Turn the other cheek for surving gay weddings?

How would you respond to someone who’s using “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” ~Matthew 5:41. If someone slaps you in the face, turn the other cheek.” To say we should do double for someone who even if they’re against us and specifically using this regarding the indiana law and bake shops, photographers, or florists?

In those scripture example, we aren’t being asked to participate or aid in something immoral. Being charitable even to those with which we disagree or who have harmed us doesn’t mean we abandon our own moral principles.

This is true.

I am not sure I understood what you meant. If I am wrong, would you please rephrase that? :confused:

If you said what I think you did (:p), then, this: you might have missed the point in those passages. Always look in context (the Bible, what Christ was talking about in that passage, etc).

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Back then, and even today, people used this piece of ‘law’ to prevent people from committing crimes against others. You rob me, I rob you; you hurt me, I hurt you.

When Jesus told us to ‘give the other cheek’, ‘give also your cloak’, ‘walk a second mile’, He wanted to turn us away from all this ‘revenge’, to stop us from doing evil against those who hurt us. He was giving us a lesson in Love. “Give. Do not turn to revenge. Do not turn to evil. Do not resist an evil person”. Overcome evil with Love.

A baker, if the State or the LGTB groups decides to sue them for not offering their services on the grounds of religious beliefs, should do just that. Give them. Give them their business, give them their shop. Give them their money.

But they are not to give them their faith or go against their beliefs. If they want to take the Baker’s money and business, it is these groups who are doing evil. The Christian baker has no part in it. The Christian baker would be ready to give everything, EXCEPT the gay-wedding-cake. :rolleyes: It is sort of like with martyrs: when in a situation of “convert to our faith, or die!”, a Christian should be ready to lay down their own lives. But NEVER their faith in God and His teachings. :thumbsup:

One of the earliest cases of this Baker vs. Gay Wedding issue, went just like that. The baker’s family eventually moved out, because the hate did not stop at closing the Shop. They were run out of business, run out of their city, lost friends, money… but still, they stood firm in what they trusted to be the right thing. They were hated for believing in God.

“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” - Matthew 10:22

I saw an article on FB that was using these exact scripture references and I also was wondering how to respond to them. So, thanks Shaolen for bringing it up first and thanks to everyone else with the great responses.

Peace, Mat.

While I agree with your take on what Jesus said, I don’t agree with your interpretation of “an eye for an eye.” What the latter means, according to Jewish law, is that one should NOT seek emotional revenge but rather limit oneself to resolving disputes in an equitable and fair way under the law. IOW, the punishment should not surpass the crime. If an eye, figuratively speaking, was taken from you, you should limit retribution to an eye instead of two eyes or an eye and an ear, and so on. It is a call for restraint in handling disputes.

I absolutely do not understand how any gay person can have a problem with laws which allow people to refuse service to gays. It seems like common sense that no gay person would want to give his custom to someone who was only providing services because the law requires it (and thus might be reluctant and sloppy in their service).

If you don’t want to serve me, I don’t want to give you my money, and I don’t want to settle for the ****** service that you will probably provide.

Is the anti-gay-marriage baker gonna bake his best cake for the gay wedding? Is he gonna go that extra bit to make it fantastic?

OTOH, the pro-gay-marriage baker is gonna see his cake order as more than just a cake - it’s a chance to support a cause he agrees with. He’s gonna give it all he’s got.

If the law requires all bakers to serve all “weddings” then gay people will have no idea who will be reluctantly making their cake under duress.

If I were gay, I would not want that situation.

Another lawsuit, perhaps–for bad service due to being gay?

Yeah, but it’s a whole lot harder to prove (unless the baker made the cake out of sawdust or something really obvious).

Even back then, it was just an expression, and I used them as such, but I can see how you could have misunderstood my words. :shrug: It was just an expression, trust me. It was that, or I would have to go into specifics, as the fine/compensation was often monetary.

