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

[Darran]

Darran, I am not speaking against you. I was only showing Catharina that some people here HAVE been saying that making those women a cake would equate to supporting their marriage, since she wouldn’t take my word for it. I’m sorry I had to drag your name into this, but it was not meant badly.

No harm, no foul.

I meant you were speaking against my word. Oh I know, no harm ofcourse, nor would I have thought you used my name badly.

Pax.

-Edited to make a bit more sense.

 

[Debora123]

Maybe you have been
“trying really hard to be polite.”

It is not polite to accuse someone of being sarcastic
and calling it “FACT” not simply your opinion.

As I stated in an earlier post, if I was mistaken and your perceived sarcasm was actually a genuine response, then by all means, tell me! Tell me so I can apologize for having misunderstood.

Although you have to at least understand why I thought posts like these (see below) were sarcastic. Can you at least understand where I was coming from when I said your posts were sarcastic? And see that I was not meaning to “insult” or to pull anything out of thin air with the intention of insulting you?

My goodness - and here I thought
you were interested in FACTS.

Silly me.
Wonderful you?

Thanks for your opinion, debora123.

So that didn’t come off “as blatantly sarcastic and derogatory?”

Lovely.

Thanks for providing one example.

 

[Debora123]

I meant you were speaking against my word. Oh I know, no harm ofcourse, nor would I have thought you used my name badly.

Pax.

-Edited to make a bit more sense.

Ah, gotcha

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

Baking the cake is not a form of Agape “love,” a Jesus love, a Christian love. Rather, it is validation of an immoral arrangement which Jesus thoroughly repudiated by embracing Mosaic Law comprehensively.

Baking the cake also mocks genuine, actual marriage (as opposed to baking one for a previously fornicating couple who decides to validate their marriage by now formalizing it in a genuine marriage, thus repudiating, by that action, their previous lifestyle).

For a practicing Catholic or believing Christian who understands the way Scripture actually works, and how the silence, in the Gospels, about homosexuality, indicates the opposite of assent for the behavior, baking the cake is:
Emotionalism
Sentimentality
Political Correctness: ‘Hey man, I’m cool/You’re cool.’
Moral Cowardice

And it is the same for any other believer, as well as an agnostic or atheist who objects to the artificiality of SS “marriage,” yet concedes to bake the cake for monetary reasons or the reasons above.

 

[catharina]

As I stated in an earlier post, if I was mistaken and your perceived sarcasm was actually a genuine response, then by all means, tell me! Tell me so I can apologize for having misunderstood.

Although you have to at least understand why I thought posts like these (see below) were sarcastic. Can you at least understand where I was coming from when I said your posts were sarcastic? And see that I was not meaning to “insult” or to pull anything out of thin air with the intention of insulting you?

One more time:
repeating Post 146

Maybe you have been
“trying really hard to be polite.”

It is not polite to accuse someone of being sarcastic
and calling it “FACT” not simply your opinion.

Anyway, debora, truly I no longer care.

 

[catharina]

Baking the cake is not a form of Agape “love,” a Jesus love, a Christian love. Rather, it is validation of an immoral arrangement which Jesus thoroughly repudiated by embracing Mosaic Law comprehensively.

Baking the cake also mocks genuine, actual marriage (as opposed to baking one for a previously fornicating couple who decides to validate their marriage by now formalizing it in a genuine marriage, thus repudiating, by that action, their previous lifestyle).

For a practicing Catholic or believing Christian who understands the way Scripture actually works, and how the silence, in the Gospels, about homosexuality, indicates the opposite of assent for the behavior, baking the cake is:
Emotionalism
Sentimentality
Political Correctness: ‘Hey man, I’m cool/You’re cool.’
Moral Cowardice

And it is the same for any other believer, as well as an agnostic or atheist who objects to the artificiality of SS “marriage,” yet concedes to bake the cake for monetary reasons or the reasons above.

Elizabeth - perfect.
Thank you again.

 

[Debora123]

One more time:
repeating Post 146

Maybe you have been
“trying really hard to be polite.”

It is not polite to accuse someone of being sarcastic
and calling it “FACT” not simply your opinion.

I am sorry I said you were being sarcastic. Hopefully you can at least understand why I did, given your posts.

 

[catharina]

I am sorry I said you were being sarcastic. Hopefully you can at least understand why I did, given your posts.

As you said:
“What opinion did I have that was uncharitable? I called you out for being sarcastic - that wasn’t an opinion, that was a fact.”

You seem to believe (actually BELIEVE) that your singular opinion is fact.
Your opinion is your opinion and I’m too old and too tired to deal with your games.

So buh-bye and God bless you.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I apologize if my tone was something other than what I meant it to be. That is one of the great drawbacks of communicating on a forum.

I am glad that you have changed your position.

Peace

Tim

That’s very true, and no hard feelings.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by** Debora123**

…And as you can see, I have apologized for believing you were being sarcastic. Peace?

 

[catharina]

…And as you can see, I have apologized for believing you were being sarcastic. Peace?

God bless you, debora.

Maybe you can do some work on separating
your opinion from actual FACT. That would be
a work of peace that would benefit everyone.

 

[Equites_Christi]

We interrupt this flame war to bring you a relevant post:

As for “how far would she take it” the situation was that the ‘marriage’ was clearly not valid. Other faults, like a second marriage without an annulment, are not nearly as obvious as two people of the same sex saying they will be married.

We are also required by charity to assume the best in others when we don’t have a reason to think otherwise.

But in the case of same-sex marriage, there is nothing one can assume to make it valid.

