Bakery Sees Business Boom After "Gay Wedding Cake" Refusal

[Seeker1961]

I wonder if the bakery also refuses to make wedding cakes for those who are divorced and remarrying? After all, that’s a sin too, right?

 

[Holly3278]

God rewards those who are faithful to Him.

That said, I think it is absolutely sickening that he received death threats over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay “wedding”. It just goes to show the “tolerant” side of homosexualism.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I wonder if the bakery also refuses to make wedding cakes for those who are divorced and remarrying? After all, that’s a sin too, right?

If they’re not Catholic, it would be okay. But, is the baker to determine in advance of baking the cake that the couple is or is not Catholic?

Also, if someone ordered a three layer cake with white icing and decorations, is it to be presumed that it was to be for a gay wedding celebration?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It just goes to show the “tolerant” side of homosexualism.

Don’t paint all homosexuals with the same tarbrush. Would you tar all Catholic priests on the basis of the recent sex scandals? I wouldn’t.

 

[Seeker1961]

The article doesn’t say that the baker is Catholic, only that he is a “follower of Jesus Christ” who had something to say about divorce, did He not?

 

[Holly3278]

Don’t paint all homosexuals with the same tarbrush. Would you tar all Catholic priests on the basis of the recent sex scandals? I wouldn’t.

I’m not and that’s why I used the term “homosexualism”. I know its probably not an actual word but my definition of it is a GLBT activist who tries to force their views on other people while being intolerant of other people’s views. I know that not all GLBT activists are like that but I sure read a lot about them. I suppose that’s because it is in the news frequently because it is controversial and not because it happens more often than other types of GLBT activism. It might not occur more often.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’m not and that’s why I used the term “homosexualism”. I know its probably not an actual word but my definition of it is a GLBT activist who tries to force their views on other people while being intolerant of other people’s views.

Well, it’s not a real word - homosexual is the term, but if you are going to make up your own vocabulary, the sky’s the limit and I’m not going to stop you from such usage.

 

[He_Man]

The article doesn’t say that the baker is Catholic, only that he is a “follower of Jesus Christ” who had something to say about divorce, did He not?

Here we go on the merry go round of liberal relativism.

A person who takes a stand on an area Catholic teaching agrees with is not worthy of support unless they are the Immaculate Conception. Does that mean you no longer endorse whatever good you see from Obama, since he sinned at least once?

You could just say his stance against endorsing gay “weddings” irks you; it’d be much faster.

Also, you’d have more of a point if there was an active pro-divorce lobby attacking the Church and suing for their right to have private companies provide them with Divorce Cakes.

 

[rlg94086]

Perhaps, but if so it is mainly a morale boost. A one-day, or even a one-week, surge in customers doesn’t do much for the survival of a business. Whether those persons are willing to patronize the business on a regular basis is what counts.

An increase in business due to publicity is likely to turn into a long term increase, unless your product/service isn’t good.

So, I would say it is much more than a morale boost - ditto for Chick-fil-A. Both companies probably gained more customers than they lost.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Hmm. I wonder. If an old man and a 10 year old boy want a hotel room, should they be required to take an oath that they are heterosexual? How about a man-boy love cake?

 

[Seeker1961]

Here we go on the merry go round of liberal relativism.

A person who takes a stand on an area Catholic teaching agrees with is not worthy of support unless they are the Immaculate Conception. Does that mean you no longer endorse whatever good you see from Obama, since he sinned at least once?

You could just say his stance against endorsing gay “weddings” irks you; it’d be much faster.

Also, you’d have more of a point if there was an active pro-divorce lobby attacking the Church and suing for their right to have private companies provide them with Divorce Cakes.

People on their second and third marriages still have wedding cakes. . Isn’t the remarriage just as sinful as adultery since the first marriage still is valid?

His stance on gay marriage doesn’t bother me one bit. Choosing one type of sin to demonize while ignoring all others does. Credibility is completely lost when that happens.

There’s either a fight for the dignity of marriage against ALL threats to it or you should all just admit that it’s really just about the gay people and how you feel about them; it’d be much faster.

 

[rlg94086]

People on their second and third marriages still have wedding cakes. . Isn’t the remarriage just as sinful as adultery since the first marriage still is valid?

