Baker denies a "wedding cake" to a same sex couple

[Debora123]

I’m thinking of starting a new career. I’ll be a consultant to anyone or business that wishes to determine the moral character of the people they may potentially do business with. I’ll do background checks, spy on the them to make sure they go to Sunday Mass (I’ll charge extra if they want me to check on the Vigil Mass too!), set up false identities and engage them in online chat rooms to check out their moral turpitude, run black lights around their house, etc. If they fail, the business gets the Morality Determination Results letter with “Reject” stamped across it, and which point the cake-maker can say "No Cake For U!"

 

[severus68]

This moral relativism thing seems to support what I said.
If she’s going to turn away one couple for a specific “sin”…then she should be turning away dozens more for their sins, too. Is she just going to pick one specific sin that she can’t bake a cake for, and say the rest are okay? Just because they are not immediately apparent to her?
But I guess if she refused all sinners, she’d be out of business.

Let them eat cake!!!

Oh no, sinners can’t eat cake. Only those without sin.

 

[severus68]

I’m thinking of starting a new career. I’ll be a consultant to anyone or business that wishes to determine the moral character of the people they may potentially do business with. I’ll do background checks, spy on the them to make sure they go to Sunday Mass (I’ll charge extra if they want me to check on the Vigil Mass too!), set up false identities and engage them in online chat rooms to check out their moral turpitude, run black lights around their house, etc. If they fail, the business gets the Morality Determination Results letter with “Reject” stamped across it, and which point the cake-maker can say “No Cake For U!”

 

[Warrior1979]

Seriously, IMHO, if one wants to discriminate in such a manner, provided it is permitted by law, the business should be set up in a manner where the moral attitude/beliefs of the company is obvious. For example, the company could be named “Catholic Wedding Cakes,” “Christian Cakes,” etc., this way there is no ambiguity on the matter. There’s nothing worse than having a name for a company that’s seems to be inviting, then walking in the door and told to get lost.

 

[severus68]

Seriously, IMHO, if one wants to discriminate in such a manner, provided it is permitted by law, the business should be set up in a manner where the moral attitude/beliefs of the company is obvious. For example, the company could be named “Catholic Wedding Cakes,” “Christian Cakes,” etc., this way there is no ambiguity on the matter. There’s nothing worse than having a name for a company that’s seems to be inviting, then walking in the door and told to get lost.

Agreed.

 

[Dale_M]

Seriously, IMHO, if one wants to discriminate in such a manner, provided it is permitted by law, the business should be set up in a manner where the moral attitude/beliefs of the company is obvious. For example, the company could be named “Catholic Wedding Cakes,” “Christian Cakes,” etc., this way there is no ambiguity on the matter. There’s nothing worse than having a name for a company that’s seems to be inviting, then walking in the door and told to get lost.

Yes, I suspect the couple, who were first offered service and then refused, felt insulted. Certainly it would be hard to withdraw such a face-to-face offer without seeming disrespectful of the couple. So some kind of signage or signal which indicated the owner’s views would be helpful in that regard.

On the other hand, a very small percentage of persons enjoy being confrontational. Labeling one’s business as Christian or Catholic might attract persons who were being deliberately provocative. I’m not sure that would happen in Iowa. But I could see it happening in more urban areas, especially if they though a legal challenge could be mounted.

Perhaps a more politic solution would be to find some neutral reason/excuse to back out of the deal. That would avoid the confrontation altogether.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Now …if she is a catholic…

…should she deny cakes for second weddings where the first marriage has not been annuled…?

I would say that the same rules would have to apply.

No, I just wouldn’t ask! It would not exactly be my business anyway (“So, is this your first marriage…”). But yeah, I do not think that I could not make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

[Bearontherun]

No, I just wouldn’t ask! It would not exactly be my business anyway (“So, is this your first marriage…”). But yeah, I do not think that I could not make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

I wouldn’t ask either …I was just throwing a thought out there.

 

[sw85]

Wow!

That’s not really very Christian.

There is a difference from supporting Traditional Marriage and treating other people different.

What she did is called segregation and we all know segregation is wrong.
What she did is nothing to be proud of or is it to be encourages.

This is so wrong. “Treating other people different”? We must endorse sin now in order to avoid “treating other people different”? Maybe I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus said the greatest commandment was to treat everyone identically under all circumstances.

