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.
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Yes. Sex makes perfect sense between two men. It is unitive. The parts fit together just fine, as they do for two woman. Maybe not the same parts you think of when envisioning heterosexual sex, but still it works just fine.
Click to expand...
That is not reproductive unity. A reproductive unity is formed when a reproductive system is completed and is able to reproduce. Needs both a female set and a male set.

What you just said “fits together just fine” is an attempt to unite half of a complete reproductive system with a complete digestive system.

It is not equivalent in any way to a reproductive unity.
 
Gorgias said:
I think you’re trying to say “for a wedding of two homosexuals to be a mortally sinful act…”, since even in the absence of knowledge, it would still be a grave sin, even if only venially sinful.
Click to expand...
Nope, I said what I meant. There is no actual sin, venial or mortal, if the parties do not believe they are doing wrong, to the best of my knowledge.
 
The same reason that it would be a federal case if you replace the word “Christian” with “white” and “same-sex” with “black”.

A white baker is approached by a black couple who want to get united in “Marriage” and they want this baker to make the cake for their “wedding”. This baker believes that Marriage is ONLY between white people. The baker is an adult, has free will, has to decide for his/her own soul and will have to answer to his/her Creator for what they do. All could be completely happy without any problems from the justice system. Why does it have to be a federal case?

Discrimination is unjust.

Besides this, in some areas there may be only one provider of any given service for many miles around, and if that provider is allowed to discriminate, certain people loose access to that service if they cannot afford alternative arrangements. Imagine the repercussions, for example, if a plumber or town doctor, refused to serve a poor couple living together before marriage, citing his anti-cohabitation Christian beliefs, in a town far away from other plumbers and doctors.
 
Last edited:
Actually, no, it is not pretty self-answering, as homosexual marriage was not a “protected group” until the Supreme Court decided it was; and when the Supreme Court decided that, it set up the potential for a violation of one of the Amendments to the Constitution, which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

One could argue that Congress did not make the protected category, so it is perfectly okay for the government to enforce a non-Congressionally created category through the court system.

One might note that no one is making such an argument. The issue is whether the government can enforce such a category over a clear religious right of non governmental interference.
 
Last edited:
By your logic, the first part of the First Amendment has no meaning.

The 14th Amendment Section 1 states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice that neither race, creed or color are mentioned. It is case law which has set forth that race and color are protected classes.

Neither of them are in conflict with Christian religion as generally recognized (I am not going down the rabbit hole of a neo-Nazi forming their own church and stating that blacks and whites cannot marry each other).

Not only the Catholic Church, but a multitude of evangelical and fundamental churches hold that a homosexual marriage is not within the definition of marriage. This is not just some Catholic quirk; short of the mainline Protestant churches, no one else is holding that 2 men or 32 women can marry each other. To put it in the vernacular of a few years ago, Adam and Eve yes. Adam and Steve, no. Non biblical.

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.

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?
 
Would bake a cake for ba gay marriage?

You gotta be crazy to think I would Do that.

Say you you were a disciple for St. Paul and you were his right hand man. Say he was writing his 1st letter to Los Angeles( Corinthians) and he got to the 6 chapter and wrote " no homosexuals no idolaters etc… Will inherit the kingdom of God".

Would you tell St. Paul " hey i just Got a order to bake a cake for a gay marriage"
Would you tell St. Paul to help you bake it? Lol lol lol
 
MamasBoy33 said:
Would bake a cake for ba gay marriage?
Click to expand...
I do not recognize “gay marriage”. What I mean to say is that whatever two same sex people do together it is not a “marriage”.

Then I would have to decide if I was able to go out of business for refusing such a request.


But in any case, even if I were to bake such a cake, it would not make me homosexual or an idolater. I might be found to participate in other men’s sins.

St. Paul did not live in a country where it is illegal to refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, so he would not be faced with such a dilemma. But if he were, I feel sure he would not hesitate to close his shop and move elsewhere.
 
LadyLillian said:
Discrimination is unjust.
Click to expand...
That statement is too imprecise to be useful and when taken at face value, there are clearly numerous instances when it is simply wrong. The useful statements are: “Unjust discrimination is morally wrong” & “Various kinds of discrimination are unlawful”.

