Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[Kevin_B]

The answer to your question is simple. If you allow this, suddenly thousands of business owners in the Deep South will claim their faith prevents them from serving black people. And they have just as much right to do it as the bakers do.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The fact that you tolerate a sin means by that very act you condone it. The whole notion of tolerance is directed towards the good; you tolerate lesser goods for the sake of greater goods. You don’t tolerate things which are objectively evil and immoral.

Baking a cake for a gay “wedding”(as if they could actually be married) is what is called material cooperation with evil. Like when you give money to Planned Parenthood or politicians who support abortion. While you don’t commit those sins personally you do give material support, and therefore approval, for others to commit those sins by using that support.

By forcing bakers to bake cakes for these sham ceremonies against their conscience your forcing them to commit this sin against their will.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose I’m a congregants of Westboro Baptist and I’m getting married. So I look specifically for a bake shop owned by a gay/lesbian baker. And I require them to bake a cake for my wedding.

**And I require this cake to be decorated with the most inflammatory and incindiary anti-gay imagery that I could think of. **

Are you going to argue that that baker HAS to bake that cake?

I doubt it.

With God there is no middle-ground in regards to sin.

It is never material cooperation to bake a cake.

Is it material cooperation to give a prostitute clothes?

Is it material cooperation for a firefighter to put out a fire at planned parenthood?

How about an electrician to restore power to planned parenthood after a storm? Better hope your not on the same grid as them!

At best they are remote. But I would say none of these are even remote.

Material cooperation in evil in regard to gay marriage would be being the best man or the officiant or a witness.

But baking a cake in your shop and the cake goes off to who knows where is not cooperation in anything but providing desserts.

 

[Kevin_B]

It is never material cooperation to bake a cake.

Is it material cooperation to give a prostitute clothes?

Is it material cooperation for a firefighter to put out a fire at planned parenthood?

How about an electrician to restore power to planned parenthood after a storm? Better hope your not on the same grid as them!

At best they are remote. But I would say none of these are even remote.

Material cooperation in evil in regard to gay marriage would be being the best man or the officiant or a witness.

But baking a cake in your shop and the cake goes off to who knows where is not cooperation in anything but providing desserts.

These are good points. I would love to see a “Christian” firefighter say it was against his faith to save a Planned Parenthood building from fire. Nowhere does the Bible say “Thou shalt not bake cakes for gay people”. There is no tenant of any Christian faith (or any others that I can think of) that makes it immoral to bake a cake for a sinner. It’s just an excuse to deny service to people they don’t like. It is in not one way different than the Lunch Counters in the South who refused service to black people.

 

[Jon_S_1]

These are good points. I would love to see a “Christian” firefighter say it was against his faith to save a Planned Parenthood building from fire. Nowhere does the Bible say “Thou shalt not bake cakes for gay people”. There is no tenant of any Christian faith (or any others that I can think of) that makes it immoral to bake a cake for a sinner. It’s just an excuse to deny service to people they don’t like. It is in not one way different than the Lunch Counters in the South who refused service to black people.

You are absolutely right. I have been desperately trying to discuss this with my Catholic brothers and sisters here, but some just don’t get it.

Another example that no one on these boards seems to care about is:

Why is it not cooperating in evil for the baker to bake a cake for a divorced man and woman who are remarrying without annulment?

Or why is it not cooperating in evil for the baker to bake a cake for a catholic couple who are marrying outside the church?

All they can say is " how can the baker know that"

To which I reply, Its none of his concern, nor is it his concern if the cake is used at a gay ceremony or a seance.

Just bake a cake and watch it go out the door.

 

[Kevin_B]

That’s the problem homosexuals have. Their “sin” is more out in the open than other “sins”. A baker has been baking cakes for sinning couples all the live long day since he opened, but he can SEE the “sin” of this one couple, so it’s somehow different?

If serving a cake to someone getting married illegitimately is wrong, then it is also wrong to bake cakes for couples who are remarrying. Whether or not the baker knew the couple was sinning is irrelevant, if indeed baking a cake is the next Deadly Sin. That’s like telling a cop you shouldn’t get a ticket because you didn’t see the speed limit sign. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

If it is OK to bake a cake for a couple who is getting remaried, then it is OK to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That’s the problem homosexuals have. Their “sin” is more out in the open than other “sins”. A baker has been baking cakes for sinning couples all the live long day since he opened, but he can SEE the “sin” of this one couple, so it’s somehow different?

If serving a cake to someone getting married illegitimately is wrong, then it is also wrong to bake cakes for couples who are remarrying. Whether or not the baker knew the couple was sinning is irrelevant, if indeed baking a cake is the next Deadly Sin. That’s like telling a cop you shouldn’t get a ticket because you didn’t see the speed limit sign. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

If it is OK to bake a cake for a couple who is getting remaried, then it is OK to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Remarrying couples aren’t “icky” though

 

[Amandil]

No, I disagree. The Masked Chicken in Fr. Z’s blog made a very good point about toleration being always directed toward evil. “You tolerate an evil, and you accept a good.”

