Thoughts on the gay cake case

[minkymurph]

Hi Folks

I’m asking for opinion on the ‘gay cake’ case ruling recently delivered in Belfast.

I am posting this in the Social Justice forum as the judges ruling centers on the issue of contract. Those who argue in support unregulated capitalism argue protection of property, the person, individual rights and contract law are sufficient. In light of this ruling where do they now stand? In terms of contract, should there be a law that individuals should be able to avail of services irrespective of their sexual orientation or not? Should you be compelled to enter into a contract with an individual to provide a service if for reasons of individual conscience you do not want to? If not, does that uphold the individual right to avail of services irrespective of sexual orientation?

For those of you not familiar with the case here are some links.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

u.tv/News/2015/05/22/Ashers-restricts-orders-after-gay-cake-ruling-37727

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31155548

What I am asking is how those who support unregulated capitalism, who argue the market regulates itself on the basis of supply and demand, we should be free to contract with whomever we choose yet simultaneously argue this practice upholds the rights of the individual and all this is compatible with Catholicism can validate these arguments in light of this case?

Personally I would have to say I think this bakery were set up, but the questions I have raised still need to be addressed. Do those that support unregulated capitalism also think a commercial business is free to discriminate in terms of contract? If so, what of the rights of the individual? If not, then do we need legislation regarding discrimination? If so, can the state determine the commercial conscience?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What I am asking is how those who support unregulated capitalism, who argue the market regulates itself on the basis of supply and demand, we should be free to contract with whomever we choose yet simultaneously argue this practice upholds the rights of the individual and all this is compatible with Catholicism can validate these arguments in light of this case?

I rather doubt that there is anyone at all who would argue for a fully anarchistic state with no regulation at all. Who would be crazy enough to allow the free circulation of weapons of mass destruction?

So, some regulation is necessary, of that there can be no doubt. Where to draw the line could be debated. Should white supremacists be allowed to discriminate against someone based upon the skin color or their religion? The KKK type of people hate not just the blacks, but the Jews and the Catholics, too. The point is that in your home you can discriminate against anyone. But as soon as you enter into the public marketplace that freedom disappears - and rightfully so.

If that baker does not wish to do business with a certain “sub-group” of people, then he should not open that shop. A few hundred years ago anyone could discriminate against the Jews on religious grounds. Today we passed that step of “civilization”. In order to have a better, more smoothly working society, there are all sorts of limitations imposed on everyone. That some people feel that their freedom to discriminate has been taken away, they are right - and good riddance. They should be grateful that no one can discriminate against THEM either.

 

[minkymurph]

I rather doubt that there is anyone at all who would argue for a fully anarchistic state with no regulation at all. Who would be crazy enough to allow the free circulation of weapons of mass destruction?

So, some regulation is necessary, of that there can be no doubt. Where to draw the line could be debated. Should white supremacists be allowed to discriminate against someone based upon the skin color or their religion? The KKK type of people hate not just the blacks, but the Jews and the Catholics, too. The point is that in your home you can discriminate against anyone. But as soon as you enter into the public marketplace that freedom disappears - and rightfully so.

If that baker does not wish to do business with a certain “sub-group” of people, then he should not open that shop. A few hundred years ago anyone could discriminate against the Jews on religious grounds. Today we passed that step of “civilization”. In order to have a better, more smoothly working society, there are all sorts of limitations imposed on everyone. That some people feel that their freedom to discriminate has been taken away, they are right - and good riddance. They should be grateful that no one can discriminate against THEM either.

That’s a good point - we should be grateful we have laws that prevent discrimination against us.

 

[cena]

That’s a good point - we should be grateful we have laws that prevent discrimination against us.

It’s not discrimination against a group of people, but a certain ceremony. For instance the laws that allowed a baker to not bake a cake for a same sex wedding did not allow bakers to refuse to bake ordinary cakes for gay people.

 

[Tablefor9]

That’s a good point - we should be grateful we have laws that prevent discrimination against us.