I contend that it is not unjust to decline to cooperate with the wedding ceremony of two persons of the same sex if such is contrary to genuine religious beliefs or obligations (and maybe on other grounds also). That it may be unlawful to decline is a separate (and regrettable) matter.

I am not aware that freedom of religious belief or practice enables a person to “make up” his own arbitrary, religious practices. If it did so, the freedom would become meaningless and intolerable.
 
Last edited:
LadyLillian said:
Nope, I said what I meant. There is no actual sin, venial or mortal, if the parties do not believe they are doing wrong, to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
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.

What you stated is not correct. The level of understanding may lessen the severity of the guilt, but it cannot remove the guilt, because it is a grave matter, and no one can be ignorant of it. It is still sin. Venial or mortal: still it is sin, and it puts creatures above God.
 
Last edited:
After you baked the cake (or two cakes) would you write upon the cake anything that your customer wanted you to write? Should customers (“gay” or otherwise) be able to force bakers to write any message that they want the baker to write on any cake?

What about allowing “no shirt, no shoes, no service”? Should shopkeepers be able to refuse client service for clients without shirts or shoes?

Suggested answers: No, No, Yes, Yes.
 
Last edited:
LadyLillian said:
Nope, I said what I meant. There is no actual sin, venial or mortal, if the parties do not believe they are doing wrong, to the best of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Oh. Then, sadly, what you meant is mistaken. There is sin, absent of knowledge. Grave, perhaps, but not mortal, in that case.

I mean, think about what you’re saying: let’s suppose you shoot someone in cold blood, but without knowledge that this is a grave sin. Are you going to tell me that this murder isn’t sinful? Of course it is… it’s just not mortally sinful.
 
otjm said:
Actually, no, it is not pretty self-answering, as homosexual marriage was not a “protected group” until the Supreme Court decided it was
Click to expand...
You realize that you’ve just made the case for it, right? 😉

Yes, it may be appealed, and yes, some folks are opposed to it; but, on its face, it’s pretty cut-and-dried, according to current law. 🤷‍♂️
 
Whether or not a random pair of homosexuals is subjectively culpable is besides the point. The morality of material co-operation with evil depends only on the material sinfulness of the actions one is abetting.
 
The key is in your use of the word “meaningful”. What is meaningful to you or your religion may not be at all meaningful to someone else. What is meaningful to someone else may not be meaningful at all to you. I am completely okay with this. Apparently, many people aren’t.
 
The supreme court says differently! The court has declared that people of the same gender have the right to marry one another, and that everyone must refrain from discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation. Therefore, if you are a baker who makes cakes and have a public store, you are obligated under law to bake such a cake and decorate it according to the customer’s request. If you fail to do so, you are in violation of federal law.
 
The fact of the law is not in debate. What is in debate is the injustice of a law obligating persons to cooperate in acts their genuine religious principles hold to be immoral.
 
Last edited:
Ive noticed that most who support the gay couple’s right to buy the cake, completely avoid the issue of conscience.
 
Did any of you have something written on your wedding cake?

I don’t think it matters what is on the cake. I would not want to make a cake for a homosexual marriage because, instead of asking for a civil union with equal rights to marriage, they demanded a redefinition of marriage to make it include something that it isn’t.

Marriage is about family. It is about a man and a woman forming a union to have children and raise them. The tax cuts for married people were to help with raising children. Families are the basic building blocks of society. Marriage is a man and a woman because of children.

They took marriage and said it was unfair and demanded that we call what they have a marriage, but it isn’t.

You might argue that their love is as strong and as valid. That is irrelevant. It is still not the same thing as a marriage because a marriage is and has always been a man and a woman.

I would not want to “bake a cake” for a homosexual wedding because I don’t support forcing others to change that definition just because you want it to mean something else.

If people respected traditional beliefs and the history and heritage of marriage, they would have fought for recognized unions but would not have forced everyone to call a marriage what has never been and can never be a marriage.

That was a direct assault on marriage and the family. It was not simply an attempt at equality in treatment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top