This woman is under NO obligation to provide service to homosexual couples if she feels doing so would constitute an endorsement of that lifestyle (and it would, by contributing to the appearance of its social normativity), nor do those couples have a right to demand service.

For Heaven’s sake, people! Good Catholics everywhere are under siege enough by modernists/liberals/atheists/communists/homosexuals/etc. They hardly need OTHER Catholics piling on.

I dont support the unrepentant sin of anything. However I do support loving other people.

Dude… the love to which we are called is a love of the will: the ordering of the will toward the good of another. That means willing what is best for them, which means willing that they not sin. If they must sin, you can at least love yourself by not being involved in it.

What do you think “love” means exactly? Let’s tolerate and endorse the evils others perpetrate so they will think we’re nice and “progressive” (or whatever)?

Sometimes not baking the cake is the right thing to do. I completely agree with the sentiment, “I cant be baking cakes for sinners because what they are doing is wrong and I dont want to send them the wrong message since I love them so much”

Sometimes, not baking the cake could also be done out of sin. “I wont bake those sinners a cake because they are dirty”. Well that isn’t quite expressing God’s love now is it, If anything it probably ends up reinforcing the Lesbians belief that the Church just full of critical pharisees. This is not how to evangelize

This HARDLY even needed to be said and borders on being uncharitable.

The woman in question expressed her convictions in a civil and polite way. It’s not for you to psychoanalyze her and question the integrity of her motives. If you must condemn some sin you can at least condemn the one sin that is NOT disguised here: sodomy.

I’m agreeing with this, after reading all the posts. I don’t want to see businesses going down this path. I don’t think paying customers should be turned away from a business transaction, simply because I disapprove of their lifestyle.

The divorcing of our economic life from moral considerations has been an absolute disaster for the whole of civilization, as witnessed by, for instance, bailed-out banks laundering drug money or governments everywhere impoverishing their citizens through inflationary credit policies just to get a 2% rise in stocks.

Why in the world should we wish this contagion to infect even our most mundane economic decisions?

This moral relativism thing seems to support what I said.
If she’s going to turn away one couple for a specific “sin”…then she should be turning away dozens more for their sins, too. Is she just going to pick one specific sin that she can’t bake a cake for, and say the rest are okay? Just because they are not immediately apparent to her?
But I guess if she refused all sinners, she’d be out of business.

Let them eat cake!!!

The primary issue here is one of SCANDAL.

Servicing a gay “wedding” (and I use the quotation marks with the full mountain of scorn that they imply) contributes to the APPEARANCE OF NORMATIVITY of such a thing: that is, it gives it the appearance of it being a normative, healthy expression of human sexuality when it absolutely and nonnegotiably is not.

If it appears to be NORMATIVE than other people will be inclined to participate in it. Their conscience will be corrupted and they will be induced to sin: hence, SCANDAL.

And participating in scandal is a mortal sin on the part of ALL parties involved, even those who do so against the protests of their conscience for purely economic reasons – especially them, actually, since they knew better!

By all means, she should refuse to participate in other sins with a public component such as that – a good example would be, for instance, declining to make cakes for the wedding of divorcees getting “re-married” without the benefit of their first spouse’s death, or declining to make a cake for the retirement party of a prominent local politician who supported taxpayer-subsidized abortions, or any number of other things.

But it is not for YOU to say she ISN’T doing that.

At the very least you can kindly not distort the issue by pretending it’s about something it isn’t. The issue is not merely denying service to sinners (which would quickly bankrupt her) but refusing to be seen publicly participating in certain sins – especially ones which various forces for evil are trying VERY hard to normalize, and to confuse moral discourse about. In this she is ABSOLUTELY in the right, and everyone here who is critical of her is absolutely in the wrong.

 

[SurlyMermaid]

I pregnant and I have nothing to add to this conversation but now I’m craving cake. Really badly!!!



(I do err on the side of the woman sharing her faith with the couple and being warm to them. As I’ve often said her, in the throes of my most unideal behavior I’ve been loved and treated well by true Christians. Many never saw the difference but they planted seeds. I hope this lady also prayed for them.)

