Thoughts on the gay cake case

[friardchips]

Interesting excerpt.

And just to clarify–your “no” was in response to this question: “but I wonder if Catholic bakers would/should refuse to bake a cake for a couple that’s previously divorced and now re-marrying.”

Or to this one?

“That is, should a Catholic baker bake a cake for a ceremony that celebrates adultery?”

Strange question, it seems. Not sure a couple would share their personal details in a shop when ordering a cake, and ask if the baker would write on it: “Married, for the second time”. Depending on how many times they were remarried, the baker could say “no” on the grounds of not being able to fit all the words in!

 

[PRmerger]

Strange question, it seems. Not sure a couple would share their personal details in a shop when ordering a cake, and ask if the baker would write on it: “Married, for the second time”. Depending on how many times they were remarried, the baker could say “no” on the grounds of not being able to fit all the words in!

The question needn’t be taken that far.

Should a Catholic baker make a cake for a ceremony celebrating adultery?

What the cake says is not an issue in my question.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In moral theology, the act you describe is not a moral act at all. Just a sterile picture of events devoid of moral meaning.

Exactly. Just like taking a “morning after pill”.

BTW, how do you see that abortion needs an Intention or Circumstance to be morally assessed? Is not the abortion wrong regardless of the rest?

No.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Interesting excerpt.

And just to clarify–your “no” was in response to this question: “but I wonder if Catholic bakers would/should refuse to bake a cake for a couple that’s previously divorced and now re-marrying.”

Or to this one?

“That is, should a Catholic baker bake a cake for a ceremony that celebrates adultery?”

Your “that is” qualifier implied that the question is to be inferred as deriving from the situation. That is, a previously divorced and re-marrying person or couple is, ipso facto, “celebrating” adultery by divorcing and remarrying. Wasn’t that your point?

In which case, the “no” refers to both. A Catholic baker should refuse to celebrate adultery and, therefore, should refuse to bake a cake for a couple known to be divorced and now re-marrying.

I expect to get flack on this - though not necessarily from you.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Strange question, it seems. Not sure a couple would share their personal details in a shop when ordering a cake, and ask if the baker would write on it: “Married, for the second time”. Depending on how many times they were remarried, the baker could say “no” on the grounds of not being able to fit all the words in!

Well, in this case the baker could feign ignorance because he doesn’t know for sure if this person is divorced or widowed. In either case, such a cake would be in very bad taste.

 

[PRmerger]

Your “that is” qualifier implied that the question is to be inferred as deriving from the situation. That is, a previously divorced and re-marrying person or couple is, ipso facto, “celebrating” adultery by divorcing and remarrying. Wasn’t that your point?

In which case, the “no” refers to both. A Catholic baker should refuse to celebrate adultery and, therefore, should refuse to bake a cake for a couple known to be divorced and now re-marrying.

I expect to get flack on this - though not necessarily from you.

Thanks for the clarification.

I needed it because some folks are not as meticulous in addressing the post.

I should have known better.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Again, it isn’t “regardless” of the intent, circumstances and ends, but because no intentions, circumstances or results can possibly justify the ends which will come about when the act is done.

Do you now claim omniscience? You simply try to peddle your subjective opinion as if it were some “truth” etched in a stone.

Abortion is intrinsically evil because the end of killing an innocent human being can not be justified by any other “good” ends, motives or circumstances which a perpetrator might appeal to in order to justify it. Ergo, by elimination, abortion is “intrinsically evil” since there is no warrant which would justify it.

Apart from the fact that you use the emotionally charged “innocent”, you still claim omniscience.

You claim that one would need to be omniscient in order to determine any act to be “intrinsically evil” since it would take omniscience to know that NO mitigating motives, circumstances or ends could exist. That would be an unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

Why so? If you assert that no “A” can be also “B”, you need omniscience - in an inductive system, of course. (In a formal, axiomatic system it is not necessary. )

On the other hand, it is the Church’s claim that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals is precisely what it does have access to. You might dispute that claim, but surely not from the grounds that you are omniscient and know better.

My grounds for disputing that claim are simple and obvious, namely: “there is no evidence for that claim”. Besides, “claims” are dime a dozen.

---

By virtue of being a moral agent. Moral agents who do not live according to determinably moral principles become immoral agents, i.e., malevolent agents.

Whose “moral” principles? You keep dancing around this question.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you now claim omniscience? You simply try to peddle your subjective opinion as if it were some “truth” etched in a stone.

Apart from the fact that you use the emotionally charged “innocent”, you still claim omniscience.

Well, if by “omniscience” you mean: I know with 100% certainty that no motive an individual has can justify the killing of an innocent baby in the womb…

then, yes, we claim omniscience.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The Catechism does not say that we can’t know if a human an act is evil without Intentions and Circumstances. If you read the whole, you will see that it is actually saying that the goodness of the act can’t be confirmed without checking all 3 components, since evil in any one condemns it as immoral. A per se good deed, ill-motivated, is immoral.

Only acts with a good moral object need have their other components evaluated to determine the morality of the act.

It says right here: "1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

 

[PRmerger]

It says right here: "1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. "

Amen!

 

[cena]

It is not difficult. Just an example: the “act” is grabbing a gun, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger. The rest is the intent, the result and the circumstances. The “act” cannot be evaluated without the other parts, therefore the “act” is “morally” neutral. This is what the catechism says - and I agree. Then it changes the tune, and says that certain acts are “intrinsically” (“in and of themselves” or “per se”) evil (like abortion and masturbation) regardless of the intent, the result and the circumstances. How is it that you do not see the glaring contradiction here?

Do you agree that acts like rape (which the catechism says is intrinsically evil) is intrinsically evil?

