Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding

[St_Francis]

The problem is that there are morals aspects to the various acts themselves.

There is no moral wrong involved in renting living quarters, getting medical treatment, carrying loads, etc.

Which is precisely the question at hand: is a person *facilitating *immorality by baking a wedding cake for a SSW? Is the person facilitating immorality by *personalizing *the cake? Putting two men or two women on top? Writing “Adam and Steve, together forever”?

This is obviously a different matter than selling two men or two women a loaf of bread, even if they are holding hands.

 

[ignatius777]

My family and I are devout Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. We hold up signs and participate in peaceful prayer services in front of abortion clinics, we make donations to Catholic charitable organizations, and we manage our business in a way that we believe the Church would expect- not offering birth control or procured abortion coverage in our employee benefits packages. We really try to be faithful to the teachings of the Church.

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. 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. As it turned out, before we could reply to them, they found a cheaper home in location more convenient to them. However, I tried to put myself in their position- how would I feel if I was them and was turned away? How is that spreading the message of Jesus’ love?

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!

**How would I feel telling my children that we couldn’t live in that house since the Christian landlord hates queers and their kids? **

Where does this kind of thinking come from? I cant comprehend how people make the leap to the conclusion you reached above. Can you explain?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

One of the charges against Christ was that He consorted with sinners - publicans and prostitutes. I don’t suppose this charge could be levelled against too many of us - we keep our distance.

No doubt He consorted with them in order to call them out of their sin, and not just for social fraternisation.

The particular problem the OP faces is that she and her husband are making money from the lesbian couple. On the other hand the lesbian couple need a place for themselves and their kids. Christ was not a landlord, although He would be the first to admit His Father sent the rain to fall and the sun to shine on the just and the unjust. He treats all alike in that regard.

I’d have probably allowed them to rent from me, but I’d have tried to at least make them aware of my beliefs and why. Where they went from there is up to them.

But then I’m not a landlord, and I don’t have that issue. I could foresee something similar becoming a potential problem if a homosexual couple decided to get married and sent my wife and I an invitation. We’d have to refuse then, but I’d try to make it clear, as politely and courteously as possible, just why we were refusing to attend, while paradoxically wishing them all the best in their personal lives, and not wishing them ill will.

That’s the problem with mixing with sinners - you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. As Christ found out.

 

[ignatius777]

One of the charges against Christ was that He consorted with sinners - publicans and prostitutes. I don’t suppose this charge could be levelled against too many of us - we keep our distance.

No doubt He consorted with them in order to call them out of their sin, and not just for social fraternisation.

The particular problem the OP faces is that she and her husband are making money from the lesbian couple. On the other hand the lesbian couple need a place for themselves and their kids. Christ was not a landlord, although He would be the first to admit His Father sent the rain to fall and the sun to shine on the just and the unjust. He treats all alike in that regard.

I’d have probably allowed them to rent from me, but I’d have tried to at least make them aware of my beliefs and why. Where they went from there is up to them.

But then I’m not a landlord, and I don’t have that issue. I could foresee something similar becoming a potential problem if a homosexual couple decided to get married and sent my wife and I an invitation. We’d have to refuse then, but I’d try to make it clear, as politely and courteously as possible, just why we were refusing to attend, while paradoxically wishing them all the best in their personal lives, and not wishing them ill will.

That’s the problem with mixing with sinners - you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. As Christ found out.

All of that is perfectly fine Bob. I agree with a lot of what you said but my problem however is with the sentence I posted in bold from the original poster. When someone says something like that (paraphrase)… we cant live there because the Christian landlord “hates” queers and their kids??? There is no logical way to conclude that since gays cant live there the landlord hates gays. Its that kind of thinking which has led to exactly the problems we have. BTW Jesus did consort with sinners but never participated in their sin. As I have asked 1000 times how did Jesus get turned into an American liberal?

 

[holyrood]

There’s a fundamental flaw in the entire premise of the blog to which you linked.

No Christian baker has been refusing to bake *cakes *for homosexuals. They have refused to add words or top pieces which condone sin.

What would Jesus do or say: Go and sin no more.