Well, it would be a good point, except that people of conviction are being harassed, if not discriminated against. They are “set up” to push the SSM agenda with increasing regularity. Also, just watch tv with an open mind…the ONLY people it seems ok to denigrate are people of faith…Judeo-Christian faith.

 

[friardchips]

Well, it would be a good point, except that people of conviction are being harassed, if not discriminated against. They are “set up” to push the SSM agenda with increasing regularity. Also, just watch tv with an open mind…the ONLY people it seems ok to denigrate are people of faith…Judeo-Christian faith.

It is intolerance towards those who have religious sensibilities. It was their shop. Their right to say no. And the West is supposedly built upon Christian ethics. It wasn’t as if they were turning down baking a cake because a homosexual walked into a shop and told them his or her sexual preference and so the shop owners refused because they were personally judging them, no, rather, it was because they didn’t agree with the blessing of marriage being scourged by the anti-Catholic extremist lobbies. Why should people of religious belief be made to feel intolerant for their knowledge at the hands of a lobbying media. The fact that they were done for sticking up for their faith makes them martyrs, IMO. And it is a travesty that so many people don’t even know that marriage is all about family and life-giving/producing.

It is sad that people have such heavy crosses to bear, but this is life, and at the end of the day we are asked to carry them no matter what. We have prayers, people-support, and many things to help us carry these difficult weights but giving in and affecting the common good by causing public scandal and heartbreak for people who are simply expressing their faith is really terrible.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, it would be a good point, except that people of conviction are being harassed, if not discriminated against. They are “set up” to push the SSM agenda with increasing regularity. Also, just watch tv with an open mind…the ONLY people it seems ok to denigrate are people of faith…Judeo-Christian faith.

Ah, so if you are not allowed to discriminate it means that now you are being “harassed”? I recall the “defense” of some kids who proclaimed: “it all started when HE hit me BACK!”. And please do not exaggerate: it is not generic Christians who are “denigrated”, only the ones who feel that they should be allowed to discriminate based upon their convictions. As I said, in your house you do what you want. But if you come out into the community, you should keep the laws. You can exercise your right at the ballot box to vote for your convictions, but it looks like that in this case you lost. Don’t be a sore loser.

 

[St_Francis]

In the US, we had one the one hand a $135,000 fine on bakers who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage,” and on the other hand, nothing against a bakery which refused to bake a cake with “derogatory language” (Bible verses).

 

[Exiled_Child]

I think that if Christ sat down and ate with thieves, prostitutes and other sinners, a Catholic baker should be able to at least bake a cake for a gay couple. It’s just basic human decency. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

 

[Convert1]

Why can’t people have the personal freedom to bake a cake for anyone they feel like?
Or not bake a cake if they don’t want to? What is accomplished if a government forces people to perform a task they choose not to do? Does anyone truly believe that forcing this issue eradicates discrimination? If anything it seems to make people more resentful.

I’m not advocating anti-gay, or anti-anything. My brother is gay. And his position is that he would simply choose another bakery, rather than have an individual forced to bake a cake for him. I just feel like this is about more than just cakes here when we start allowing anyone to be forced by the government to do things they feel are religiously against their beliefs.

 

[mdgspencer]

It seems to me that the question asked by the original poster is a loaded question, saying that the failure of a baker to bake a cake is unregulated capitalism. I presume the opening poster didn’t do this deliberately–it can be difficult to form polling questions without indicating how people should answer at the same time.
I would consider it a matter of religious freedom when it comes to the cake matter–but I would not have said this as I sought to find from people what they think.

 

[jaimeleglise]

I think it is harassment if someone who refuses to bake a cake that would celebrate same sex marriage is sued. They have the right to stick to their religious convictions without having to pay huge fines and potentially go out of business.

 

[cena]

I think that if Christ sat down and ate with thieves, prostitutes and other sinners, a Catholic baker should be able to at least bake a cake for a gay couple. It’s just basic human decency. Treat others how you would want to be treated.

He ate with them to reach out and convert them. A baker is endorsing the sin in that case.

