Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding

[oneofmany]

I believe Jesus is indeed going the extra mile by forgiving the woman without even questioning her about the cause of her actions and, furthermore, departing from traditional punishment according to Jewish law. Also, as I stated, although he tells her not to sin anymore, this is apparently not an admonition but more of a wise counsel which is part of Jesus’ loving behavior toward the woman. Jesus answers her sinful behavior with a display of love.

But Jesus didn’t suggest for her not to sin anymore, he told her NOT to sin anymore. There is a difference.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, the parish priest did come up with a verdict. Not sure if it was a Christian advice.

Considering that the parish priest has more knowledge of the situation than we do, suggesting that his counsel might not have been “Christian” seems hasty, no?

If the property is in close proximity to her own home, even the law in at least some states, allows her to be more careful in her decision to rent. Since she has children, she might not want to rent to people whom she sees as possibly not a good fit with her family.

 

[meltzerboy]

“here you go NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon … the beautiful cake for your fund raising celebration … I wish you wouldn’t use those monies to kill babies … that really isn’t nice you know - Not that I am being judgmental … I hope my cake is a huge benefit to your cause”

I get your point. But I’m not suggesting one should sell a cake with a bold inscription on it saying something like “abortions on demand for all.” What I am saying is that selling a cake, plain and simple, to a customer with as much good cheer and good will as one would express to any other customer seems to me no violation of one’s religious conscience. How and where the customer uses the cake need not factor into the decision. It is not as if one is personally providing money for the explicit purpose of an abortion.

 

[meltzerboy]

But Jesus didn’t suggest for her not to sin anymore, he told her NOT to sin anymore. There is a difference.

Jesus gave her wise counsel for her own benefit. He did not warn her that if she does sin again she will never be forgiven and that she will surely be stoned and go to hell. He LOVINGLY told her to sin no more. The main point is that He revealed love and mercy toward the woman, who, otherwise, would have been stoned to death for her transgression.

BTW, Jewish law also reveals love and mercy in that the penalty of stoning for committing adultery requires two valid eyewitnesses to the act. Mercy is built into the law itself.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, this is all true. Yet Jesus does nothing in all of this to cooperate in any wrong action. He never does. So the situations are not quite the same. Does loving our neighbor sometimes require us to cooperate in their wrongdoing? That is the question.

If a teenage child asks for a condom, we do not go the extra mile by giving him two. We discourage him from a wrong action. If a woman wishes to kill her unborn child in an abortion, we do not offer to pay for this one and the next one as well.

Do the cases involving Christian bakers include an inscription or image on the wedding cakes, or merely selling a plain, unadorned cake to a gay couple for the purpose of their wedding? To me, that makes a difference regarding cooperation in an act of wrongdoing.

 

[Gertabelle]

Do the cases involving Christian bakers include an inscription or image on the wedding cakes, or merely selling a plain, unadorned cake to a gay couple for the purpose of their wedding? To me,** that makes a difference regarding cooperation in an act of wrongdoing.**

Indeed it does! The problem is, most of the time the cases that appear in the news are not about plain, unadorned cakes. Consider the case of a baker in my home state who just won her case (first round, anyway) not to bake what she considered anti-gay cakes:

The first cake would include disdainful words about gays and a second cake would include two men holding hands and an X on top of them. Jack asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7″ and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2,” the decision by the department’s Civil Rights Division said, according to 7 News Denver.

There will certainly be gray areas, but most of these cases are not about just selling a cake, but “customers” targeting businesses whose owners they know will disagree with their views and then requesting over-the-top designs that are meant to disturb.

I am assuming Mr. Jack is trying to point out the inconsistencies in the law that has caused other business owners to be fined for not participating in same-sex marriages The problem seems to be bullies trying to shame and punish others who do not share their views. :sad_yes:

Gertie

 

[JimG]

Do the cases involving Christian bakers include an inscription or image on the wedding cakes, or merely selling a plain, unadorned cake to a gay couple for the purpose of their wedding? To me, that makes a difference regarding cooperation in an act of wrongdoing.

Yes, that does make a difference. A plain cake should be sold to anyone. A cake decorated specifically to show a same sex wedding might be objectionable, as would be a case in which the baker needed to attend the wedding reception to do the catering.

 

[Havard]

Jesus gave her wise counsel for her own benefit. He did not warn her that if she does sin again she will never be forgiven and that she will surely be stoned and go to hell. He LOVINGLY told her to sin no more. The main point is that He revealed love and mercy toward the woman, who, otherwise, would have been stoned to death for her transgression.

BTW, Jewish law also reveals love and mercy in that the penalty of stoning for committing adultery requires two valid eyewitnesses to the act. Mercy is built into the law itself.