His stance on gay marriage doesn’t bother me one bit. Choosing one type of sin to demonize while ignoring all others does. Credibility is completely lost when that happens.

There’s either a fight for the dignity of marriage against ALL threats to it or you should all just admit that it’s really just about the gay people and how you feel about them; it’d be much faster.

I was going to respond, but I think the best response is this:

Here we go on the merry go round of liberal relativism.

A person who takes a stand on an area Catholic teaching agrees with is not worthy of support unless they are the Immaculate Conception. Does that mean you no longer endorse whatever good you see from Obama, since he sinned at least once?

You could just say his stance against endorsing gay “weddings” irks you; it’d be much faster.

Also, you’d have more of a point if there was an active pro-divorce lobby attacking the Church and suing for their right to have private companies provide them with Divorce Cakes.

 

[He_Man]

People on their second and third marriages still have wedding cakes. . Isn’t the remarriage just as sinful as adultery since the first marriage still is valid?

His stance on gay marriage doesn’t bother me one bit. Choosing one type of sin to demonize while ignoring all others does. Credibility is completely lost when that happens.

There’s either a fight for the dignity of marriage against ALL threats to it or you should all just admit that it’s really just about the gay people and how you feel about them; it’d be much faster.

And that is the problem with liberals. They eschew taking any stand on ethics or morality, because they see hypocrisy.

Which is easy to do, when in general, liberals have no real standards for others to begin with.

Like I said, it’s like saying you can’t convince me of the need for health care reform because you haven’t convinced me of the need for decreasing drug use in America.

Supporting one effort does not mean you have to tackle them all at once.

We are confronted more and more by the pro-gay movement and have the need to legitimize it thrust in our faces. The man didn’t go out looking for a fight. It was brought to him by those who seek to warp God’s plan for marriage. This is the same reason I get tired of people whining that the Church needs to stop focusing on gay “marriage” and tackle other problems too. When someone points a gun at your head, you realize that is your top priority and that you can worry about starving to death later. Gay marriage gets attention because they proponents WANT attention.

This is why I have a hard time believing certain more liberal Catholics on here actually mean what they say about loving the Church and endorsing her teachings on certain issues. Even a good liberal Catholic would look at this man and say “hey, good for him for supporting the teachings on Christ in this instance.” Instead, you get annoyed because he doesn’t tackle every problem that comes through his door.

By this logic, the very fact that you get annoyed and posted on it is hypocritical because you don’t get post about everything else that is wrong in the world, too.

At the end of the day, I suspect the reason the guy’s stance bothers you is not because he is imperfect, but because you don’t support the teachings of the Church as much as you claim on this issue, and you aren’t alone on this web site. Too many people seem to hide behind their love of the Church’s teachings, but gnash their teeth when someone takes a stand that supports those teachings. It just isn’t belivable.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

How is it immoral to make money by providing hotel rooms and other parts of the wedding industry? Should hotel guests be required to take an oath that they are heterosexual, and if a couple, that they are married to one another?

How moral is it to compel, by force, a business owner to service anyone they decide they don’t want to?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

People on their second and third marriages still have wedding cakes. . Isn’t the remarriage just as sinful as adultery since the first marriage still is valid?

His stance on gay marriage doesn’t bother me one bit. Choosing one type of sin to demonize while ignoring all others does. Credibility is completely lost when that happens.

There’s either a fight for the dignity of marriage against ALL threats to it or you should all just admit that it’s really just about the gay people and how you feel about them; it’d be much faster.

What if the first marriage ended in the death of a spouse? What if the first marriage is annulled by the Church?

 

[Seeker1961]

And that is the problem with liberals. They eschew taking any stand on ethics or morality, because they see hypocrisy.

Which is easy to do, when in general, liberals have no real standards for others to begin with.

Like I said, it’s like saying you can’t convince me of the need for health care reform because you haven’t convinced me of the need for decreasing drug use in America.

Supporting one effort does not mean you have to tackle them all at once.

