Doubting and marrying

[thinkandmull]

Should a bakery have the right to refuse business for a gay wedding? What if they didn’t want to serve a bi-racial wedding, or people with freckles?

If gay marriage is not wrong, do the liberals have a case? Business often have a sign that says “we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone”. Is this wrong?

Maybe a business should serve everyone unless there is clear evidence that the customer was doing something subjectively immoral with the serves. I personally don’t care if homosexuals have sex and get married, unless they are subjectively doing sin. And there is no way for me to know if they are unless I really get to know them.

When I was in Catholic college right out of high school I was wondering whether it was wrong to wonder about the truth of Catholicism and read about other religions. My classmates told me that one needs to doubt his faith sometime in his life, that its normal. But thinking about something untrue is not “normal” or good, right? I think its the same way with homosexuals. Sure, their bodies aren’t made to be touching like that, but I can’t really pass judgment on what is going on inside them because I’ve never been a homosexual. So if I owned a bakery, why would I risk alienating gays by not giving them a wedding cake? How could another Catholic judge me for this?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Part of living in a “free” society includes the right of free association with others. In other words, one has the right to associate with whoever he wants on his own property as well as in public and also has the converse right to not associate with whoever he wants both on his own property and in public.

In yesterday’s society, a mild version of that is the typical restaurant sign that says “no shoes, no shirt, no service”, in which case, the restaurant owner is choosing not to associate with customers who choose to show up shirtless and barefoot, expecting to get served. A harsher version from those days might be the “Jim Crow” laws regulating the associations between blacks and non-blacks.

Today, our rights to freely disassociate ourselves from people we don’t want to be around have been slowly but surely circumscribed into a tighter and tighter circle. The end game that is already being openly talked about by the most militant homosexuals is the subjugation of all churches to their will. In other words, be forced to accept same sex marriage or lose all rights of association, to wit, they may be outlawed. If one thinks that can’t happen, I give you Mexico in the 1920’s.

So the next question is, where do we draw the lines? I don’t think it’s that easy or that straightforward beyond one’s own church congregation or parish. Where does the practice of religious belief come into conflict with the social mores of the day? In the future? This is where one appreciates that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches haven’t changed much since Peter the first Pope.

 

[johnnyt3000]

Should a bakery have the right to refuse business for a gay wedding? What if they didn’t want to serve a bi-racial wedding, or people with freckles?

If gay marriage is not wrong, do the liberals have a case? Business often have a sign that says “we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone”. Is this wrong?

Maybe a business should serve everyone unless there is clear evidence that the customer was doing something subjectively immoral with the serves. I personally don’t care if homosexuals have sex and get married, unless they are subjectively doing sin. And there is no way for me to know if they are unless I really get to know them.

When I was in Catholic college right out of high school I was wondering whether it was wrong to wonder about the truth of Catholicism and read about other religions. My classmates told me that one needs to doubt his faith sometime in his life, that its normal. But thinking about something untrue is not “normal” or good, right? I think its the same way with homosexuals. Sure, their bodies aren’t made to be touching like that, but I can’t really pass judgment on what is going on inside them because I’ve never been a homosexual. So if I owned a bakery, why would I risk alienating gays by not giving them a wedding cake? How could another Catholic judge me for this?

A bakery should have the right to refuse to participate in a gay “wedding”. To refuse to serve someone because of race would be wrong because that is racist. To refuse to serve someone because they are gay (which is wrong and really is discrimination), is completely different than refusing to participate in a distortion of marriage. No one just walks into a store and randomly shouts “I’m gay”. Even if someone did, I would still serve that person as long as it doesn’t cause me to, in any way, participate in a distortion of marriage. Homosexuals sodomizing each other is objectively gravely sinful. Marriage cannot be redefined to meet people’s emotional wants. The definition of marriage is and forever will be the inseparable covenant between one man and one woman. There can be temptation to doubt, the Bride of Christ is the truth my good friend. Christ resurrected, there is a historical record of that (besides the bible). Two Roman historians (Josephus and Tacitus) wrote about Jesus and the empty tomb. Christ only started one Church. The Catholic Church. Matthew 16:18. To have temptation to doubt is one thing, which is not sinful since we are all tempted, even Christ was tempted. To deliberately doubt something that is true, is wrong. We are not to judge someone based on what they look like. Let us not get confused with rash judgement (which is objectively wrong and violates the 8th commandment).
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2477:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

This is completely different from deciding if something is immoral or not. If I see that someone is robbing a bank I must make a judgement to call the police. It can be the same way when it comes to two people of the same gender who are really pretending to be a married couple/parents. We know it is wrong.