But the main point of that Gospel passage isn’t at issue to the questions put forth by the OP. We are not deliberating if we should exercise mercy toward our fellow sinners. Of course we should. The question this thread is concerned with is whether certain actions might be result in improper cooperation with their sin.

If someone feels anxiety over potentially cooperating with sin, a lack of mercy is not the operative problem. The operative problem is confidence in one’s formed conscience.

Btw, I think 1ke answered the OP’s question very well, by suggesting:

I believe it would be remote material cooperation, and allowable. I think that there are many variables that could make it more or less remote and therefore more or less allowable.

 

[meltzerboy]

But the main point of that Gospel passage isn’t at issue to the questions put forth by the OP. We are not deliberating if we should exercise mercy toward our fellow sinners. Of course we should. The question this thread is concerned with is whether certain actions might be result in improper cooperation with their sin.

If someone feels anxiety over potentially cooperating with sin, a lack of mercy is not the operative problem. The operative problem is confidence in one’s formed conscience.

Btw, I think 1ke answered the OP’s question very well, by suggesting:

Have you read the blog? I’m not saying this perspective is the be-all and end-all, but I think it and the viewpoint of the OP go beyond the issue of cooperation with sin, and instead are directed to the message Jesus conveys regarding loving one’s enemies and its practical significance in our lives. This message was a qualitative shift from that of the Jewish law of the period. Other posters have steered the conversation to the well-formed conscience and cooperation-with-evil themes, perhaps inevitably so because of their apparent connection, but these topics are not the original intent of the OP, in my view.

 

[Havard]

Have you read the blog? I’m not saying this perspective is the be-all and end-all, but I think it and the viewpoint of the OP go beyond the issue of cooperation with sin, and instead are directed to the message Jesus conveys regarding loving one’s enemies and its practical significance in our lives. This message was a qualitative shift from that of the Jewish law of the period. Other posters have steered the conversation to the well-formed conscience and cooperation-with-evil themes, perhaps inevitably so because of their apparent connection, but these topics are not the original intent of the OP, in my view.

Yes, the OP asked about that blog, so maybe I should be specific in my critique of it then.

The blogger is right to point out a “higher standard of love”. My disagreement is with her is in how she uses this as solution to the “what should you do” question she posits. Another popular blogger (Katy Faust) recently likened these situations to straddling a fence, with one toe on either side. One side is proclaiming the truth in everything we do, and the other is radically sacrificing for gay people in our lives. Most people are inclined to one side of the fence or the other, but we have to resist the temptation. So while I like the “go with them two” mantra, I think the blog linked by the OP fails in brushing the other concern under the rug. There is a legitimate concern in how certain actions here may have the opposite effect of proclaiming the truth of our faith. I’m not saying you can’t bake a cake, but as 1ke rightly mentioned, there are considerations that could influence such a consideration.

 

[St_Francis]

Have you read the blog? I’m not saying this perspective is the be-all and end-all, but I think it and the viewpoint of the OP go beyond the issue of cooperation with sin, and instead are directed to the message Jesus conveys regarding loving one’s enemies and its practical significance in our lives. This message was a qualitative shift from that of the Jewish law of the period. Other posters have steered the conversation to the well-formed conscience and cooperation-with-evil themes, perhaps inevitably so because of their apparent connection, but these topics are not the original intent of the OP, in my view.

First let me go back to your interpretation of the woman caught in adultery. Christ says to her: Go and sin no more. The Church interprets this as an admonition, and the Church also teaches us that one of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner. Remeber that Christ could see into her heart–He did not treat everyone with mercy, only the contrite. What Christ saw in her heart, what He saw in the hearts of those who wanted to stone her, is left unknown.

Secondly, you create a rift between loving our enemies and avoiding involvement in evil. What’s up with that? Is it a loving act to enable someone to commit evil? No. So our love for even our enemies must be tempered by prudence. We cannot say, I love this drug dealer so I will buy drugs from him so he’ll have money. No, as any parent knows, sometimes the most loving act one can perform for someone is contrary to what that person might think he wants.

Additionally, we must not love others at the expense of our relationship with God. Solomon loved his wives and so he made temples for them to their gods. Then he started worshipping at those temples, and ruined his relationship with God! So loving our enemies in no way justifes committing evil.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, the parish priest did come up with a verdict. Not sure if it was a Christian advice.

Well, that is shall we say interesting.

I’ve asked about this subject when I was in the vacation reservation business, and I was told by a couple of priests that I didn’t have a special obligation to refuse those who were not in a valid marriage.

In fact, in some cases, we didn’t even know the status of the people staying.

