Could a Catholic bake a cake for a gay wedding?

[Rau]

Likewise, there is a difference between never making wedding cakes and never making cakes for gay weddings.

Yes, there is, though both would seem to be acceptable personal choices

 

[Rau]

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.

Were you seeing the love, and imagining there was no sex? It is challenging to make sense of the sexual interactions of two men. It is very difficult not to ask “what’s wrong with this picture?”

 

[Rau]

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.

Now that is such a silly remark. Morality is a characteristic of human acts, and in fact acts which are knowingly chosen. The will must act. So to seek to fault the above statement because it does not apply to an embryo - when the entire topic of moral acts can have no application to an embryo - is absurd.

 

[Teek]

Even after having heard the Church’s revealed teaching as a practicing Catholic, I struggle to see the sense in the Catholic homosexual worldview.

God’s Law is superior to our own revisions.

Catholicism does not have a homosexual world view. The Church looks at what God intended in the creation of man AND woman, and the purpose and dignity of human sexuality, and uses God’s design as a measuring stick.

The beauty of human sexuality is God’s plan. Homosexual acts are wrong. If a heterosexual couple engaged in what is considered “sex” between two people of the same gender, it is also wrong. You don’t get a pass for those acts if you are in a heterosexual relationship, either.

The difference is that, in a heterosexual relationship, sexuality according to the nature of what God created sexuality to be is possible. In a sexual interaction between people of the same gender, it is never possible.

 

[Brendan_64]

On your point about a shop that sells condoms refusing to sell condoms to a gay person. Is it OK for a Catholic to own a shop that sells condoms at all? Would that not in itself be promoting behaviour that is considered sinful by the Church?

Eating cake, on the other hand, is not sinful. But is decorating a cake in such a way that would seem to promote, or at least appear to normalise, gay marriage not a very different thing from providing a cake for someone just to eat?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

On your point about a shop that sells condoms refusing to sell condoms to a gay person. Is it OK for a Catholic to own a shop that sells condoms at all? Would that not in itself be promoting behaviour that is considered sinful by the Church?

I wasn’t talking about a Catholic at all. I was talking about a person who has no moral objection to condoms, but an objection to homosexual activity.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is the biggest puzzle for me. Why patronize someone who does not want to cater to your values? Instead, it seems that patrons are motivated to force such business persons into compliance with activities contrary to their value systems.

N.M. Supreme Court: Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

Justice: “There is a price we all have to pay in our civic life.”

www.christianitytoday.com

 

[Kei]

No, I would let the person have the clothes. I would do the landscaping for the gay person.
I would not bake that disgusting cake you’re describing.

As I stated clearly, I would feed a satanist, but I would not cater their religious get together.

 

[ATraveller]

I still remember the line ‘don’t like gay marriage, don’t go to one, no one is forcing you’.

There’s a lesson here: when it comes to social issues, these activists don’t intend on keeping their ‘promises’.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I’d just bake the cake, but that’s just me. I wouldn’t know if the heterosexual couples coming into the shop were planning on being faithful, being married in the Church, had been married before, were living in sin, etc. I used to know a gay hairdresser who frequented a gay club. He told me about 75% of the men seeking gay encounters were married (one reason NO women were EVER allowed in the club for ANY reason).

I wouldn’t, however, decorate a cake in a lewd manner for anyone. I feel if you go into a service business, you have an obligation to serve the public. Now if I wanted a cake, and someone didn’t want to bake it, I’d just go elsewhere rather than make a fuss. (I’m heterosexual, BTW.) I wouldn’t want someone baking me a cake under duress. I don’t feel they’d do their best work.

 

[Rau]

I wouldn’t, however, decorate a cake in a lewd manner for anyone.

I imagine you would not (were you a videographer) agree to make a vide of lewd acts.

But a wedding is the ceremonial celebration of a committed sexual relationship of two persons - and SSM means they can both be men. The genuine religious beliefs of many are that the couple’s intended sexual acts are lewd. It is not difficult to understand why a person may not wish to cooperate with that celebration, as videographer, flower arranger, celebrant, or caterer.

 

[ConstantLearner]

I imagine you would not (were you a videographer) agree to make a vide of lewd acts.

No, I wouldn’t make a video of sexual acts for anyone. (And I think in some instances, it could be against the law.) Since baking the cake does not constitute a formal or material cooperation with evil, I’d just bake it. I do not believe a priest, minister, etc. should have to perform a wedding ceremony he does not want to perform, though, because it conflicts with his beliefs. A priest is not serving the general public like a baker. A Roman Catholic priest is serving the needs of the Catholic population in his parish. As such, he has a right to refuse to solemnize marriages that conflict with RC beliefs. At least I think he should have that right.

 

[Rau]

Since baking the cake does not constitute a formal or material cooperation with evil, I’d just bake it.

Whether it is baking the cake or making the beautiful video memorial is not really the point - individuals will have to judge what crosses the line. But given they form that judgement, I hope you will allow them to act accordingly.

I do not believe a priest, minister, etc. should have to perform a wedding ceremony he does not want to perform, though, because it conflicts with his beliefs.

Newly minted celebrants (not religious ministers) in Australia have been told they will have no choice.

 

[AlNg]

Whether it is baking the cake or making the beautiful video memorial is not really the point - individuals will have to judge what crosses the line. But given they form that judgement, I hope you will allow them to act accordingly.

I don’t think so. Here’s what I think: If they are selling cakes to the public, they can’t discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sex who they are selling the cake to. So they have to sell a cake to a homosexual. But they don’t have to write or display anything on the cake or wherever indicating that they approve of SS marriage.

 

[Rau]

So they have to sell a cake to a homosexual.

Of course - this was never in debate. Cooperating with the evil acts of others is the issue. [I take no position on whether a baker for an SSM does that.] And I don’t think there are many everyday job descriptions that ought to obligate one to do that.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

What if it was clothing to wear to their gay wedding, and you knew it?

 

[Rau]

I take no position on that either. If the conscience of an individual leads them to conclude they are cooperating in the evil deeds of others, may they be excused?

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

This would hold up if the bakery was a business owned and operated by the church, but it is neither.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

I don’t believe these activists are trying to “squeeze Christians out.” I think they recognize that our country has a history steeped in discrimination and they are trying to have us, as a country, move forward in abolishing it on all levels. I don’t know of gay people who are trying to destroy churches of any kind. They just want to live in society without being discriminated against by people who don’t like that they are gay. To them, it is the way they believe they not only were born, but the way they were intended to be by their maker. To them, it is no different than racial discrimination. It is dangerous to assume the motivation of someone who is different than what is comfortable for the assumer.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

People don’t have a right to cake. And discrimination happens all of the time in the public square and that is more than okay. In fact, it’s very beneficial to society on many occasions.

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.

There is never going to be a balance. The forces that want big government are never satisfied. Remember when all they said they wanted was so-called marriage equality and “how does it affect you”?

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.

More often than naught, the commitment is not lifelong. And your personal opinion is irrelevant as far as Catholic morality (which comes from God) and states that practicing homosexuality is a very serious offense. As such, a lot of people are understandably not comfortable with participating in celebrating it.

So it is much more than just about “frosting on a cake”.

That said, unjust discrimination, in itself, is never a good.

A business having the right to refuse service for any reason isn’t unjust discrimination. It’s freedom.