I do not have a car. When people give me rides, I tolerate distracted driving. But I frequently make my displeasure known, so it is understood that I do not accept their behavior. If I did not tolerate this at all, then I would demand they stop the car, and get out and walk.

At first homosexuals admitted their behavior was bad. They asked for tolerance. They were given tolerance but it was not enough. They demand acceptance now. Tolerance was possible but it is impossible to accept an evil such as this. It is ironic because they will not accept or tolerate the Church, or Christians, the pro-life movement, or many of the things that oppose them, yet every hint of this opposition is met with cries of “hater!” and “bully!” in an astounding show of hypocrisy.

I suggest you read Bishop Sheen.

 

[Amandil]

It is never material cooperation to bake a cake.

Is it material cooperation to give a prostitute clothes?

Is it material cooperation for a firefighter to put out a fire at planned parenthood?

How about an electrician to restore power to planned parenthood after a storm? Better hope your not on the same grid as them!

At best they are remote. But I would say none of these are even remote.

Material cooperation in evil in regard to gay marriage would be being the best man or the officiant or a witness.

But baking a cake in your shop and the cake goes off to who knows where is not cooperation in anything but providing desserts.

Baking wedding cakes is an extremely personal matter. The bakers know exactly who the couple is and what the cake is for. Therefore to bake a cake for a gay"wedding" is no different than to witness to it, because their name and reputation is necessarily attached to that cake. It’s at the least an occasion of scandal, because even if the baker is “personally opposed” to gay marriage it fosters confusion and misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching.

Secondly, your analogies are faulty. Clothing people is an act of mercy and charity. The electrician has no firm knowledge as to whom he is restoring power to. His service is a matter of public safety. Same with the firefighter (the PP on fire may threaten the lives or structures of others in the vicinity).

Baking a wedding cake is a non-essential service. It is not a matter of public safety.

 

[Amandil]

These are good points. I would love to see a “Christian” firefighter say it was against his faith to save a Planned Parenthood building from fire. Nowhere does the Bible say “Thou shalt not bake cakes for gay people”. There is no tenant of any Christian faith (or any others that I can think of) that makes it immoral to bake a cake for a sinner. It’s just an excuse to deny service to people they don’t like. It is in not one way different than the Lunch Counters in the South who refused service to black people.

Being African American in the south is in no way comparable with homosexuality and gay marriage. Its an absurd comparison and it insults what those in the civil rights movement went through.

Those in the civil rights movement were seeking affirmation of rights already granted to them by the Constitution.

Gays and lesbians wanting “gay marriage” are demanding the creation of a “right” which is not in the Constitution, nor is it even possible under natural law.

Absurd comparison.

 

[Kevin_B]

Being African American in the south is in no way comparable with homosexuality and gay marriage. Its an absurd comparison and it insults what those in the civil rights movement went through.

Those in the civil rights movement were seeking affirmation of rights already granted to them by the Constitution.

Gays and lesbians wanting “gay marriage” are demanding the creation of a “right” which is not in the Constitution, nor is it even possible under natural law.

Absurd comparison.

Actually, in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was, in fact, a right.

And what’s ironic is that the people fighting against interracial marriage said the exact same thing you did: it was against the Natural Law. It’s not my fault you’re recycling 40 year old arguments.

Oh, and Mildred Loving, the woman whose name was literally on the case which went to the Supreme Court to win the right for Interracial Marriage (LOVING vs. Virginia), agrees that they are equal. She would be very insulted at your implication that they are not.
Mildred Loving: Ally in Same-Sex Marriage fight

Besides, you changed the subject. This thread is not about the Right to Same-Sex Marriage. It is about the Right to obtain services. And denying services to someone because they are gay is no different than denying services to them because they are black.

It’s at the least an occasion of scandal, because even if the baker is “personally opposed” to gay marriage it fosters confusion and misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching. .

Does baking a cake for a remarried couple foster confusion and misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching?

Besides,

It’s a cake.

Nowhere does the Church teach it is immoral to bake a cake for someone.

There is no teaching to foster confusion about.

The baker is more than welcome to bake the cake, and tell them she does not agree with their decision to marry, but still give them the cake.

Not once in the history of mankind was it implied that baking a cake for someone implied acceptance of their lifestyle.

Again, it’s JUST A CAKE!

 

[TCEL]

You are absolutely right. I have been desperately trying to discuss this with my Catholic brothers and sisters here, but some just don’t get it.

We do get it, we just disagree, have politely explained why, and are within our rights as Catholics to do so. Have you read the latest Trent Horn article? What do you think about it?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Baking wedding cakes is an extremely personal matter. The bakers know exactly who the couple is and what the cake is for. Therefore to bake a cake for a gay"wedding" is no different than to witness to it, because their name and reputation is necessarily attached to that cake. It’s at the least an occasion of scandal, because even if the baker is “personally opposed” to gay marriage it fosters confusion and misrepresentation of the Church’s teaching.

This is so silly and I see it over and over. Only the wedding participants think the cake is a personal matter. The baker stamps out dozens a week. It’s his job. Just as when I photographed weddings it was a job. I never remotely felt I was participating or celebrating. How much more for a baker who never leaves his shop!