Do liberals ever note the irony of those who don’t accept Christian teaching lecturing Christians on how to live a Christian life? For myself, I’m going to go with the advice of the greatest saints and theologians, and those who have spent countless hours on their knees before God.

 

[onenow1]

My personal leaning : Bake the cake congratulate them let them know your feelings, as they let us know there feelings. That we have principles from our faith that come from God, not from man.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[holyrood]

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?

An early response suggested this post was trolling, and the OP asked why one would think that.

This line. That’s why.

No Catholic who knows church teaching would actually view ‘not aiding sin’ as ‘hating queers and their kids.’ I find it hard to believe a true Catholic would even refer to someone as ‘queers’ to be honest.

And if you were merely saying that the women themselves would repeat this–I suppose the fact that two women want to tell their children an untrue and hurtful thing should perhaps be addressed by the two women who take such a narrow and foolish view that anyone who doesn’t aid their behavior therefore ‘hates’ them and also ‘hates’ their children. This notion is ridiculous, and yet we as a society have let the press and social media press this idea that we must agree with and approve every action, or we’re guilty of ‘hate.’

When have we ever called someone a ‘hater’ merely for disagreeing with Catholic teaching? Yet we actually cooperate in our own destruction, worrying that not abetting sin makes us ‘hateful.’

 

[ignatius777]

An early response suggested this post was trolling, and the OP asked why one would think that.

This line. That’s why.

No Catholic who knows church teaching would actually view ‘not aiding sin’ as ‘hating queers and their kids.’ I find it hard to believe a true Catholic would even refer to someone as ‘queers’ to be honest.

And if you were merely saying that the women themselves would repeat this–I suppose the fact that two women want to tell their children an untrue and hurtful thing should perhaps be addressed by the two women who take such a narrow and foolish view that anyone who doesn’t aid their behavior therefore ‘hates’ them and also ‘hates’ their children. This notion is ridiculous, and yet we as a society have let the press and social media press this idea that we must agree with and approve every action, or we’re guilty of ‘hate.’

When have we ever called someone a ‘hater’ merely for disagreeing with Catholic teaching? Yet we actually cooperate in our own destruction, worrying that not abetting sin makes us ‘hateful.’

I had the exact same reaction

 

[St_Francis]

**How would I feel telling my children that we couldn’t live in that house since the Christian landlord hates queers and their kids? **

Where does this kind of thinking come from? I cant comprehend how people make the leap to the conclusion you reached above. Can you explain?

A landlord is required by law not to discriminate in renting unless the rental property is within a certain proximity to their own home, in which case they can be more choosey about their neighbors.

If I was renting out the house next door to mine and I had children, I would be very picky about who I rented to. There are huge classes of people I would not rent to, and I might even work to get a Catholic family in there. Why? Because I have more responsibility for my children and their upbringing.

If my rental property were some distance away from my house, I wouldn’t care. I would consider the people’s financials and references (avoid criminals, for instance), and that would be it.

There is no moral requirement that I regulate what happens within a rental property I am renting to others–they are paying me rent to have their own place, not to have a “mother” overseeing them!

However, if I were homosexual and had children, I would not say that the reason we didnmt get the place was because the landlord “hates queers.” First, that might be incorrect: who knows why the landlord chose another applicant over me? Maybe the landlord has had trouble when renting to families with children and so chose an SS couple without children!

Second, who would burden children children like that? It is much better to tesch children how to handle difficulties in a healthy way rather than in a blaming/shaming way.

Suppose the situation were turned around: the landlord has SSA and turns me and my family down in favor of a SS couple? Should I tell my children that we didn’t get the place because the landlord hates straights? Catholics? Children?

 

[meltzerboy]

All of that is perfectly fine Bob. I agree with a lot of what you said but my problem however is with the sentence I posted in bold from the original poster. When someone says something like that (paraphrase)… we cant live there because the Christian landlord “hates” queers and their kids??? There is no logical way to conclude that since gays cant live there the landlord hates gays. Its that kind of thinking which has led to exactly the problems we have. BTW Jesus did consort with sinners but never participated in their sin. As I have asked 1000 times how did Jesus get turned into an American liberal?