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I’m thinking of starting a new career. I’ll be a consultant to anyone or business that wishes to determine the moral character of the people they may potentially do business with. I’ll do background checks, spy on the them to make sure they go to Sunday Mass (I’ll charge extra if they want me to check on the Vigil Mass too!), set up false identities and engage them in online chat rooms to check out their moral turpitude, run black lights around their house, etc. If they fail, the business gets the Morality Determination Results letter with “Reject” stamped across it, and which point the cake-maker can say “No Cake For U!”

ROFL!!!

That said, I’m a bit on the fence about the issue. I used to work in a bakery myself, and there was a time I had to make a moral executive decision on the spot: I had a customer come in who wanted me to write “dirty words” on a birthday cake. I wasn’t comfortable with that, and so I just prayed to the Holy Spirit for a split second. Then I replied, “I’m sorry, I can’t do that: this is a family environment.” The guy wasn’t too thrilled, but didn’t make an issue about it.

I think the baker has to follow their conscience on this, and the personages who ordered the cake need to respect that, even if it means taking their business somewhere else or making their own cake. There needs to be civility and maturity on both sides of the issue, if nothing else.

 

[catharina]

This is so wrong. “Treating other people different”? We must endorse sin now in order to avoid “treating other people different”? Maybe I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus said the greatest commandment was to treat everyone identically under all circumstances.

This woman is under NO obligation to provide service to homosexual couples if she feels doing so would constitute an endorsement of that lifestyle (and it would, by contributing to the appearance of its social normativity), nor do those couples have a right to demand service.

For Heaven’s sake, people! Good Catholics everywhere are under siege enough by modernists/liberals/atheists/communists/homosexuals/etc. They hardly need OTHER Catholics piling on.

Dude… the love to which we are called is a love of the will: the ordering of the will toward the good of another. That means willing what is best for them, which means willing that they not sin. If they must sin, you can at least love yourself by not being involved in it.

What do you think “love” means exactly? Let’s tolerate and endorse the evils others perpetrate so they will think we’re nice and “progressive” (or whatever)?

This HARDLY even needed to be said and borders on being uncharitable.

The woman in question expressed her convictions in a civil and polite way. It’s not for you to psychoanalyze her and question the integrity of her motives. If you must condemn some sin you can at least condemn the one sin that is NOT disguised here: sodomy.

The divorcing of our economic life from moral considerations has been an absolute disaster for the whole of civilization, as witnessed by, for instance, bailed-out banks laundering drug money or governments everywhere impoverishing their citizens through inflationary credit policies just to get a 2% rise in stocks.

Why in the world should we wish this contagion to infect even our most mundane economic decisions?

The primary issue here is one of SCANDAL.

Servicing a gay “wedding” (and I use the quotation marks with the full mountain of scorn that they imply) contributes to the APPEARANCE OF NORMATIVITY of such a thing: that is, it gives it the appearance of it being a normative, healthy expression of human sexuality when it absolutely and nonnegotiably is not.

If it appears to be NORMATIVE than other people will be inclined to participate in it. Their conscience will be corrupted and they will be induced to sin: hence, SCANDAL.

And participating in scandal is a mortal sin on the part of ALL parties involved, even those who do so against the protests of their conscience for purely economic reasons – especially them, actually, since they knew better!

By all means, she should refuse to participate in other sins with a public component such as that – a good example would be, for instance, declining to make cakes for the wedding of divorcees getting “re-married” without the benefit of their first spouse’s death, or declining to make a cake for the retirement party of a prominent local politician who supported taxpayer-subsidized abortions, or any number of other things.

But it is not for YOU to say she ISN’T doing that.

At the very least you can kindly not distort the issue by pretending it’s about something it isn’t. The issue is not merely denying service to sinners (which would quickly bankrupt her) but refusing to be seen publicly participating in certain sins – especially ones which various forces for evil are trying VERY hard to normalize, and to confuse moral discourse about. In this she is ABSOLUTELY in the right, and everyone here who is critical of her is absolutely in the wrong.

Wonderful post!
I really ABSOLUTELY agree with you.

 

[Darran]

It’s a cake. It only has meaning if people believe it to have any meaning. The only issue here isn’t that they bought a cake, but that they bought a cake specifically for a wedding. Their own same-sex marriage.

