Could a Catholic bake a cake for a gay wedding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
If you look at publicly available statistics,
Click to expand...
There are publicly available statistics on the number of gay men who actually cheat in a civil marriage (as opposed to just on their unmarried partners) vs the number of straight men who actually cheat in a marriage (as opposed to just on their girlfriends when unmarried)? Edited to add, since gay marriage is relatively new in a lot of places, it seems awfully early to have a good statistical base.

Or are these on the number of gay men who state out loud that they are going to have an open relationship as opposed to the number of straight men who say out loud they are going to have an open relationship?

Do you have a link for this please?

I have known quite a few people in open or poly relationships where the couple had a heterosexual marriage and one or both parties reserved the right to have gay sex on the side. But most of the people I know who have gotten married in a gay marriage since it was legalized were already in long-term monogamous relationships with their partner and the marriage was just making legal what they were already doing. They didn’t have an open relationship and weren’t looking for one. I’ll admit I’m old and I mostly know older people at this point, so maybe that skews the results when you have some couple who has been together 15 or 20 years but just didn’t get married till now.

As for straight men, my comment stands. A lot of straight men want a little wife at home but they want to be able to do what they want with prostitutes, women at bars, women they meet on tour with a band or in a show or on a business trip, whatever. They don’t plan on being faithful husbands, but they don’t say so out loud. I have no idea what agreements they might make with their wives, as unlike polys, they don’t discuss it with the world. Although you sure do hear about it with a megaphone when Wife catches Hubby cheating.
 
Last edited:
I have problems with this issue. When I was a child I was told I could not go to the skating rink because teh owner thought of Catholics as a kind of black people and we would not be allowed in.
I know of someone else who was not allowed to rent an apartment because he answered (according to them) incorrectly to the question, “What religion are you?”
 
If a baker is not permitted to bake cakes for anyone who is not a Catholic they would be out of business pretty soon.
 
Those situations were very wrong. I think there are two things that make this different: First, gay marriage is not a religion or a race. It is a lifestyle choice. And it is a lifestyle choice that is against nature.

Second, and more important from a legal perspective, in those anecdotes you cite, the business owner was denying your ability to purchase what they were already offering to other people. In this case, the baker was being asked to create a product from scratch that he found objectionable. The backstory is that he had a standing policy that he would not do any decorations that had what he considered anti-religious overtones, including Halloween cakes. That is what the case hinges on: Can someone be forced to use their creativity to create a product variation they don’t normally offer?

This is not new. eHarmony, the online matchmaking site, was sued by gay activists because it’s software did not create same sex matches. Despite the obvious revenue potential, the owner was religious and objected to doing so. As part of the settlement, he had to use his technology to create a separate site for gays. My guess is he then sold that off.
 
Last edited:
I think a more important question is: should a gay person have to bake a cake promoting Catholic views on homosexuality?

If they prefer to be able to refrain from doing so, then a Catholic should also have the right to refrain from baking a cake that does not conform to Catholic beliefs.
 
jfz178 said:
Those situations were very wrong. I think there are two things that make this different: First, gay marriage is not a religion or a race. It is a lifestyle choice. And it is a lifestyle choice that is against nature.

Second, and more important from a legal perspective, in those anecdotes you cite, the business owner was denying your ability to purchase what they were already offering to other people. In this case, the baker was being asked to create a product from scratch that he found objectionable. The backstory is that he had a standing policy that he would not do any decorations that had what he considered anti-religious overtones, including Halloween cakes. That is what the case hinges on: Can someone be forced to use their creativity to create a product variation they don’t normally offer?
Click to expand...
But many, many bakers do not make a custom cake for every wedding, but have a set of boilerplate designs. In such a case, the gay couple is doing no more than a black person who goes to a restaurant and asks for a hamburger. Even though the hamburger is not already made, it is disingenuous to say that a customer’s being black changes whether this standard menu item can be sold. I see the gay wedding case as similar. If there is truly a creative task going on – especially if that task is supposed to be customized for a gay wedding – I think that any baker is justified in refusing.
 
I get what you’re saying. However, if a baker routinely did not do certain types of cakes, would he be likely to have a gay design as one of his boilerplate designs? I doubt it. This baker also did not do Halloween designs. I’ll bet he had no boilerplate witch motifs. So we would still be back to him having to create a product he didn’t offer. I guess he could have just done two men instead of a man and a woman. I don’t know what the actual design was they wanted. I guess a lot would depend on that.