“There is no logical way to conclude that since gays can’t live there the landlord hates gays.” Perhaps you are right if you are talking about one or a few gay couples who are rejected by a landlord. After all, landlords reject potential tenants all the time. But if it is a matter of policy that the landlord does not rent to gay couples, why is it not logical to assume the landlord hates gays? But no, you might object, the landlord does not hate gays as PEOPLE; rather, it is their BEHAVIOR that the landlord does not condone. IOW, love the sinner, hate the sin, according to Christian (and Jewish) teaching. However, how does the landlord show their love for the sinner if they deny them shelter, if they deny them a home based on what the landlord suspects, but does not even know for sure, is likely to be the sexual activity that would take place between the gay couple in that home? How can the landlord really love the sinner if he behaves this way toward them, given that love is not merely an abstract feeling but, more important, a way in which people BEHAVE toward others who are in need of shelter, food, clothing, friendship, money, education, time, caring, kindness, and love?

 

[ignatius777]

“There is no logical way to conclude that since gays can’t live there the landlord hates gays.” Perhaps you are right if you are talking about one or a few gay couples who are rejected by a landlord. After all, landlords reject potential tenants all the time. But if it is a matter of policy that the landlord does not rent to gay couples, why is it not logical to assume the landlord hates gays? But no, you might object, the landlord does not hate gays as PEOPLE; rather, it is their BEHAVIOR that the landlord does not condone. IOW, love the sinner, hate the sin, according to Christian (and Jewish) teaching. However, how does the landlord show their love for the sinner if they deny them shelter, if they deny them a home based on what the landlord suspects, but does not even know for sure, is likely to be the sexual activity that would take place between the gay couple in that home? How can the landlord really love the sinner if he behaves this way toward them, given that love is not merely an abstract feeling but, more important, a way in which people BEHAVE toward others who are in need of shelter, food, clothing, friendship, money, education, time, caring, kindness, and love?

let me ask you this, does a person “hate” the sinner if that person refuses to participate in the sin? The error here seems to be equating love with tolerance. They are not at al the same and we are not called to tolerate sinful behavior but rather love the sinner. Its not the same.

 

[meltzerboy]

let me ask you this, does a person “hate” the sinner if that person refuses to participate in the sin? The error here seems to be equating love with tolerance. They are not at al the same and we are not called to tolerate sinful behavior but rather love the sinner. Its not the same.

Please re-read my previous post and tell me how the landlord loves the sinner if they behave in this way toward them regarding the refusal to rent a home to them as a matter of policy not allowing the housing of gay couples? What kind of loving of the sinner is this? I thought Jesus stated that loving means helping others by sheltering them, clothing them, feeding them, and so on, or does this loving behavior apply only to non-sinners?

 

[ignatius777]

Please re-read my previous post and tell me how the landlord loves the sinner if they behave in this way toward them regarding the refusal to rent a home to them as a matter of policy not allowing the housing of gay couples? What kind of loving of the sinner is this? I thought Jesus stated that loving means helping others by sheltering them, clothing them, feeding them, and so on, or does this loving behavior apply only to non-sinners?

Well your presumption is that its hate so there can be no convincing you otherwise. You believe what you believe regardless of the truth. If one of my kids wanted to live in my home or an apartment I own with their unmarried partner I wouldn’t allow it. Are you suggesting I hate my kids? I strongly urge you to use common sense when discussing this issue.

I will repeat what I have said again and again loving the sinner does not include participating in the sin.

 

[holyrood]

… if it is a matter of policy that the landlord does not rent to gay couples, why is it not logical to assume the landlord hates gays? But no, you might object, the landlord does not hate gays as PEOPLE; rather, it is their BEHAVIOR that the landlord does not condone… how does the landlord show their love for the sinner if they deny them shelter,…

There are thousands upon thousands of rentals available. The landlord is not ‘denying them shelter.’ This implies that there’s nowhere else to go, that these people will actually be out in the cold unless this particular landlord allows this particular pair of people to do exactly as they please on his property.