 

[thinkandmull]

But is not the premise of denying service to a gay wedding that they are subjectively sinning? Isn’t that a “rash judgment”, unless you personally know them well?

 

[johnnyt3000]

But is not the premise of denying service to a gay wedding that they are subjectively sinning? Isn’t that a “rash judgment”, unless you personally know them well?

How can you “subjectively” sin? The moral law is objective.

 

[nodito]

But is not the premise of denying service to a gay wedding that they are subjectively sinning? Isn’t that a “rash judgment”, unless you personally know them well?

What is “subjectively” sinning? We call things like murder, child abuse, theft, etc sins. The people who commit them are sinning. It’s possible to judge actions without judging the personal culpability of the people involved.

But that’s not why it’s legitimate to refuse service to a gay wedding. We should consider doing so not because of the personal sin of the people involved, but because the event itself is objectively disordered. A gay marriage publicly contradicts what marriage actually is. It sounds odd to modern ears to use the word “mockery” because many homosexuals attempting marriage are sincerely in love and not trying to make a statement, but the fact remains that gay marriage does mock real marriage. It’s an imitation of it, and it causes people to become confused about what marriage is. A baker (or wedding planning, florist, etc) should be able to refuse to participate in the gay wedding not because the participants are gay but because the event itself violates natural law and creates scandal.

 

[Augustine]

Such coercion violates one’s freedom of association and puts one in a state of temporary slavery, even if compensated, for one does not will to perform a work but is forced to. This is true even if one is not God fearing, but a racist or a bigot, whose are still persons with rights.

Christus resurrexit!

 

[KendraDZ1902]

When the whole “right to refuse to make a cake” comes up I can’ help but think of unjust discrimination. I’m selling a cake or a box of chocolates or whatever. I’m not jumping up and down doing “Yay!! Gay weddings are flipping amazing!” I’m simply baking a cake. That’s it.

I thought the whole reason for opening up a business is to provide a service you are good at to make a profit. Refusing service is just stupid if you wanna make that paper, boo boo.

I don’t support gay marriage. I have friends who are gay and if I even received an invite, I wouldn’t attend. I feel that is supporting it. Going to the wedding means. “YAY!! So happy for you!! Congratulations! Y’all were beautiful brides!!” Uh, no. Baking a cake that will be dropped off and you aren’t even seen/noticed. Meh. Hope my cake tastes good and your buddies wanna buy baked goods from me!

 

[nodito]

When the whole “right to refuse to make a cake” comes up I can’ help but think of unjust discrimination. I’m selling a cake or a box of chocolates or whatever. I’m not jumping up and down doing “Yay!! Gay weddings are flipping amazing!” I’m simply baking a cake. That’s it.

I thought the whole reason for opening up a business is to provide a service you are good at to make a profit. Refusing service is just stupid if you wanna make that paper, boo boo.

I don’t support gay marriage. I have friends who are gay and if I even received an invite, I wouldn’t attend. I feel that is supporting it. Going to the wedding means. “YAY!! So happy for you!! Congratulations! Y’all were beautiful brides!!” Uh, no. Baking a cake that will be dropped off and you aren’t even seen/noticed. Meh. Hope my cake tastes good and your buddies wanna buy baked goods from me!

Some people feel that the cake is the centerpiece of the wedding party, sort of iconic, if you will. And many bakers advertise at the weddings they serve, so it’s not completely anonymous. But either way, I don’t think it’s unjust discrimination to refuse an event.

