote

{P}aying tithes and offerings would cost you more {if Karger had his way}, while making equivalent offerings to the Sierra Club, the Catholic Church, or the Unitarian Universalist Association would not.

So coming back to you, Jeanne.  Are you okay with Karger's campaign against the LDS Church?  It seems to me that you like the idea of a "live and let live" philosophy ("Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..").  The problem, though, is that people like Karger are actively seeking to punish "religions from believing what they want" (to be more specific, he wants to punish the LDS Church from believing what it wants).  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..

In my life, almost all of my religion takes place outside of the church building.

 

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your thoughts about this:

As I see it, the LDS Church and its members exercised their constitutional rights.  And Mr. Karger is seeking to use the government to punish the LDS Church and its members for so doing.

One of the commenters makes some sage points:

Dan Peterson also makes some points in the Comments section:

So coming back to you, Jeanne.  Are you okay with Karger's campaign against the LDS Church?  It seems to me that you like the idea of a "live and let live" philosophy ("Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..").  The problem, though, is that people like Karger are actively seeking to punish "religions from believing what they want" (to be more specific, he wants to punish the LDS Church from believing what it wants).  

Thanks,

-Smac

No...I am not okay with this man.  I have misunderstood.  I find hateful ways of dealing with things..the worse way.  Like I told Daniel2..I just don't want anything but progress..and thank you as well as Daniel for clarification on this person.  There are better ways.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In my life, almost all of my religion takes place outside of the church building.

 

 

Religion that is kept just at church is worthless.

[The Nehor]

Out of all the churches he picked the LDS church? Not one of the churches where their preachers suggest gays should be placed in internment camps or all forcibly placed in 'reparative therapy'?

Even as a strategic decision this makes no sense. Why go after a faith with the money and resources to fight? Private grudge?

[Calm]

Apparently he started targeting the Church due to its involvement with Prop 8.

[rodheadlee]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Apparently he started targeting the Church due to its involvement with Prop 8.

Other churches were involved in Prop 8.

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Gays are not keeping religions from believing what they want..why can't religions just keep it at church..if they start getting to where they are providing boundaries for others and what they believe and/or politics...they should be exempt.  Here we go....sad, too.  Everybody with respect really can have it both ways.  Leave it alone Mikey!!

Christian owned businesses and individuals are being hit with lawsuits for not providing "gay" agenda paraphernalia/services. Photographers, card/gift shops, bakeries, bed and breakfasts, book shops, florists, caterers, are all under the gun to provide gay specific services. The gay couples don't just want to live their lives they wish to manipulate everyone else's.

Edited December 13, 2016 by LittleNipper

[sjdawg]

27 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Christian owned businesses and individuals are being hit with lawsuits for not providing "gay" agenda paraphernalia/services. Photographers, card/gift shops, bakeries, bed and breakfasts, book shops, florists, caterers, are all under the gun to provide gay specific services. The gay couples don't just want to live their lives they wish to manipulate everyone else's.

What "gay specific" services are businesses being forced to provide?   Actually, what is a "gay specific" service?

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Christian owned businesses and individuals are being hit with lawsuits for not providing "gay" agenda paraphernalia/services....

card/gift shops... book shops...are all under the gun to provide gay specific services.

CFR on each aspect of the above two sentences, namely:

What "'gay' agenda paraphanalia/services" are Christian-owned business being sued for not providing?

Whar "card/gift shops" and "bookshops" are "under the gun" for failing to provide "gay specific services"?

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, sjdawg said:

What "gay specific" services are businesses being forced to provide?   Actually, what is a "gay specific" service?

Decorate a male of female oriented wedding cake and deliver it to the "marriage" reception. Take photographs of the "marriage" couple at their "joining" and reception. Play themed music at a "Marriage" reception. Provide a "honeymoon" bed for the "married couple." Requested to order gay novels. Asked to print gay "marriage" invitations. All of which place the christian provider in an embarrassingly compromising position.

Lets put it this way. Should a Black establishment have to service a KKK rally --- to take pictures, serve cake, play select music and possibly be exposed to a mockery of racial differences? I see it as one and the same. Many Christians see gay marriage as a mockery of God's ordained sacrament.