 

[friardchips]

The question needn’t be taken that far.

Well, it does need to be, because we live in the world, not a text book. There are things we could apply in real life that if done in a certain manner could be considered rude, insensitive, or lacking graciousness, even if those indelicate actions or words came about from a theoretically true premise.

Should a Catholic baker make a cake for a ceremony celebrating adultery?

And this question proves exactly why my first paragraph is relevant. Without knowing all of the details behind how and why a marriage is set to take place - maybe the first was anulled by the R.C - then one might be wading into the sludgy bog of ‘judgement’. To make sure that every cake was not for remarried people one would have to ask every customer the details of their marriage.

What the cake says is not an issue in my question.

The cake is THE issue. Because the cake is the money offered in exchange of integrity. Does he accept this money or does he throw it back immediately - this is what the baker did. The baker could only do that if the person had made known his personal situation. Which was and is a bizarre scenario. As another poster said, the bakers were known and singled out.

I want to take this further, and say that surely a solicitor could prove that the bakers were right, because of the above reasoning I have just shown you. It is not a REAL, or normal scenario, for a person to come into a shop and declare his homosexuality. If he was legit, he would have just gone in and said: “I’d like a cake baked for my wedding”. Unless of course THE CAKE had written on it: “Bill and Bob”. Even then, a name can be unisex. If the man was very effeminate and one asked details for the cake, then that could be judging. So this all points to a fabricated courtcase. Because the conversation is an abnormal one for retail. And if the shop was busy, which apparently it was, then all the more reason for a real life episode to include far less dialogue between customer and shop worker.

Furthermore, as my bio-mum said recently, considering that the vote for gay marriage in Ireland was following in time, it seems funny that the judge in this case, went in the favour of the gay couple, what, with so much against them, seemingly pointing to an orchestrated move on the judge’s part - either to affect the vote, or, to make a ‘safe’ judgement with the prediciton that the vote would be for gay marriage.

This is going off-topic anyway. One cannot just go around applying ‘adultery’ to practical matters, or any label for that matter, unless details are shared. It is upon the sharing of details, no matter how aggressively done (as with this gay couple), that one is then entitled to make an assessment, and furthermore, witness, if, the effect of one complying with said agreement would effectively, although no doubt temporarily, annul one’s religious belief, simultaneously.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, it does need to be, because we live in the world, not a text book. There are things we could apply in real life that if done in a certain manner could be considered rude, insensitive, or lacking graciousness, even if those indelicate actions or words came about from a theoretically true premise.

So the couple wants the cake to say, “Congratulations”.

Question still remains: should the Catholic baker make the cake knowing that the couple were previously divorced?

And this question proves exactly why my first paragraph is relevant. Without knowing all of the details behind how and why a marriage is set to take place - maybe the first was anulled by the R.C - then one might be wading into the sludgy bog of ‘judgement’

And the wedding of these 2 Catholic people is not in a Catholic church.

Should the Catholic baker make the cake?

 

[friardchips]

So the couple wants the cake to say, “Congratulations”.

Question still remains: should the Catholic baker make the cake knowing that the couple were previously divorced?

And the wedding of these 2 Catholic people is not in a Catholic church.

Should the Catholic baker make the cake?

It absolutely depends on how mcuh the baker knows. Outside of this information, it is not the baker’s business. It is that simple. If you don’t know the ins and outs then you cannot make an assessment and act accordingly based on conscience.

The gay marriage case is entirely different to any of the scenarios you have presented and so remain unrelated to the topic.

 

[PRmerger]

It absolutely depends on how mcuh the baker knows. Outside of this information, it is not the baker’s business. It is that simple. If you don’t know the ins and outs then you cannot make an assessment and act accordingly based on conscience.

The gay marriage case is entirely different.

He knows that they’ve been divorced. He knows they’re getting married.

He knows there hasn’t been an annulment, otherwise they’d be getting married in a Catholic Church because they are both Catholics.

Yes or no to baking a cake that says, “Congratulations!” on it?

 

[friardchips]

He knows that they’ve been divorced. He knows they’re getting married.

He knows there hasn’t been an annulment, otherwise they’d be getting married in a Catholic Church because they are both Catholics.

Yes or no to baking a cake that says, “Congratulations!” on it?

So this couple is a Catholic couple? The baker knows this for certain. And the baker knows they are not proceeding to get married in a Catholic Church because the baker knows they were previously married, in a Catholic Church, and knows for certain that the reason they are getting married again in a non-Catholic Church is not just because they have both fallen out with the RCC for some other reason but specifically because their previous marriage/s has not received an annulment?

 

[PRmerger]

So this couple is a Catholic couple? The baker knows this for certain. And the baker knows they are not proceeding to get married in a Catholic Church because the baker knows they were previously married, in a Catholic Church, and knows for certain that the reason they are getting married again in a non-Catholic Church is not just because they have both fallen out with the RCC for some other reason but specifically because their previous marriage/s has not received an annulment?

Yes sir.

 

[friardchips]

…so are you arguing on the grounds of adultery because the couple are still technically married in the eyes of the RCC or because they are not marrying again in the RCC?

 

[PRmerger]

…so are you arguing on the grounds of adultery because the couple are still technically married in the eyes of the RCC or because they are not marrying again in the RCC?

The former.

 

[friardchips]

I’d say that one could refuse to bake a cake in such a scenario because the information is there and so witness precedes other sentimental niceties.

A difficult question might be: can one refuse to bake a cake on legitimate Catholic grounds for a straight couple entering into a civil wedding outside the Catholic Church, knowing that it is in the Church, that weddings are given their true and holy binding?