 

[Rau]

I believe Jesus is indeed going the extra mile by forgiving the woman without even questioning her about the cause of her actions and, furthermore, departing from traditional punishment according to Jewish law. Also, as I stated, although he tells her not to sin anymore, this is apparently not an admonition but more of a wise counsel which is part of Jesus’ loving behavior toward the woman. Jesus answers her sinful behavior with a display of love.

Jesus took a different approach to the money-changers in the temple. I guess they were going about their business and showed no sign of remorse.

 

[Rau]

…However, it has never sat right with me how we have been advised to turn our back on homosexuals who are embracing a homosexual lifestyle.

Turn our back - what does that mean? Who advises this?

We are also landlords who once had a lesbian couple asking to rent one of our homes. They had children and liked our rental home because of its location for their children. We asked our parish priest how to handle it and he said we should not rent to them…However, I tried to put myself in their position- how would I feel if I was them and was turned away? How would I feel telling my children that we couldn’t live in that house since the Christian landlord hates queers and their kids? How is that spreading the message of Jesus’ love?

Do you ordinarily give all the unsuccessful applicants for your rental properties a reason for why you did not grant them a lease? And if you did () would your reason have been that you “hate queers and their kids”?

 

[oneofmany]

tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

I like the comments after the article. It seems a lot of people get it. Jesus was talking about going the extra mile to embarrass those who make you do something. It wasn’t to condone the abuse the person was doing to you. Romans were very brutal to Christians and they had no way to refuse to do what they ordered. The other Christians who saw you doing it understood that, you were not condoning being abused.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

Bill Donahue said we should never discriminate against homosexuals as individuals, but we should object to offering services which would violate our religious beliefs.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But Jesus didn’t suggest for her not to sin anymore, he told her NOT to sin anymore. There is a difference.

Jesus was not talking to just one woman; his message is for all who read it, and very sadly, we continue to sin until we die.

 

[mommy_k]

Look at Mother Theresa. She saw Jesus in everyone, including all sinners. She did not turn anyone away. She cared for and helped heal many that were on the outskirts of society, many who were homosexuals.

Did she say, I can’t take care of you, you can’t stay here, because if you get better, you will continue to live a sinful life?

I don’t think so.

 

[mommy_k]

Look at Mother Theresa. She saw Jesus in everyone, including all sinners. She did not turn anyone away. She cared for and helped heal many that were on the outskirts of society, many who were homosexuals.

Did she say, I can’t take care of you, you can’t stay here, because if you get better, you will continue to live a sinful life?

I don’t think so.

And this is is the message that some Catholic’s give to homosexuals.

I don’t like you, go away, I will not help, you can’t join the church, you are seriously flawed, you are unworthy of my service.-I’m a sinner too, but my sins’s are not as bad as yours. Eek.

Not a good way to heal and show love and grow the church. Quite the opposite if you look at the big picture.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I found this blog post today and it is counter to everything I thought we should do and yet it makes sense. It is beautiful, gives me hope and feels like the path Jesus would take. I would really like to aspire to this. I was hoping to get your opinions on this if you don’t mind taking the time to read it. It’s pretty short:
tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

Thank you in advance for your opinions and have a Blessed Easter!

I truncated your post.

tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

I like the comments after the article. It seems a lot of people get it. Jesus was talking about going the extra mile to embarrass those who make you do something. It wasn’t to condone the abuse the person was doing to you. Romans were very brutal to Christians and they had no way to refuse to do what they ordered. The other Christians who saw you doing it understood that, you were not condoning being abused.

**Here is a response to the Bake for them too article:

patheos.com/blogs/manhattanproject/2015/04/bake-for-them-two-or-walk-with-the-few/**

The author, Jessica Kantrowitz, admits that she does not consider gay marriage immoral, but aims her words at Christians whose understanding conforms to orthodox biblical teaching on the subject.

So what of Kantrowitz’ argument? Is it true that Jesus would command a baker and, presumably, florist, photographer, caterer, musician and pastor to participate in a same-sex wedding?

Of course not.

The lynchpin in Kantrowitz’ argument is the assumption that homosexuality, and therefore same-sex marriage, is not immoral.

If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself) and a gay couple comes into your shop and asks you to bake a cake for their wedding, what should you do? If God causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall on the wedding days of straight and gay couples, then what is our responsibility? If it is against the law to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, but you believe strongly that their lifestyle is immoral, what should you do? Christians, our Jesus said, “Go with them two.”

Kantrowitz skips over this point as if it is a minor footnote, and moves on as if standing in the shoes of one who holds the orthodox Christian position on sexuality. But whether or not homosexuality is immoral makes all the difference in deciding the most loving response to same-sex attracted persons and requests to participate in same-sex weddings.

Read the full article at the link above.