Edited December 13, 2016 by LittleNipper

[cdowis]

2 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Lets put it this way. Should a Black establishment have to service a KKK rally --- to take pictures, serve cake, play select music and possibly be exposed to a mockery of racial differences? I see it as one and the same.

I think the issue is that I would be willing to sell you a cake, but I would not be willing to decorate it.  I would be unwilling to write a poem which celebrates a same sex marriage.  A cake itself is neutral -- I sell it to the KKK or to this married couple, but once I use my creative talent, it gives a message of approval.

Taking pictures at the wedding, however, would be a grey area == taking their picture together does not necessarily indicate approval.

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, sjdawg said:

What "gay specific" services are businesses being forced to provide?   Actually, what is a "gay specific" service?

I'm still looking for that gay wedding cake.

[thesometimesaint]

13 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I think the issue is that I would be willing to sell you a cake, but I would not be willing to decorate it.  I would be unwilling to write a poem which celebrates a same sex marriage.  A cake itself is neutral -- I sell it to the KKK or to this married couple, but once I use my creative talent, it gives a message of approval.

Taking pictures at the wedding, however, would be a grey area == taking their picture together does not necessarily indicate approval.

As I've told you before there is no law requiring you to sell anything to any one. There are laws that require you sell your wares to everyone if you sell your wares to the public.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

As I've told you before there is no law requiring you to sell anything to any one.

OK, so you simply close down your business that has been supporting your family for a decade or more, refusing to see cakes to ANYONE.  You then take a job at McDonald's.

The gays are delighted because they have now destroyed a homophobe and they rejoice in their victory.  And religious freedom is now just a distant dream of fools.

There are laws that require you sell your wares to everyone if you sell your wares to the public.

I sell them a cake.  I do not have to celebrate it with a special message.  You are forcing me to express approval.  Let's go back to the AfroAmerican baker decorating his cake with racist comments and a swastika.  He is forced to create that decoration?  Or can he simply sell them a cake.

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by cdowis

[bluebell]

There really is a very easy solution to the whole 'bake a cake for a gay wedding' problem.

Bakeries tell gay couples that they will bake them a wedding cake and treat them with the utmost respect and curtesy but that every dime of profit they make from their wedding will immediately go towards anti-SSM fundraising.

Chances of any gay couple wanting such a bakery to bake them a cake are practically zero.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, cdowis said:

OK, so you simply close down your business that has been supporting your family for a decade or more, refusing to see cakes to ANYONE.  You then take a job at McDonald's.

No one is saying that you have to sell anything. Say I own a grocery store, and I don't like green beans. I don't carry green beans. There is no law saying I have to carry or sell green beans. However if i carry green beans, and offer to sell them to the public I can't legally refuse to sell them to you. If you and a bunch of other people want green beans. There is no no law preventing you from going elsewhere putting me out of business, or working for McDonald's. 

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I sell them a cake.  I do not have to celebrate it with a special message.  You are forcing me to express approval.  Let's go back to the AfroAmerican baker decorating his cake with racist comments and a swastika.  He is forced to create that decoration?  Or can he simply sell them a cake.

No one is saying you have to sell anyone a cake. However if you(or a black man) normally decorates a cake for sale to the public with "special" messages like racist comments and swastikas you can't legally refuse to sell to it to the public. Other customers are perfectly free to not buy your wares. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There really is a very easy solution to the whole 'bake a cake for a gay wedding' problem.

Bakeries tell gay couples that they will bake them a wedding cake and treat them with the utmost respect and curtesy but that every dime of profit they make from their wedding will immediately go towards anti-SSM fundraising.

Chances of any gay couple wanting such a bakery to bake them a cake are practically zero.

They are free to do that. But it really is not a good business decision. I'm not homosexual. Say I want to buy a wedding cake. Is it really a good business idea to question me about my sexual preferences just to buy a wedding cake?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

They are free to do that. But it really is not a good business decision. I'm not homosexual. Say I want to buy a wedding cake. Is it really a good business idea to question me about my sexual preferences just to buy a wedding cake?

They don't have to question sexual preferences.  Most of the time, the person who is making the cake knows who the people getting married are.  I would guess that it's very rare for one not to know what kind of a wedding they are providing food for.  Wedding cakes are a big part of the event and most people meet the baker and do taste samples/discuss themes/plan logistics, etc. for 30 minutes or more.  Who it is that is getting married naturally comes up.