I am not talking about the doctors denying that abortion is a legal option but if a baker can be required to bake a cake for a gay “wedding” then there is no reason to think a doctor cant be forced to perform an abortion. And while baking a cake is a morally neutral action being forced to bake one for a gay “wedding” isn’t.
Why not? What is it about baking that cake that rises to the level of cooperating with sin?
Why should it be illegal to not bake a cake, take photos/video, provide food or a service for any event that the service provider is against? Just go somewhere else, make your own cake or hire a different company to provide the service. Asking an anti-Catholic Baptist to BBQ for a Catholic event seems like a quick way to get the entire event food poisoned, or a photographer to provide terrible photos, etc…
These are not rights, they are “frills” - no one is entitled to frills. As for the business, although not forced by law, it might be in the best interest of the business to provide the service anyway… but that is up to the owner and not legislation.
The same hypothetically applies for perhaps ‘forcing’ a Catholic or Orthodox priest by law to marry gay couples, why would that be a legal matter when the courts are available to marry and there are countless protestant denominations that will do whatever you want.
I suggest you are focusing just on the baking of the cake and not the force being exerted to bake it. Even in war a subordinate is expected to refuse an order that is immoral. Gay "marriage is immoral and forcing others to participate in it is immoral.
No such would not be the application.
For we are discussing doing someone that is not simply burdensome …but evil…that which is contrary to conscience not just contrary to comfort.
Jesus is not talking about committing sin.
So rather it would be …bless those who curse you and and pray for those who mistreat or abuse you…when they come after you for not doing doing what will go against your conscience.
You are side-stepping my question. I’m focusing on the baking of the cake, because that is the activity under scrutiny. If it is the energy needed to bake the specific cake for that wedding that makes the activity immoral, then can the same-sex couple buy a cake that would have been baked anyway? And if so, then aren’t we saying that there is a middle ground?
Again, what I’m asking you all to consider is not whether it should be illegal or legal to refuse to provide service, but how we could find solutions to an increasingly difficult problem that doesn’t continue to engender hate and animosity from both sides. And that will requires each side to look at the interests of the opposing side.
I am not side stepping it I am including al the factors relevant to the issue. The gay coupe can buy a cake from the baker and do whatever they want with it, that’s their business. If however they inform the baker what its for then the baker is left to make a choice about participating in an immoral act or not.
There is no solution as you would like to have it as I don’t believe its the goal of the pro gay “marriage” crowd to seek such a solution. They seek only complete and total acquiescence to their position as evidenced by their repeated actions of destroying business and individuals who wont go along with them.
To be fair, neither side has offered solutions. Neither side has offered compromises. Both sides have only offered “all or nothing” options.
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
by protecting evil-doers.
“Here is that cake just in time for the celebration of your wedding”…
“Oh it is beautiful - thank you so much for all your work - this will contribute to making our day the happiest celebration”…
Yes baking a cake etc in celebration of a gay wedding is very different to say serving a hamburger to someone…
I too would decline such -with love and peace and good will - but decline it none the less.
I agree but I think the real compromise is for a gay couple to go buy a cake from a baker and not mention what its for. However I predict that would be an unacceptable compromise for gay “marriage” proponents as they would not want t “hide” why they want the cake. This only leads me to conclude that this is about more than just the cake but about forcing acceptance of their issue.
Yes such is at least the case with those we have seen (the other reasonable persons who accept that the person does not want to do such - we do not hear about).
Those who send death threats and other threats - and destroy the business and cry “intolerance” - ought to at start their examination of “intolerance” with their own actions.
If I had a Christian celebration and there was a person who did not want to provide a cake for it for their conscience would not for some reason let them - I would understand such and not try to harm them or any such thing. But I am a Christian and that is how we live.