“If a man bit and severed the nose of a man - one mina of silver he shall weigh out. An eye - one mina; a tooth - half a mina; an ear - half a mina. A slap in the face - ten shekels of silver he shall weigh out.” (Yaron 1988: 69)

A slap on the face would cost someone 10 - just for the insult. A backhanded slap (which would be the one given on the right cheek of a person, if the aggressor was right-handed - “give the other cheek”) would cost double the damage. You see why I didn’t do that :stuck_out_tongue:

The Jewish law, as any other law, is just a means to control these exchanges in a fair (acceptable, equitable) way, with minimum deaths or blood. Jesus words, on the other hand and considering the whole passage, is saying that we should give up even what we have a right to: give our cloak to the thief, walk the second mile with the one who forced you to walk the first, etc… (this is my take on these passages, of course)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind :cool:

There’s a huge area of interpretation between “bad service” and “not the best”. If the baker, for example, was making a cake for his own niece’s wedding, he will probably put his heart and soul into it. For anyone else, there is going to be a range of results. Everyone who practices a craft, whether it be baking, photography, painting or decorating knows that sometimes his/her work is really, really good and at other times, it’s just ok. Sometimes, there is just something that really inspires the person and the art takes over. At other times, it’s just the technical skill. If someone tries to sue for getting a cake that was “ok” but not superb, he is going to have a high burden of proof.

(not to mention the fact that this doesn’t have anything to do with the customer “being gay” but rather the type of event.)

Exactly! This brings up a good point, though. People seem to think that Christians want to refuse service to people *because *they’re gay. However, I don’t think that’s the reason Christians refuse service. For example, a Christian baker wouldn’t refuse to bake a cake becausethe customer is gay, but rather making a gay wedding cake would go against their conscience. However, if a gay person wanted to buy a birthday cake, there’s nothing there that would go against a Christian’s conscience.

It is becoming so difficult these days with the LGBT jazz being everywhere and we are supposed to be supportive.

What about my rights?

And I want to knit a rainbow afghan for camp, but how can I? The gays have taken that away from me.

While I understand, and in large part agree with the sentiment behind your post, I want you to put the shoe on the other foot.

There are Protestant sects which are pretty harsh towards Catholicism. Whether or not opposing Catholicism forms a tenet of their faith is arguable, but let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it does. That opposition includes refusing to support any explicitly Catholic activities, such as catering baptisms or weddings.

Would you be comfortable with the state stepping in and legitimizing that opposition?

I think it is helpful in this exercise if we all at least take the time to try to see things from the other side’s perspective. Sadly, neither side is doing this particularly well, and I’m not sure we’d have needed laws if they had, but it is worth considering.

There is no scriptural evidence for supporting sin. In John * with the woman they wanted to stone the very last think Jesus tells her not to sin anymore. He doesn’t “turn the other check” and overlook her sin. I am not sure how or why some people have turned Jesus into an American liberal.

Along this line, I was wondering; What IS a gay wedding cake??

Is it just an ordinary cake that will be used at a gay wedding? Or is it an obscenely decorated cake?

If it was the former, then I don’t see why someone would refuse to sell a cake just because it is being used in a gay wedding. If it was the latter, then I could see the objection on moral grounds.

The cake is insignificant in regard to the larger moral issue which is should a business or individual be forced to participate in something with which they disagree?

It isn’t insignificant, actually. We should distinguish between denying service to homosexuals (which even the Catechism acknowledges is wrong) and refusing to cooperate in mortal sin (which is an act of conscience). Personally, I’ve long been uncomfortable with the idea that selling someone a cake rises to the level of cooperation in mortal sin.

There are middle grounds in these debates. Professionals deal with them all the time. Catholic doctors aren’t required to provide or counsel abortion, but they are required to give information on all available courses of action and to provide referrals for any medical treatment they cannot or will not provide. They can’t pretend abortion doesn’t exist and call it an act of conscience. Lawyers have a similar obligation regarding divorce. It’s about finding those balances - neither a wholesale right to refuse service nor a blanket prohibition on doing so is a balance.

Sorry but I think the abortion analogy is a poor one. The catholic doctor isn’t required to perform an abortion but the baker is required to bake the cake. Businesses have been shut down because they refuse service. Should a doctor lose his license to practice if he doesn’t perform the abortion? That’s what I fear is coming if we don’t stand our ground. When do we finally say enough is enough?

The doctor would face disciplinary proceedings if he essentially denied that abortion is a legal option, even if it is one he finds morally objectionable, which is really what these bakers are doing. Baking a cake is a morally neutral action; therefore, there has to be a middle ground wherein we can find that bakers can still provide service and not be participating.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.