Could a Catholic bake a cake for a gay wedding?

[sainteriksrose]

Which brings to mind Christ’s reaction to merchants improperly trying to turn a place of worship into a marketplace…

And in this way we can know what His reaction is going to be - to some things, anyway - when the time comes.

 

[Rau]

$135K for exercising your right to religious freedom, and freedom of speech. If you are Christian.

Let us know when the Jewish or Moslem are found innocent in similar circumstances. That will be a differential application of the law.

 

[AlNg]

My question is, would we (Catholics) be allowed to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Here’s my opinion:
If you sell cakes to the public, you have to sell them a cake, but you don’t have to bake a cake which is specifically designed for gay weddings.

As far as the Catholic teaching on this issue, I don’t know but I do know that there is a Catholic college here which publishes about 2 or 3 times a year, a magazine or alumni journal about the college and its alumni and their activities. There are a few pages devoted to congratulating couples who have recently gotten married, with photos and short resumes about the event. Well, recently, in the last few journals. they have been congratulating SS couples who have just gotten married. There are photos of the SS couple and of those participating in the wedding.

 

[sainteriksrose]

That’s too bad, because it could lead others into thinking that the Church (ergo God) is okay with it, when we know that isn’t the case…

And no amount of semantical acrobatics and misinterpretations of Scripture can change that, either.

 

[ATraveller]

The chances of Muslim or more orthodox Jewish business owners getting fined or sued are low. It’s only a select group of businesses that can targeted by activists and owners of those faiths are a very small proportion in those industries.
Another element at play is the fact many left-wing activists and lawyers who make a big fuss intentionally go after Christians. Someone has to start the case or alert the authorities. There’s a whole history behind why Christians are singled out and the billions of dollars being funnelled in to do this. And this is not just about cakes and gay weddings. Many are naïve about the political forces behind all of this.

 

[Rau]

As you point out, any distinction between Christians and others is NOT in the law or its application, but perhaps in the conniving of thise persons who pick their targets.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I think it would be easier to just not be a baker. If you owned a clothing store, would you refuse to sell clothes to an invalidly married man and woman and their children, who would be illegitimate, or at least the product of invalidly married (or not married) parents.

I think this is different from the home. A home is a private dwelling. A homeowner has a lot more leeway. A salesperson sets himself or herself up to cater to the public, not just those he or she approves of. Would you also refuse to bake a cake decorated for a Catholic bachelor party if it depicted something rather lewd? That would be more offensive to me than a cake with two men in tuxedos, fully clothed… Should a landscaper refuse to design a large, and lucrative, garden for a gay man? Even if the refusal means the landscaper’s own family will suffer from lack of income?

I’d bake the cake; however, I don’t know why any gay couple would want a cake baked by someone who disapproves of them so strongly. Seems to me, it would be easier to find a new baker, even if one has to go to a different town.

 

[Rau]

If you owned a clothing store, would you refuse to sell clothes to an invalidly married man and woman and their children, who would be illegitimate?

I don’t think so - you are not cooperating with immoral acts. Everyone needs clothes.

A salesperson sets himself or herself up to cater to the public, not just those he or she approves of.

But not to cooperate in the immoral acts of the customers, whether or not one thinks highly of the customer.

 

[ConstantLearner]

But not to cooperate in the immoral acts of the customers, whether or not one thinks highly of the customer.

The salesperson would have to have every customer fill out an extensive questionnaire, then trust they were telling the truth.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I don’t think so - you are not cooperating with immoral acts. Everyone needs clothes.

ConstantLearner:

But they wouldn’t need to get them at your store.

 

[Rau]

The salesperson would have to have every customer fill out an extensive questionnaire, then trust they were telling the truth.

No - there can be no wrong in what is inadvertent - unknown. I do wrong when I knowingly choose wrong course.

 

[Rau]

But they wouldn’t need to get them at your store.

So what? Everyone is entitled to acquire clothing and on what basis would it be right to deny a person clothing?

 

[SuperLuigi]

The chances of Muslim or more orthodox Jewish business owners getting fined or sued are low.

The liberal elite and their allies would not allow that to happen. The whole point to this is political gain and for them to be on easy street with their greivance coalition pulling the cart.

They won’t mess with Muslim or African-American or any other minority sect because they need their votes That’s why everytime I post this:

on-line it is dead silence except for @meltzerboy2

If I were GLBTQ, this would worry me. I think a lot of people who are the most ardent supporters of forcing Christians (specifically straight, white/Anglo Christians) would throw GLBTQ folks under the bus (or worse) if it meant cultural brownie points.

The GLBTQ folks are being used as political football. It’s sick and scandalous.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If you owned a clothing store, would you refuse to sell clothes to an invalidly married man and woman and their children, who would be illegitimate, or at least the product of invalidly married (or not married) parents

Does selling someone clothes or food somehow publicly scandalize others by supporting bad behavior?