I think the solution is simple for a baker. Just don’t offer to “write” any sayings of any kind on cakes or other baked goods. If the clients want some words on a cake let them do it themselves. That eliminates people trying to make the baker accept their message, whatever it might be, and resolves the baker from any involvement in an activity he may disapprove. Unfortunately, wedding planners and caterers can’t get around this issue so easily.
This pushing one’s own agenda onto others is going drive, and has driven, many good people out of business. I have to wonder what the USSC will decide when it finally gets to them–and it will–those pushing the gay marriage agenda will be sure it does–and they are going to do everything in their power to sway the court in their favor. Just saying what I believe will happen.
Do people actually write messages on their wedding cake? I’ve never seen one with a message on it like a Happy Birthday Mike or a Congratulations Jane… It would be a little tacky… I could see how the two males on the topper could be a problem for some, but a baker could avoid it by not having that option of that type of topper or some other solution
I’m in the minority here, but I would totally bake that cake. It would be the best cake. The best service. I would make sure I would do an outstanding job and bring my A-game.
It’s so the couple and their family would say, “That Catholic baker? She was so kind to us. Everyone in town was rude or wouldn’t serve or had some weird attitude. She made this great cake. She even made enough for the cake-tasting that we took some home for grandma. Hmm… all the **** I hear about Catholics probably isn’t true.”
I worry about my own sins. I don’t have time to worry about/do detective work on who’s cheating, breaking the Sabbath, molesting kids, etc. Some person comes in with their mom for a cake tasting and orders a cake and I’m not going to ask/judge. God may have sent them my way to witness. This is my thoughtful opinion about the matter.
I keep reading/hearing “Would gay people run the risk of Baptists, etc spitting in or otherwise mess up their cakes?”
What in the world? Is that what Christians do? Someone sins so we “spit” in something we make for them? Really? That really bothers me, my friends. It hurts my heart.
So you’re in favor of same sex “marriage”?
That’s not at all what she said. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I refer to the “all-or-nothing” attitude people take in these situations.
You feel that if you were placed in that situation, you would have to refuse to be involved in any way, because to do otherwise would be supporting this marriage. DakiniArtist has said that if she were placed in that situation, she would bake the cake to the best of her ability, not to show that she supported the sinful activity but to demonstrate to the individuals involved that she did not judge them or discriminate against them on the basis of their sinful activity, and that she would continue to be charitable and kind and loving, as God has instructed her to do.
I didn’t say that’s what the poster said I am asking a question, hence the “?”.
Baking a cake is not indicative of being charitable, kind and loving. Yes God instructed us to be all those things but not in the service of sin which is what I think this amounts to. Baking the cake is tacit approval of the activity. As someone else mentioned if I wouldn’t attend a same sex “wedding” why should I have to bake for one?
If you don’t ordinarily bake cakes and you agree to bake a cake for this particular occasion, then yes, I’d agree with you that it is tacit approval. If you are providing the cake for free, then I’d agree with you. If they are paying you to provide a service that you provide to anyone else who walks through the doors, and for which you would not ordinarily conduct an in-depth examination of the moral character of the customer ordering it, then baking the cake is simply providing a service to an individual in a non-judgmental manner.
At what point does participation no longer exist because it is too neutral or too far removed from the event? If a cake is baked WITHOUT offensive decorations or inscriptions, and then happens to be used in a gay wedding, is this still morally objectionable to the baker? What if a guest to a gay wedding would like a cake baked as a gift to the gay couple? Even if the guest is morally culpable, is the baker culpable as well?
The only way I’d know that’s its for a gay “wedding” is if they told me and at that point I have an obligation not to participate in a sin. If someone came into a bakery that I owned and said my mistress and I want an anniversary cake since its been one year since we started our affair, I’d refuse. As I have already said, if someone wants a cake and doesn’t tell me what for I’m happy to sell them a cake. Once I know whats its for I am obligated to behave according to my faith and conscience. This is not just an issue of the buyer but the seller as well. Don’t forget that. The rights of one do not supersede the other.