We are confronted more and more by the pro-gay movement and have the need to legitimize it thrust in our faces. The man didn’t go out looking for a fight. It was brought to him by those who seek to warp God’s plan for marriage. This is the same reason I get tired of people whining that the Church needs to stop focusing on gay “marriage” and tackle other problems too. When someone points a gun at your head, you realize that is your top priority and that you can worry about starving to death later. Gay marriage gets attention because they proponents WANT attention.

This is why I have a hard time believing certain more liberal Catholics on here actually mean what they say about loving the Church and endorsing her teachings on certain issues. Even a good liberal Catholic would look at this man and say “hey, good for him for supporting the teachings on Christ in this instance.” Instead, you get annoyed because he doesn’t tackle every problem that comes through his door.

By this logic, the very fact that you get annoyed and posted on it is hypocritical because you don’t get post about everything else that is wrong in the world, too.

At the end of the day, I suspect the reason the guy’s stance bothers you is not because he is imperfect, but because you don’t support the teachings of the Church as much as you claim on this issue, and you aren’t alone on this web site. Too many people seem to hide behind their love of the Church’s teachings, but gnash their teeth when someone takes a stand that supports those teachings. It just isn’t belivable.

Clearly I have not made my argument well, so let’s try again.

The baker in this case denied wedding cake service to a gay couple because, in his own words, he is a “follower of Christ.” As I said in the post you quoted-I have no issue with what he did.

Now here’s where it gets tricky-I suggested that in light of the fact that he was a dealer in wedding cakes-perhaps consistency in his decisions in regard to marriage would help his cause. I didn’t ask him to provide a questionnaire about potential customers drug use, about their stance on the current economy, about their views on abortion…ALL I suggested that his stance on gay marriage should be consistent with his stance on heterosexual marriage. It makes the argument STRONGER.

One of the problems the marriage argument has is that people on the outside see that 99% of the energy is focussed on gay people, while the assaults on the dignity of marriage committed by heterosexuals are given a pass. If we really want more people to understand why gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of the Church, we have to present a consistent argument for the theology behind it. That means we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. I think we can handle it.

For whatever reason, and I will take the blame that my argument was not clear to you-you’ve gone on a tear about my personal positions on Church teaching-which quite frankly you know nothing about.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How moral is it to compel, by force, a business owner to service anyone they decide they don’t want to?

That’s the same argument that was made by segregationist restaurant owners to justify their not serving black people - until the.U.S. government stepped in. See Katzenburg v. McClung (1964) commonly referred to as the Birmingham Ollie’s Barbeque case.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That’s the same argument that was made by segregationist restaurant owners to justify their not serving black people - until the.U.S. government stepped in. See Katzenburg v. McClung (1964) commonly referred to as the Birmingham Ollie’s Barbeque case.

Same premise. If a person is required to do something with his private property, it isn’t really his. As you may already know, I’m not a big fan of fascism.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Clearly I have not made my argument well, so let’s try again.

The baker in this case denied wedding cake service to a gay couple because, in his own words, he is a “follower of Christ.” As I said in the post you quoted-I have no issue with what he did.

Now here’s where it gets tricky-I suggested that in light of the fact that he was a dealer in wedding cakes-perhaps consistency in his decisions in regard to marriage would help his cause. I didn’t ask him to provide a questionnaire about potential customers drug use, about their stance on the current economy, about their views on abortion…ALL I suggested that his stance on gay marriage should be consistent with his stance on heterosexual marriage. It makes the argument STRONGER.

One of the problems the marriage argument has is that people on the outside see that 99% of the energy is focussed on gay people, while the assaults on the dignity of marriage committed by heterosexuals are given a pass. If we really want more people to understand why gay marriage is wrong in the eyes of the Church, we have to present a consistent argument for the theology behind it. That means we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. I think we can handle it.

For whatever reason, and I will take the blame that my argument was not clear to you-you’ve gone on a tear about my personal positions on Church teaching-which quite frankly you know nothing about.

What’s the bakery going to do? Ask every customer if they’ve been married before? If so, what happened? Can I see proof of annulment please?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Same premise. If a person is required to do something with his private property, it isn’t really his. As you may already know, I’m not a big fan of fascism.

The “seggie” restaurants were undone because they had “entered into interstate commerce.” I guess you consider taxation as Fascism because the government requires you to do something with your earnings.