If the gay couple comes in and wants to buy a birthday cake, sure, no problem. Likewise, if someone comes in and wants a Planned Parenthood Grand Opening cake, I have no issue declining that.

The thing is, it’s not just a one-way thing, with Catholics refusing certain events. I think a Protestant should be able to tell me, “Sorry, I don’t do First Communion cakes. Come back for graduation and I’ll be happy to help you out.” They may lose my business come graduation time, but it’s their right to say that and I don’t think it’s unjust discrimination.

 

[Augustine]

I thought the whole reason for opening up a business is to provide a service you are good at to make a profit. Refusing service is just stupid if you wanna make that paper, boo boo.

Indeed, if everything has to be laid at altar of profits, business owners might as well burn incense before Mammon.

Christus resurrexit!

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Indeed, if everything has to be laid at altar of profits, business owners might as well burn incense before Mammon.

Christus resurrexit!

Small businesses, which are what most bakeries and flower shops are, aren’t going to make beaucoups. It isn’t about burning incense before Mammon. It is about making profit to pay the few employees you have, to keep the lights on at the business and home, and to make sure you put food on the table. You HAVE to have clientele to make money if you are a business owner. By refusing service, you might as well close up shop, even if you don’t get blasted on the news.

 

[Augustine]

It isn’t about burning incense before Mammon. It is about making profit…

Compromising one’s faith convictions for a profit is burning incense before Mammon, period.

Christus resurrexit!

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Compromising one’s faith convictions for a profit is burning incense before Mammon, period.

Christus resurrexit!

Do you have any church teaching that says that baking a cake for profit for a gay marriage will send me to Hell? I have yet to stumble upon something stating that.
I have found:
CCC 2358 …They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

I personally think that it would be respectful to my clientele that I don’t refuse to bake a cake.

 

[Augustine]

What’s this, Solo Catechismo? We are Catholics, not Protestants. The CCC won’t say anything about going to hell for cutting someone else’s arm either, yet you would.

Then again, there is such a thing as just discrimination, as the quote you provided indicates. Refusing to bake for a gay wedding is not discriminatory against the persons, but against their public act. It is a vile and evil act that no one of good will should support in any way, whether it is baking for it or photographing it.

Christus resurrexit!

 

[KendraDZ1902]

What’s this, Solo Catechismo? We are Catholics, not Protestants. The CCC won’t say anything about going to hell for cutting someone else’s arm either, yet you would.

Then again, there is such a thing as just discrimination, as the quote you provided indicates. Refusing to bake for a gay wedding is not discriminatory against the persons, but against their public act. It is a vile and evil act that no one of good will should support in any way, whether it is baking for it or photographing it.

Christus resurrexit!

I was just asking for sound church teaching. No need to get sassy. And cutting a arm won’t always send you to hell.
I agree that SSM is wrong, but I suppose I am a person of no good will because I don’t see selling a good is approval.

 

[Corki]

Do you have any church teaching that says that baking a cake for profit for a gay marriage will send me to Hell? I have yet to stumble upon something stating that.
I have found:
CCC 2358 …They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

I personally think that it would be respectful to my clientele that I don’t refuse to bake a cake.

The relevant CCC citation isn’t just about homosexual sin; it applies to all sin.

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

• by protecting evil-doers.

Baking a cake for a same-sex “wedding” is a form of cooperation wth sin through participation. When you look at the websites and advertisements for wedding providers - bakers, photographers, wedding planners, the language is often about “helping make your special day unique and memorable” “customizing” and “making your dreams come true”. That is undoubtedly a level of cooperation in sin. And it’s undoubtedly material cooperation since a mutually agreed upon transaction is made and money exchanged. The question is to what degree it is 'direct". Indirect cooperation is less sinful than direct cooperation. If the couple chooses a cake from a book, pays and picks it up the cooperation will be less direct than if the baker has several appointments with the couple, customizes the cake, delivers it and sets it up.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

The relevant CCC citation isn’t just about homosexual sin; it applies to all sin.