 

[minkymurph]

Good comments folks.

The major issue in this case is the right not to be discriminated against may trump the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

That said, contract played a major role in this case in that the bakery sought to void a contract they had voluntarily entered into on the ground it was for a same sex marriage.

The issue of a ‘conscience clause’ also arose after this case. Think a similar thing happened in Indiana?

belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/conscience-clause-trading-warning-31142809.html

It is unlikely the conscience clause will make it through parliament, but should we have legislation that permits refusing a service to certain individuals or groups? I say no but I would also have difficulty with legislation that may be used to force individuals to put a slogan on a cake in this case, or a t-shirt, sweat shirt, banner to name but a few in support of something they do not agree with.

 

[Exiled_Child]

He ate with them to reach out and convert them. A baker is endorsing the sin in that case.

Far from converting anyone, that kind of behavior only drives people further away from the Church. One of the ways Christ won people over was simply by being cool enough and non-judgmental enough to dine with outcasts in the first place. These bakers are deliberately alienating huge masses of people by acting like holier-than-thou, sell-righteous jerks.

 

[cena]

Far from converting anyone, that kind of behavior only drives people further away from the Church. One of the ways Christ won people over was simply by being cool enough and non-judgmental enough to dine with outcasts in the first place. These bakers are deliberately alienating huge masses of people by acting like holier-than-thou, sell-righteous jerks.

Cooperating in sin is not helping anyone. No one is advocating for refusing to sell normal cakes to gay people/public sinners in general. It is a specific event that they do not want to participate in. Christ did not attend the weddings of divorced and remarried people for example.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Far from converting anyone, that kind of behavior only drives people further away from the Church. One of the ways Christ won people over was simply by being cool enough and non-judgmental enough to dine with outcasts in the first place. These bakers are deliberately alienating huge masses of people by acting like holier-than-thou, sell-righteous jerks.

Now, now. (At the risk of sounding like a "holier-than-thou, self-righteous jerk,) YOU are beginning to sound like (to use your words) ”a holier-than-thou, self-righteous jerk.”

The only difference is that you have the approval of the current dictators in what is “morally” fashionable, so you operate under the (false) assumption that you are indeed “holier-than-thou” and, therefore, not a “self-righteous jerk” since you are apparently made righteous and sanctimonious by the endorsement of the “crowd” rather than by (merely) the approval of your self. Which explains, perhaps, why you have an aversion to alienating those whose endorsement you cherish.

I suspect you have a misplaced emphasis concerning what “SELF-righteous” means. Merely standing “alone” regarding a moral position (even facing a large crowd in opposition) is NOT sufficient to make a person “self” righteous.

Christ, too, (as I recall) deliberately alienated “huge masses” just before he was crucified by steadfastly refusing to compromise what he knew to be right. Clearly, the crowd was expressing its “alienation” from him by shouting for him to be crucified. Was he “self-righteous” BECAUSE he was left ALONE in what he knew was right? According to a literalistic reading of “self-righteous,” perhaps.

I suppose you could also say of Christ that “…far from converting anyone, that kind of behavior only…[drove]… people further away from the Church…” and even made them more persecutory of the Church when it started up after Pentecost. The evidence would be all the martyrdoms, jailings and whippings that could have been avoided if the Apostles didn’t work so hard (following the example of Jesus) at “alienating” those around them.

On the other hand, all of this “alienation” was foretold…

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus answered them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

“Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come. (Matt 24:1-14)

See also:

"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept approval from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept approval from one another and do not seek the approval that comes from the one who alone is God? (John 5:39-44)

Apparently, you think that merely going along with the crowd is the substantial message of the Gospels and the crucial point of why Jesus came to earth?

I suspect he could have saved himself all that agony by proclaiming the simplified “good news” message that “go along to get along” and “don’t rock the boat” are essential because FEELBAD alienates people - the very worst thing to do (apparently) is to make people feel bad about what they do. John could have saved his head if he had only realized his huge mistake, vis a vis making Herod feel alienated.