 

[Faith1960]

I bet the cake-maker was just shocked…that maybe she met two kind, wonderful women who love each other and want to get married, just like heterosexual couples…and it jarred her system.
She probably thought two women wanting to get married would be weird, messed-up, satanic-looking people dressed in leather or stripper outfits or butch truck-driver garb and tattoos, smoking pot on her doorstep.
It probably never occurred to her that they could be loving, normal, educated, regular people living in Iowa who happen to have SSA and are in love with each other and want to pledge and promise their love forever in a wedding ceremony with a…CAKE.

How do you know they looked loving, normal, educated and regular?

 

[catharina]

As for “how far would she take it” the situation was that the ‘marriage’ was clearly not valid. Other faults, like a second marriage without an annulment, are not nearly as obvious as two people of the same sex saying they will be married.

We are also required by charity to assume the best in others when we don’t have a reason to think otherwise.

But in the case of same-sex marriage, there is nothing one can assume to make it valid.

Clearly so.

 

[catharina]

Don’t know for sure, is why i said “i bet” and “maybe”…

But it seems the cake baker was happily chatting away both women for a while, assuming they were not gay, before she asked if they were sisters.
So I’m getting from the context we have so far that they looked the same as the other non-gay women the cakebaker knows…nothing out of the ordinary, not the stereotypical “gay look” that many perceive gay women look like (when they’ve had no experience with gay people)…else she would have “suspected” from the moment they walked into her home…?

Moot point.
They told her they were lesbian partners.

 

[catharina]

That is a different discussion because, as far as I am concerned, one should never act against their conscience regardless if there is some secular penalty to be paid.

I also think that this illustrates a problem with the law. I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to provide any service to anyone that they don’t want to serve. If I went to a realtor and they refused to help me because I am a white male or because I am heterosexual or because I am Catholic, so be it. I will find someone who will. The only thing that should be exempt from that would be vital services like emergency medical care. I understand that that will never happen and there are many here who will probably consider me a bigot for having that position, but so be it.

Peace

Tim

Tim, wish I’d responded to this point sooner.
You touch on the very essence of the concern.

As in: we lose some business — SO WHAT.
We are called to follow Christ, to proclaim Him, to suffer with Him.

We are not called to be relativists in our thinking or actions,
determined that we won’t “hurt someone’s feelings” by refusing to celebrate sin.

 

[Castello]

We have become so accustomed to sin and celebrating sin that this causes a multi page thread? A woman stood strong for her convictions. Good for her.

It is about more than a cake, it is about a reputation.

People ask “who made your cake”? The lesbian answers with the name of the bakery. Next day at work, someone is discussing cakes, comes up “oh, I was at this wedding last week and they had a great cake made by blah blah. It was a lovely wedding for Betty and Judy”. The person at the desk hearing this conversation happens to be new to the Faith, is in RCIA and turns out that baker is her sponsor. Think of the scandal that is taken by this young Christian.

I know someone who is a caterer. They catered an event for the SJK foundation, all pink and ribbony - now, this person has lost business because pro-life people saw this public endorsement something that is anti-life.

It is about time that Christians started putting their money, or even their LOSS of money, where their mouth is by walking the walk.

 

[catharina]

We have become so accustomed to sin and celebrating sin that this causes a multi page thread? A woman stood strong for her convictions. Good for her.

It is about more than a cake, it is about a reputation.

People ask “who made your cake”? The lesbian answers with the name of the bakery. Next day at work, someone is discussing cakes, comes up “oh, I was at this wedding last week and they had a great cake made by blah blah. It was a lovely wedding for Betty and Judy”. The person at the desk hearing this conversation happens to be new to the Faith, is in RCIA and turns out that baker is her sponsor. Think of the scandal that is taken by this young Christian.

I know someone who is a caterer. They catered an event for the SJK foundation, all pink and ribbony - now, this person has lost business because pro-life people saw this public endorsement something that is anti-life.

**It is about time that Christians started putting their money, or even their LOSS of money, where their mouth is by walking the walk. **

Yep - or admit your own comfort with relativism.

 

[SwissGuard25]

No, I know what you wrote.Let’s see if I was twisting your words. You wrote: How did I twist your words? Or did you mean to write something else?“Gay marriage” is not just unnatural. First off, there is no such thing. Second, it is an offense against human dignity in that it encourages and celebrates sinful activities.

Peace

Tim

So wait let me get this straight.

You are supporting sin because you make someone a cake?

 

[Elizabeth502]

maybe she met two kind, wonderful women who love each other and want to get married, just like heterosexual couples…

She probably thought two women wanting to get married would be weird, messed-up, satanic-looking people dressed in leather or stripper outfits or butch truck-driver garb and tattoos, smoking pot on her doorstep.

In point of fact, a heterosexual couple, one of whom is “dressed in leather,” the other “looking butch,” is far more moral in ordering a wedding cake than

two women who love each other and want to get married.

It has nothing to do with whether they are

kind and “wonderful”

(whatever that means) . Hint: it’s not “wonderful” in any moral sense of the word to commit to persistent immorality. Any more than it is “wonderful” to commit to other immoral lifestyles (such as heterosexual fornication). Commitment has a context, and is qualified by to what and to whom one is committing. Dressing up any immoral lifestyle commitment in respectable appearances does not sanctify an unsanctifiable lifestyle, not for any sexual orientation or any disordered behavior. Plenty of drug-users in society are 'respectable-looking" people who look as mainstream as the next person; ditto for pornography users; ditto for call-girls/escorts with high-paying clientele.