And too many Christians seem to think homosexuality to be the only sin in the world, or at least the biggest of millions. Would this baker refuse to sell a cake to someone who reads their horoscope? Someone who has taken the name of HaShem in vain? Someone who is remarried? Someone who’s ever used condoms/the Pill? Someone who’s ever spoken badly of someone? Or lied? Or stolen? I think you get the idea…too many Christians, including Catholics, seem to forget that we ALL sin.

You’re diluting the point. If they asked you to bake a cake for them in celebration for any of those things, you ought not to do it out of honesty.

 

[Leegal]

Um, segregation? Really? Same thing as black-only and white-only water fountains?

Does anyone have a right to have a cake? Is refusing to make a cake to celebrate an event that is evil an affront to human dignity? How so?

If a man came to her house and ordered a cake to celebrate abortion rights, would the baker be a bigot if she refused to sell him a cake?

Peace

Tim

No, but from the secular standpoint it’s discriminatory in denying equal public access. So, the business is public. It’s not that we have rights to cakes, but a right of public access. If you are open to the public that means all public – even gays. You cannot pick and choose if you put yourself out there as a business.

If her conscience tells her she cannot make the cake for the couple, then she was bound to follow her conscience but she might have looked deeper as to whether or not she is the judge of others’ sins. But, if she could not go through with providing a cake, then she must accept there may be secular consequences – denial of public access to her business or wares based upon sexual orientation. It’s the law.

I suspect the incription on the cake was the give away. She cannot ask other couples if they have had sex before marriage or if this is a second marriage without benefit of Church annullment. That’s not obvious, and she cannot ask in the secular sense (to do so is also discriminatory) so she has no moral dilemma in not knowing.

If her business is registered in her home, then that part of her home is a business. People who do not work from the home, where the home is only a residence, are not obligated by law to allow anyone in or to do anything for someone. I might like to bake, personally, but not for sale. No one can force me to make a cake if it’s not my business to make cakes for sale, and I can deny anyone.

But once I put myself out there as a baker who sells to the public, I have secular authority that rules too and must be willing to accept the consequences when I refuse to serve one person (or class of individuals) for a discriminatory reason.

 

[catharina]

No, but from the secular standpoint it’s discriminatory in denying equal public access. So, the business is public. It’s not that we have rights to cakes, but a right of public access. If you are open to the public that means all public – even gays. You cannot pick and choose if you put yourself out there as a business.

If her conscience tells her she cannot make the cake for the couple, then she was bound to follow her conscience but she might have looked deeper as to whether or not she is the judge of others’ sins. But, if she could not go through with providing a cake, then she must accept there may be secular consequences – denial of public access to her business or wares based upon sexual orientation. It’s the law.

**I suspect the incription on the cake was the give away. **
The “give away” was that they told her. Re-read the post.

She cannot ask other couples if they have had sex before marriage or if this is a second marriage without benefit of Church annullment. That’s not obvious, and she cannot ask in the secular sense (to do so is also discriminatory) so she has no moral dilemma in not knowing.

If her business is registered in her home, then that part of her home is a business. People who do not work from the home, where the home is only a residence, are not obligated by law to allow anyone in or to do anything for someone. I might like to bake, personally, but not for sale. No one can force me to make a cake if it’s not my business to make cakes for sale, and I can deny anyone.

But once I put myself out there as a baker who sells to the public, I have secular authority that rules too and must be willing to accept the consequences when I refuse to serve one person (or class of individuals) for a discriminatory reason.

 

[Leegal]

I must say, the moral relativism in some of the posts on this thread are amusing, if sad. It seems that, according to some, because everyone sins, we should therefore support people in their sinful acts and shame on anyone whose conscience doesn’t allow them to do so.

Peace

Tim

It’s not moral relativism. It a conflict of conscience with man’s law which prohibits discrimination in public access to business.

If her conscience could not allow it, then she made her choice to refuse to make the cake. If she’s comfortable with that, and would have felt she violated God’s law if she made the cake, and truly followed her conscience then I assume she feels clear with God.

Now, if the couple reports it, she must know that there may be secular consequences of her decision. She may have to prepare for that eventuality.

One may argue she is obligated to break man’s law for her conscience. I wonder though if she’s absolutely certain that God has put her in the position to judge. Assuming that she is fully in conscience with her decision, then she will be willing to accept the consequences should the couple decide to file a complaint and/or sue her as it’s man’s
law that they have the ability to do so.

