Could a Catholic bake a cake for a gay wedding?

[SuperLuigi]

The way things are going now, not for long. It’s probably the next target for the merchants of perpetual victimhood.

Then you’ll have to walk it back or risk getting lumped with the rest of us as hateful homophobes.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

By using the force of government to tell people what do, think and feel?

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.

Who is they and them? And why do you think you get to speak for they and them?

 

[Rau]

To them, it is the way they believe they not only were born, but the way they were intended to be by their maker.

Personally, I don’t think the maker intended two men to exchange gametes regardless of their mutual affection. It defies reason.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Gay people are “them”. I get to tell what I know of the ones I spend time with, work with, and some who are even in my own family. I know what they want and how they feel because I actually have heart-to-heart conversations with them where I listen and learn to understand what “they” are about.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

That is fine for you to believe that. Well within your right. It is not fine for you to expect other people to believe it or live by it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Not every gay person wants that. You do not have special authority to speak on their behalf. This is nothing more than virtue-signaling.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

The same could be said for religious organizations dictating what their followers are to believe on the subject.

 

[LilyM]

Joe1:

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

Yes, I believe one could.

To those of you saying “no”, are you also going to object to making wedding cakes for divorced Catholics who have not gotten annulments? Or Christians intending to use birth control? Or heterosexual couples that are unable to engage in intercourse (after injury for example)?

To be fair, people in such situations don’t ask for cake designs specifically referring to or pointing out the invalid and immoral (from a Catholic pov) features of their marriage. In fact I imagine they would rarely be aware of the background circumstances of a heterosexual couple asking for a wedding cake at all, and they’re not obligated to ask.

This is in contrast to the, I imagine quite common, scenario of a cake for a gay wedding which features two groom or two bride cake toppers. And couples typically choose a cake together, which makes the fact it it is an SSM obvious.

How about a baker who is a holocaust survivor or child of holocaust survivors being asked to bake a cake with a swastika decoration or a picture of Hitler on it? Would it be acceptable to refuse

 

[Rau]

That is fine for you to believe that. Well within your right. It is not fine for you to expect other people to believe it or live by it.

I did say “personally”. I’m happy to consider reasons to hold a contrary view. I have no expectations for what others believe.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

I wouldn’t try to convince you to change your mind. I certainly invite discussion of these topics because I believe that is the way we learn. With that said, I am fine with you having your own opinions and beliefs. Actions are what matter to me. Discrimination of someone because of beliefs is never OK, in my book. My definition of discrimination is probably very different from yours, I think. I don’t really care what people think about sex, sexuality, marriage, etc. None of these issues are life or death issues to me. They just don’t matter that much to me. People are who they are and I am good with that. As long as they don’t encroach on the rights of others to do the same.

 

[Rau]

People are who they are and I am good with that. As long as they don’t encroach on the rights of others to do the same.

Then I would hope you understand why being compelled to cooperate in certain activities constitutes an encroachment of rights.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Discrimination is never ok. If you don’t want to bake the cake, don’t be a baker who markets himself to the general public. Or sell your business to your church and bake as a religious organization. What if a baker wouldn’t bake Catholics a cake because he finds Catholicism to be distasteful and has no problem telling you so. There would be a huge outcry about Catholic - bashing, etc. It is the same thing. It is horrible in either scenario. Where does it end? Is a doctor not able to treat a homosexual with an STD because it would be encouraging more sexual behavior? What about a teacher who doesn’t feel right teaching the child of a homosexual couple because he feels it would be approving of that situation? You see, anybody can say they oppose anything on conscientious grounds. As a society, we have to decide where the line is. That is what is happening now. A lot of testing is happening. It is a good thing.

 

[guanophore]

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

Indeed. Now we are being forced to participate, whether we like it, or not.

It strikes me that all of the other protections under the civil rights act are things over which people have no control, like being born or raised in a certiain religion (like Jewish), race, gender, etc. But the protections for homosexuals are related to behavior. Of course, people will say “I was born this way” and maybe for some, that is true. But whether one wants to live a lifestyle is another matter.

And forcing others to participate in your lifestyle seems to me to be way over the top.

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.

This is true, but none of them came in the door planning a life event that flies in the face of God’s plan for humanity.

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.

The Baker agreed to sell them anything in the shop, but they wanted him to create an artistic work to their specifications.

What if a baker wouldn’t bake Catholics a cake because he finds Catholicism to be distasteful and has no problem telling you so.

I would certainly not force my patronage upon him. I would go to an establishment that was willing and interested in serving me.

Where does it end? Is a doctor not able to treat a homosexual with an STD because it would be encouraging more sexual behavior?

This is very similar to the objection to offering condoms in High School health clinics. Doing so is encouraging sexual activity, right? If they have the consequences, such as pregnancy and disease, they will be more likely to stop
doing it, right?

What about a teacher who doesn’t feel right teaching the child of a homosexual couple because he feels it would be approving of that situation? You see, anybody can say they oppose anything on conscientious grounds.

It is legitmate question, but why would a person with good moral formation punish the innocent child for the behavior of the adults?

 

[Herculees]

Because you may realize that people use them for legitimate reasons.
Pope John Paul II permitted gay men to use condoms!
I used to have a prescription for a birth control pill, however, I was NOT using it to prevent a pregnancy,
but for a valid medical reason.

 

[Rau]

Discrimination is never ok.

Of course it is. We discriminate in all manner of things, quite properly, daily. What is not ok is unjust discrimination. Many contend that to decline to cooperate with actions immoral according to one’s sincerely held religious beliefs is not unjust.

Is a doctor not able to treat a homosexual with an STD because it would be encouraging more sexual behavior?

Poppycock. To treat illness is not to encourage or participate in anything.

What about a teacher who doesn’t feel right teaching the child of a homosexual couple because he feels it would be approving of that situation?

More poppycock. The child is entitled to an education and to provide it is not to participate in or endorse the (presumed, if any) immoral acts of the parents.

As a society, we have to decide where the line is.

Yes.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Happy New Year’s Rau!

 

[Rau]

And to you young Joe!

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

You say poppycock. Others say it is their conscience and they have a right to behave in accordance with it. See the issue here?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Pope John Paul II permitted gay men to use condoms!

Source, please? (+16 characters)

 

[theCardinalbird]

Happy New year Tis_Bearself!!!