But I also have to assume that this is not about two gay guys getting a cake. From what I read, they just went to another bakery and got what they wanted. So they might have been slightly inconvenienced, but not damaged. What they are trying to do is create a legal precedent that sexual preferences are more important than freedom of religion. I think that is a really slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
jfz178 said:
I get what you’re saying. However, if a baker routinely did not do certain types of cakes, would he be likely to have a gay design as one of his boilerplate designs? I doubt it. This baker also did not do Halloween designs. I’ll bet he had no boilerplate witch motifs. So we would still be back to him having to create a product he didn’t offer. I guess he could have just done two men instead of a man and a woman. I don’t know what the actual design was they wanted. I guess a lot would depend on that.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is the sort of balance I want to happen, precisely: don’t force anyone to sell items they would not otherwise sell. So yeah, of course, no baker has to sell cake toppers or boilerplate designs specifically for gay weddings. But anything that they do sell can be sold to anyone, regardless of that person’s intentions.
jfz178 said:
But I also have to assume that this is not about two gay guys getting a cake. From what I read, they just went to another bakery and got what they wanted. So they might have been slightly inconvenienced, but not damaged. What they are trying to do is create a legal precedent that sexual preferences are more important than freedom of religion. I think that is a really slippery slope.
Click to expand...
In law, we must always ignore the reasons why a case is being brought, and simply decide the case on its merits.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal_Son said:
In law, we must always ignore the reasons why a case is being brought, and simply decide the case on its merits.
Click to expand...
Lawyers and judges have to do that, yes. But the rest of us are free, and perhaps even have a duty, to have opinions on whether that makes sense.
 
jfz178 said:
The backstory is that he had a standing policy that he would not do any decorations that had what he considered anti-religious overtones, including Halloween cakes.
Click to expand...
That is hugely important. He wasn’t just picking out a specific ideology that was against his religious beliefs, but any and all that did.

He has that right.
 
Joe1 said:
My question is, would we (Catholics) be allowed to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
Click to expand...
Umm… a ‘gay wedding’? Don’t think I’ve ever met a wedding that had a sexual orientation.
Oh… you mean “a wedding of two homosexuals”?

Umm… I’ve never been to a wedding that had cake as part of the ceremony.
Oh – you mean “a party to celebrate the wedding of two homosexuals”?

Makes a big difference when you state things precisely, doesn’t it?

So, your question boils down to “in terms of civil law, may an American refuse to provide service to a person based on their identity within a group protected from discrimination, precisely because of his identity within that protected group?”

Hmm… that one seems pretty self-answering… 🤔
 
Last edited:
I ask myself, “What would Jesus do?”

Two people desire to be with one another, care for one another, support a home with one another, and love one another until they are dead. They want to swear an oath to this effect in front of their family and friends.

They ask Jesus if he would be willing to bake a cake to help them celebrate this oath.

I say that Jesus would not only bake them a cake … I say he would make them some wine to go with it.

I don’t feel that Jesus was in favor of turning his back on people and shunning them because he disapproves of their choices.
 
Well, I’m not able to ask Jesus in person, so I’ve studied my bible and listened to people talk about him and his choices for all of my life. From that, I use my best moral judgment to make a selfless choice which is good for all, a choice which leads to peace, encourages people to love one another, and treat one another as valuable.

That seems to be what Jesus did.
 
StephenButler said:
I don’t feel that Jesus was in favor of turning his back on people and shunning them because he disapproves of their choices.
Click to expand...
Yeah… that whole ‘repent’ and “Go forth and sin no more thing” were really just later interpolations by mean, uncaring clerics… :roll_eyes:
StephenButler said:
That seems to be what Jesus did.
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t say “yeah, go on and keep sinning without remorse. It’s all good.” 🤔
 
Last edited:
"StephenButler5m
I ask myself, “What would Jesus do?”

Two people desire to be with one another, care for one another, support a home with one another, and love one another until they are dead. They want to swear an oath to this effect in front of their family and friends.

They ask Jesus if he would be willing to bake a cake to help them celebrate this oath.

I say that Jesus would not only bake them a cake … I say he would make them some wine to go with it.

I don’t feel that Jesus was in favor of turning his back on people and shunning them because he disapproves of their choices."

While Jesus didn’t turn his back on people and shun them he would certainly NOT support and encourage their sin. He would try to persuade them to turn away from their sin.
 
Why did he make more wine?

When two people devote themselves to the cause of love, who are we to judge?

What Jesus did not do … was throw the first stone, nor did he stand idly by while others mistreated an adulterer.

If you refuse to do business with people, you are mistreating them. When store owners turned their backs on black people, they caused harm. When you tell people their love isn’t good enough for the same effort you would make for anyone else, you are causing harm.

Catholics bake cakes for second and third weddings too; they don’t ask if they are church-approved before they do, and while I cannot recall an instance when Jesus spoke against gay love, he was quite clear about adultery. Still, we serve them because we serve a cause of love which is more important than persecuting a sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top