The point is, if one is in business one must accept that these dilemmas will come up.

As to the person who wrote and stated that they worked in a bakery where someone came and asked for dirty words to be put on the cake – there’s no protection nor a violation for refusing to incribe dirty words on a cake. Stating that it’s a family owned business and they don’t incribe dirty words on cakes is acceptable.

It’s the basis behind the refusal that creates the violation of man’s law.

 

[Leegal]

Doesn’t matter how she knew; it changes nothing in my post Catharina. Of all that I wrote, that was the one thing you could find that bore comment? Really?

 

[michelleds]

Wonderful post!
I really ABSOLUTELY agree with you.

yes, good post sw85

and for all of the folks who are adding “facts” to this story by claiming that the woman didn’t witness, wasn’t charitable or was rude, where do you get that? talk about being uncharitable.

I choose to stand in support and stand beside a woman who lives her faith.

 

[Debora123]

Doesn’t matter how she knew; it changes nothing in my post Catharina. Of all that I wrote, that was the one thing you could find that bore comment? Really?

When people aren’t able to make a logical argument that refutes the points being presented to them, they tend to nit pick at insignificant details.

I’ve seen it all too often around here, particularly in “modesty” threads.

 

[Darran]

This is so wrong. “Treating other people different”? We must endorse sin now in order to avoid “treating other people different”? Maybe I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus said the greatest commandment was to treat everyone identically under all circumstances.

This woman is under NO obligation to provide service to homosexual couples if she feels doing so would constitute an endorsement of that lifestyle (and it would, by contributing to the appearance of its social normativity), nor do those couples have a right to demand service.

For Heaven’s sake, people! Good Catholics everywhere are under siege enough by modernists/liberals/atheists/communists/homosexuals/etc. They hardly need OTHER Catholics piling on.

Dude… the love to which we are called is a love of the will: the ordering of the will toward the good of another. That means willing what is best for them, which means willing that they not sin. If they must sin, you can at least love yourself by not being involved in it.

What do you think “love” means exactly? Let’s tolerate and endorse the evils others perpetrate so they will think we’re nice and “progressive” (or whatever)?

This HARDLY even needed to be said and borders on being uncharitable.

The woman in question expressed her convictions in a civil and polite way. It’s not for you to psychoanalyze her and question the integrity of her motives. If you must condemn some sin you can at least condemn the one sin that is NOT disguised here: sodomy.

The divorcing of our economic life from moral considerations has been an absolute disaster for the whole of civilization, as witnessed by, for instance, bailed-out banks laundering drug money or governments everywhere impoverishing their citizens through inflationary credit policies just to get a 2% rise in stocks.

Why in the world should we wish this contagion to infect even our most mundane economic decisions?

The primary issue here is one of SCANDAL.

Servicing a gay “wedding” (and I use the quotation marks with the full mountain of scorn that they imply) contributes to the APPEARANCE OF NORMATIVITY of such a thing: that is, it gives it the appearance of it being a normative, healthy expression of human sexuality when it absolutely and nonnegotiably is not.

If it appears to be NORMATIVE than other people will be inclined to participate in it. Their conscience will be corrupted and they will be induced to sin: hence, SCANDAL.

And participating in scandal is a mortal sin on the part of ALL parties involved, even those who do so against the protests of their conscience for purely economic reasons – especially them, actually, since they knew better!

By all means, she should refuse to participate in other sins with a public component such as that – a good example would be, for instance, declining to make cakes for the wedding of divorcees getting “re-married” without the benefit of their first spouse’s death, or declining to make a cake for the retirement party of a prominent local politician who supported taxpayer-subsidized abortions, or any number of other things.

But it is not for YOU to say she ISN’T doing that.

At the very least you can kindly not distort the issue by pretending it’s about something it isn’t. The issue is not merely denying service to sinners (which would quickly bankrupt her) but refusing to be seen publicly participating in certain sins – especially ones which various forces for evil are trying VERY hard to normalize, and to confuse moral discourse about. In this she is ABSOLUTELY in the right, and everyone here who is critical of her is absolutely in the wrong.

You hit the nail on the head

It’s disturbing to think that even amoung Catholicism people have split opinions about this.