Do you realize the same argument could be made for absolutely any activity? By your logic, I’m morally obligated to rent to a drug dealer, knowing full well he’ll be using my property to make drugs. Or to someone I know full well is going to be running an escort service out of my home. We are called to love drug dealers and prostitutes, and they also need shelter, and if I can’t ‘deny them shelter’ based on one activity, I can’t ‘deny them shelter’ based on another.

And don’t even bother with the difference in legality. Laws change all the time. Homosexual acts used to be widely illegal. Prostitution is legal in some places. The legal status of certain drugs has recently changed in a few places. Judges can change the legality of any of this with a swipe of the pen, just as they’ve changed the legal status of other actions.

Tell me, are you going to deny shelter to a drug dealer? Wouldn’t that be unloving?

 

[holyrood]

I will also add, that virtually every shelter for those who truly need shelter, has STANDARDS for behavior. If we are morally obligated to give shelter to anyone, regardless of anything they do, we’d all have some serious problems on our hands, and fewer and fewer people would see any reason to regulate their behavior. I think this is what used to be called entitlement.

 

[andrewstx]

I think that a few of us are overreacting. Too me acting as bridesmaid or bestman would be participating in a “wedding”. As well as being a flower girl or ring boy.

But baking a cake or arranging flowers, is to me not direct participation.

 

[onenow1]

I think that a few of us are overreacting. Too me acting as bridesmaid or bestman would be participating in a “wedding”. As well as being a flower girl or ring boy.

But baking a cake or arranging flowers, is to me not direct participation.

Andrew , as I said before in a previous post #47, congratulate them, then let them know your conviction from your faith, that God means what He says about all wrongful acts, there decision to follow follow feelings is not a logically thought out process of knowledge it leads to a faulty conviction using feelings rather then a well thought out process using the intellect; Knowing 3000yrs. or more of tradition has stood the test of time… We must always remember all have free will to decide, for this is a gift of God; However disobeying God, for our own satisfaction is nothing new as we all know.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Rau]

Andrew , as I said before in a previous post #47, congratulate them, then let them know your conviction from your faith, that God means what He says about all wrongful acts, there decision to follow follow feelings is not a logically thought out process of knowledge it leads to a faulty conviction using feelings rather then a well thought out process using the intellect; Knowing 3000yrs. or more of tradition has stood the test of time… We must always remember all have free will to decide, for this is a gift of God; However disobeying God, for our own satisfaction is nothing new as we all know.

God Bless
onenow1

What is the meaning of “congratulations” in this context? “How wonderful you have found someone you love.” That’s good. But how is that not to be read as an endorsement of the sexual relationship now proposed? You congratulate, and then you take it all back by telling them what you really think?

 

[holyrood]

I think that a few of us are overreacting. Too me acting as bridesmaid or bestman would be participating in a “wedding”. As well as being a flower girl or ring boy.

But baking a cake or arranging flowers, is to me not direct participation.

But many people would regard baking a cake as direct participation. Especially if one is forced to place the two men holding hands on top, or forced to write the words ‘Steve and Dave’ or whatever…knowing exactly that they are by their actions agreeing that this is acceptable.

Why should anyone be forced to take an action that in their conscience IS direct participation? That goes against their moral and religious beliefs?

Would it be acceptable if someone tried to force you to be a best man, with the statement that THEY don’t regard being a best man as direct participation, therefore YOU have no right to regard it as such or choose your actions based on that belief?

Simple answer: let people live according to their beliefs. Don’t make black bakers bake cakes for the KKK. Don’t make Christian bakers bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes. Don’t make gay bakers bake cakes with Bible verses printed on top like ‘for a man to lie with a man is an abomination.’

 

[onenow1]

What is the meaning of “congratulations” in this context? “How wonderful you have found someone you love.” That’s good. But how is that not to be read as an endorsement of the sexual relationship now proposed? You congratulate, and then you take it all back by telling them what you really think?

Hi,Rau
God forgave the a woman of adultery; What I think is of little consequence, telling them about truth{JESUS} in all matters is necessary this is our calling. They must resolve this with much thought if they care to do so. Hopefully a seed will be planted.

God Bless
onenow1

Final judgement belongs to the Lord.