Baking a cake for a same-sex “wedding” is a form of cooperation wth sin through participation. When you look at the websites and advertisements for wedding providers - bakers, photographers, wedding planners, the language is often about “helping make your special day unique and memorable” “customizing” and “making your dreams come true”. That is undoubtedly a level of cooperation in sin. And it’s undoubtedly material cooperation since a mutually agreed upon transaction is made and money exchanged. The question is to what degree it is 'direct". Indirect cooperation is less sinful than direct cooperation. If the couple chooses a cake from a book, pays and picks it up the cooperation will be less direct than if the baker has several appointments with the couple, customizes the cake, delivers it and sets it up.

I just don’t see how baking a cake for any event is directly participating in said event. For instance: Evelyn’s Bakery baked my cake for my bridal shower. She delivered the cake before I was even there, only the ladies who were throwing the shower were there. Evelyn didn’t participate in my shower, she sold a cake. And when people said, “This is the best strawberry cake I have ever had.” My bridesmaid who ordered it said, “Evelyn did it. I always get this cake for my birthday.” Evelyn’s name only came up once.
Girl who baked my cake for my wedding. She’s a friend of my stepsister. I asked her to bake me a cake. She needed to know how many guests, what flavor, and send a picture for the design. She did come to set it up. Wedding started at 11 and her tail was there at 9:30. My bridesmaids weren’t due until 10. I ran to the pavilion with my hair pinned up and half my makeup on to give her the money. She didn’t participate in the festivities. Directly participating in an event would mean that you would kinda have to stay around for the event to happen.
That would be like dress shop asking you what type of wedding you are having so they will know if they could sell a dress to you. “We don’t want to participate in your wedding by selling you this dress.” Wait, what? You aren’t on my guest list.
Or Macy’s asking you what you are going to be doing with the formal dress you bought. “Don’t want to participate in your debauchery at your Killarney Rose Ball”
Or Victoria’s Secret asking to see your marriage certificate before you buy lingerie. “Don’t want to participate in your fornication.”
Kinda silly, really.

 

[Corki]

I just don’t see how baking a cake for any event is directly participating in said event. .

And if it was a standard “pick a size, pick a filling” cake, I would agree there would be only very distant participation.

When talking about cooperation with evil, the Church always speaks in terms of degree. Cooperation is either remote or proximate and it’s a continuum, not a binary choice. A standard wedding cake order would be more remote cooperation than one where the couple is working with the baker to design a unique expression. If the baker is asked (dictated) to special order a same-sex figurine for the top of the cake, her participation is more proximate than if she is just doing decorations. A baker’s participation is more remote than a wedding planner whose participation is more remote than someone asked to officiate the ceremony. If your service requires you to be at the ceremony, for example a photographer, participation is more proximate than if you have the product delivered.

The entire thing is complicated because cake decorators, photographers, florists consider their work not just a product but a creative expression of their artistic talent. Art is hard to legislate. Frankly, I don’t understand why a couple would be so hell bent on forcing someone to participate, however remotely, in their wedding, knowing how much they are going to hate decorating, photographing or planning for it.

And then there’s the slippery slope (which is not always a fallacy). There are all kinds of professional services where the professional has great leeway in choosing and accepting clients. Are we going to tell lawyers they** must** do pre-nups, divorce settlements and custody agreements for same-sex couples; accountants that they must do estate planning for same-sex couples; etc?

 

[Rau]

But is not the premise of denying service to a gay wedding that they are subjectively sinning? Isn’t that a “rash judgment”, unless you personally know them well?

Marriage is, by its nature, a sexual Union. Does that not meet you criteria for “subjectively sinning”?

 

[thinkandmull]

Something can be against nature, but not actually committed by the person. Actions in war for example. We all eat sweets and some smoke, even though it hurts the temple of God. I don’t even want to hear the nonsense excuses that they “only do a little damage”. Its all objective sin, but we are weak and have psychological needs. We need our nice stuff to even though someone in the world will DIE from hunger because we wouldn’t sell our furniture and send the money to him. Likewise, a homosexual could just be weak, needy, and psychologically confused.

It is a mortal sin (objectively ) to rashly judge another as if you knew he was wicked and yet had no proof