 

[hazcompat]

The world may charge the Church with intolerance, and the world is right. The Church is intolerant; intolerant about Truth, intolerant about principles, intolerant about Divinity, just as Our Blessed Lord was intolerant about His Divinity. The other religions may change their principles, and they do change them, because their principles are man-made. The Church cannot change, because her principles are God-made. Religion is not a sum of beliefs that we would like, but the sum of beliefs God has given. The world may disagree with the Church, but the world knows very definitely with what it is disagreeing. In the future as in the past, the Church will be intolerant about the sanctity of marriage, for what God has joined together no man shall put asunder; she will be intolerant about her creed, and be ready to die for it, for she fears not those who kill the body, but rather those who have the power to cast body and soul into hell. She will be intolerant about her infallibility, for “Lo,” says Christ, “I am with you all the days even unto the end of the world.” And while she is intolerant even to blood, in adhering to the truths given her by her Divine Founder, she will be tolerant to those who say she is intolerant, for the same Divine Founder has taught her to say: “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”

There are only two positions to take concerning truth, and both of them had their hearing centuries ago in the court-room of Solomon where two women claimed a babe. A babe is like truth; it is one; it is whole; it is organic and it cannot be divided. The real mother of ‘the babe would accept no compromise. She was intolerant about her claim. She must have the whole babe, or nothing-the intolerance of Motherhood. But the false mother was tolerant. She was willing to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe-and the babe would have met its death through broadmindedness.

Taken from the book “Moods and Truths” (Published in 1932)
By Ven. Fulton J. Sheen

Peace

 

[friardchips]

Now, now. (At the risk of sounding like a "holier-than-thou, self-righteous jerk,) YOU are beginning to sound like (to use your words) ”a holier-than-thou, self-righteous jerk.”

The only difference is that you have the approval of the current dictators in what is “morally” fashionable, so you operate under the (false) assumption that you are indeed “holier-than-thou” and, therefore, not a “self-righteous jerk” since you are apparently made righteous and sanctimonious by the endorsement of the “crowd” rather than by (merely) the approval of your self. Which explains, perhaps, why you have an aversion to alienating those whose endorsement you cherish.

I suspect you have a misplaced emphasis concerning what “SELF-righteous” means. Merely standing “alone” regarding a moral position (even facing a large crowd in opposition) is NOT sufficient to make a person “self” righteous.

Christ, too, (as I recall) deliberately alienated “huge masses” just before he was crucified by steadfastly refusing to compromise what he knew to be right. Clearly, the crowd was expressing its “alienation” from him by shouting for him to be crucified. Was he “self-righteous” BECAUSE he was left ALONE in what he knew was right? According to a literalistic reading of “self-righteous,” perhaps.

I suppose you could also say of Christ that “…far from converting anyone, that kind of behavior only…[drove]… people further away from the Church…” and even made them more persecutory of the Church when it started up after Pentecost. The evidence would be all the martyrdoms, jailings and whippings that could have been avoided if the Apostles didn’t work so hard (following the example of Jesus) at “alienating” those around them.

On the other hand, all of this “alienation” was foretold…

See also:

Apparently, you think that merely going along with the crowd is the substantial message of the Gospels and the crucial point of why Jesus came to earth?

I suspect he could have saved himself all that agony by proclaiming the simplified “good news” message that “go along to get along” and “don’t rock the boat” are essential because FEELBAD alienates people - the very worst thing to do (apparently) is to make people feel bad about what they do. John could have saved his head if he had only realized his huge mistake, vis a vis making Herod feel alienated.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The major issue in this case is the right not to be discriminated against may trump the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

You are mistaken. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is intact. ACTING on those is curtailed. Just like the white supremacists of the KKK have total freedom to hate the blacks, Jews and Catholics… but they are forbidden to ACT on that hatred. In your home and in your church you are free to act on your beliefs, but as soon as you come “out”, the rules and regulations take over your freedom to ACT on your beliefs.

And you should be grateful for it. It is for your protection on the long run.