 

[SuperLuigi]

The salesperson would have to have every customer fill out an extensive questionnaire, then trust they were telling the truth.

In Catholic morality people may participate in weddings they presume to be valid. I don’t think this level of scrupulousity is necessary.

 

[ATraveller]

Aside from the extraneous stuff meant for entertainment, it’s an eye opener and there are very good points in that video.
A wedding cake is not a right or live-saving (quite the contrary with it’s high sugar content).

I think it would be easier to just not be a baker.

That’s the point. These activists are purposely trying to marginalise Christians and squeeze us out. They attempted this in some jurisdictions with the medical field with different issues but had to back track because doctors are hard to find but bakers are not hard to find.

---

Again, many don’t understand the political forces involved here. These activists are not nice people nor do they want rational discussions. You don’t need to do anything and they’ll still go after you. Capitulation is not only cowardice but will only incentivize further erosion in religious freedoms.

 

[Benadam]

Again, many don’t understand the political forces involved here. These activists are not nice people nor do they want rational discussions. You don’t need to do anything and they’ll still go after you. Capitulation is not only cowardice but will only incentivize further erosion in religious freedoms.

I can’t help but reminded of Scripture when I read your comment.

Rev 13-17

17 so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

This is a battle of conscience(mark on the forehead) which govern what we do( mark on the hand)

 

[LadyLillian]

By your logic, the first part of the First Amendment has no meaning.

I have no idea how you made that conclusion. I never cited the First Amendment and believing in equal access to public services and the right to freedom from discrimination in the public square does not mean you therefore find the First Amendment meaningless.

The issue is one of whether the religion of Christianity (or for that matter, Islam), or the religion of secularism and hedonism is the source of law in the land.

The issue is how involved government should be, and involved via what methods, in terms of the balance between religious freedom and protection of individuals from discrimination in the public square.

By your logic, a girl wanting an abortion in a town that has only one doctor can force that doctor to abort her child.

You really want to go down that path?

I find the comparison of brutally killing a defenseless human child and frosting a cake for a gay couple in celebration of their commitment to lifelong love highly offensive. Those things are not remotely on the same level. Watching an abortion on YouTube and then watching a gay wedding video makes the difference abundantly clear.

Offensiveness aside, their is a difference between a town doctor never performing abortions and never performing abortions on lesbian rape victims. Likewise, there is a difference between never making wedding cakes and never making cakes for gay weddings. Abortion is a great injustice in it’s essence, and so for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion, there is always a victory for the life of the child. In such a case, it would be good that the child was not killed. That said, unjust discrimination, in itself, is never a good.

 

[ATraveller]

‘There is nothing new under the sun’ as it says in Ecclesiastes though I’ve likely taken that line a bit out of context.
I’m not sure where I am on eschatology (likely amillenialism) but Revelation was written during an period of intense persecution. We in the West are not there yet and we shouldn’t be surprised we’re moving towards it and this issue is just one of a very large number. We shouldn’t be surprised to see the same patterns in what John of Patmos wrote nearly two millennia ago in the present age.

 

[LadyLillian]

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

This quote does not state venial sins can be committed when a person honestly believes they are doing something right and good.

It is simply untrue that every person on the planet is born with an unfading concrete knowledge that gay marriage is morally wrong. For years I held the belief gay marriage was a wonderful thing, as wonderful as heterosexual marriage. What was written on my conscience was that it was a beautiful thing, an expression of love revealing a shadow of the God who is Love. That is the natural reaction of most people, what most people’s hearts tell them, especially in my generation. Even after having heard the Church’s revealed teaching as a practicing Catholic, I struggle to see the sense in the Catholic homosexual worldview. So I don’t for a second buy the idea that a lesbian atheist who has never heard of Catholicism has it so clearly written on her heart that marrying her beloved is wrong to the point where she will be punished for doing so. Indeed, what you claim is not what the passage is saying–you have to read it in context.

The level of understanding may lessen the severity of the guilt, but it cannot remove the guilt

Let’s look at a line you posted one more time.

CCC 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.

So clearly one can be unintentionally ignorant about grave matters. The conscience is not absolute or developed in everyone (or even most). And ignorance lessens or removes our guilt.

So what does it truly mean when the CCC says "no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law"? I’m not sure. Perhaps it means “no one is deemed to be [entirely] ignorant of the principles of the moral law”, that we all have at least a weak inkling, though a weak inkling does not allow us to have the knowledge to commit a mortal sin.

Also, on a side note, the literal, out-of-context interpretation of " no one is deemed ignorant" is contradicted by the existence of human embryos. Embryos are ignorant of the principles of the moral law in the fact that they have no brain or ability to know any concepts at all.