Secondly, your analogies are faulty. Clothing people is an act of mercy and charity. The electrician has no firm knowledge as to whom he is restoring power to. His service is a matter of public safety. Same with the firefighter (the PP on fire may threaten the lives or structures of others in the vicinity).

Baking a wedding cake is a non-essential service. It is not a matter of public safety.

These analogies are not faulty. Baking a cake can be just as much an act of mercy as clothing a sinner.

When Jesus dined with the whores and thieves, I wonder if he ever made the dinner?

 

[Monkey1976]

When Jesus dined with the whores and thieves, I wonder if he ever made the dinner?

When Our Lord dined with whores and thieves, He wasn’t congratulating them on a good day of whoring or an impressive haul from thieving.

 

[Jon_S_1]

When Our Lord dined with whores and thieves, He wasn’t congratulating them on a good day of whoring or an impressive haul from thieving.

Nor is a baker by selling a cake

Nor is a clothing store owner by selling a suit

Nor is a caterer by selling bland chicken and steamed vegetables

Nor is a party rental owner by setting up chairs.

None of them are celebrating anything but the profit they made by engaging in commerce.

 

[Jon_S_1]

When Our Lord dined with whores and thieves, He wasn’t congratulating them on a good day of whoring or an impressive haul from thieving.

I wonder if anyone at the wedding in Cana became drunk after Jesus turned the water into wine! Jesus must be culpable in that sin for making wine according to your logic.

 

[Amandil]

Jon, I suggest that you read this:

2284*Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286*Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

*Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

“…Blessed is he who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” Romans 14:22

 

[Jon_S_1]

Jon, I suggest that you read this:

2284*Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286*Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

*Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

“…Blessed is he who does not condemn himself by what he approves.” Romans 14:22

I fully understand scandal. Perhaps if the baker was a known Catholic and put out a big banner that said “Gay marriage cakes half off” there would be scandal.

Tell me who is scandalized by this?

The baker sells a cake to client A. Who knows about the transaction besides the baker and client A?

 

[Amandil]

I fully understand scandal. Perhaps if the baker was a known Catholic and put out a big banner that said “Ga. y marriage cakes half off” there would be scandal.

You apparently still don’t understand the issue. You have the state compelling people who are Christian, by force of law, to provide goods and services against their conscience.

Tell me who is scandalized by this?

How many doesn’t matter. Truth is not told by popular opinion.

No different than those being forced under Obamacare to cover and dispense ABC and abortifacients against their will.

The baker sells a cake to client A. Who knows about the transaction besides the baker and client A?

Depends upon which or how many of their friends the gay couple tells. Scandal is not limited to believers alone.

 

[Elizium23]

I suggest you read Bishop Sheen.

I have, have you?
Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth.
“A Plea For Intolerance” (1931)

 

[Kevin_B]

You apparently still don’t understand the issue. You have the state compelling people who are Christian, by force of law, to provide goods and services against their conscience.

What would you say if the owner of a restaurant said serving black people was against his conscience? What about if an owner could not serve women not wearing a hijab? Does this apply to all “faiths” or just mainstream Christianity? That’s the problem with these rules you guys make up. You forget they have to apply to all faiths equally. If you use tax dollars to put a religious statue on private land that’s fine, but you need to be OK with it if a hundred other faiths do the same thing.

I think the main problem is Christians want the law to protect them and them alone. Ask any Conservative Christian how they feel about the law protecting the conscience rights of Fundamentalist Muslims.

When Our Lord dined with whores and thieves, He wasn’t congratulating them on a good day of whoring or an impressive haul from thieving.

I may disagree with your opinions, but this was funny. Like really funny. I was reading it at work and had to fight from LOLing at the idea of Jesus congratulating them on a good haul.

I would ask you and everyone who agrees that baking a cake for a gay wedding is a sin a question: Which jobs, exactly, are sinful in regards to a gay wedding? Obviously the couple getting married and the officiant are the Big Three, but what about

Musicians?
The place renting out the location for the ceremony?
The place renting out the location for the reception?
We know the people who BAKE the cake and COOK the food are big huge sinners, but what about the poor souls who get paid minimum wage to hand out the food? Are they sinning?
What about the busboys who clean up the plates? Are they “celebrating” this ceremony enough to be sinning as well?
Or the guy in the kitchen who washes the dishes? What about him? Is he sinning?
Or how about the guy who sweeps up after everybody has left?
What about the electricity company that supplies the venue with electricity, or the water company which supplies them with water?
If the lady who owns the bakery takes the order, but has someone else at the bakery actually bake the cake and decorate it, which one is guilty of the sin? Or are they both guilty?
What if one person bakes the cake and another person decorates it? Do we now have 3 people guilty of sin?

At what point does it stop being “I’m celebrating with the couple” and start being “I’m getting paid to do stuff”?

I think the Catholic Church needs to write a new Encyclical, “Malum Pistoria” (The Evil of Baking) which explains exactly what jobs one is allowed to do regarding a gay marriage and which are sinful. Also, are they mortal sins or venial sins? Of course BAKING the cake is a huge mortal sin, but maybe the person who keeps the little sterno cans lit is just guilty of a venial sin.

Are you guys starting to realize how silly this is?