Thoughts on this article: "Bake for them two"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carmelitenovice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

carmelitenovice

Guest
Hello:

A FB acquaintance posted a link to this article: tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

I wanted to get thoughts on it from other Catholics.

In a nutshell, the author of the article opines that Jesus would paraphrase “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” (Matthew 5:41) and urge people who are asked to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex union to bake them two instead.

I responded with several quotes from both the Old and New Testament that are among the bases for Catholic/Christian teachings against homosexual behavior and same sex unions. My FB acquaintance and others responded that Jesus would not exclude and he would not judge and therefore neither should we. While I agree with the sentiment that we are to leave judgment to God, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would advise us to bake cakes and otherwise celebrate behaviors that go against His (and His Father’s) law.

(I have no real burning interest in the issue, by the way, except that I dislike the notion of people being forced to violate deeply held religious beliefs and teachings.) I have no real connections to anyone interested in having a same sex wedding and I am not employed by a company in which this would be an issue.

While the FB discussion has ended, with both sides agreeing to disagree, wondered about opinions on the article and the issue here on CA forums.

Your turn?
 
There is a difference between doing something which is not at all immoral (carrying a load, giving a coat), and facilitating immoral behavior. It’s like the difference between giving a straight-A child money for college and giving a drug-addict money to buy herion.

So to me, this comparison is completely moot.

The actual question should be, is the cooperation inherent in baking and decorating the cake sufficient that a baker commits a wrong act when baking and decorating a cake for a SS “wedding”?

If the baker’s act is not immoral, then refusal would be discrimination. If the baker’s act is immoral, then refusal is not wrong.
 
St_Francis said:
There is a difference between doing something which is not at all immoral (carrying a load, giving a coat), and facilitating immoral behavior. It’s like the difference between giving a straight-A child money for college and giving a drug-addict money to buy herion.
Click to expand...
So then, the question is whether baking a cake, providing flowers, etc., is “facilitating.”
 
Here’s the answer:
Yes, Gentlemen-- I’d be glad to bake you a cake for your wedding. However I do think I should tell you that I’m going to give all of the proceeds to “Courage”, a Catholic Ministry that helps people with same sex attraction change.
Click to expand...
Done.

The government may be able to tell me I have to do business with a particular type of person, however telling me how I can spend my money is a different matter entirely.

K
 
Kephart said:
Here’s the answer:

Done.

The government may be able to tell me I have to do business with a particular type of person, however telling me how I can spend my money is a different matter entirely.

K
Click to expand...
Excellent response!

ETA: as long as baking and decorating the cake is not an immoral act.
 
The trouble is, there is so much more to it. What decorations do they want on the cake, for starters. And as a designer, whose job it is to come up with ideas and a look - which ideally should enhance the theme and so on - is the designer required to go all out to make the most appealing pro-gay symbols and slogans in fondant or buttercream? And convey enthusiasm for doing so?

FWIW, when I was a teenager and a friend of mine was learning to decorate cakes, there were designs such as the “bikini and boobie” cakes that were thought to be hilarious among folks with a certain (low) standard of taste. And though I don’t think my friend was involved in any, she told me about X-rated cake designs and such. I remember thinking at the time that if I ever decided to become a cake decorator I would not feel right doing even the “tamest” of these sexually-themed cakes. In other words, the issue of what’s decent and moral when providing custom creative work for people is not a new issue.

Back to the blog post cited - here’s another take from a link to a blog in response, posted in one of the comments to the “Bake for Them Two” blog.

patheos.com/blogs/manhattanproject/2015/04/bake-for-them-two-or-walk-with-the-few/
 
St_Francis said:
Excellent response!
Click to expand...
I do have my moments!
St_Francis said:
ETA: as long as baking and decorating the cake is not an immoral act.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how baking could be an immoral act, however I can see that what you write on the cake and what you decorate it with could be a problem.

However given the response, I’m pretty sure you’d never have to bake that cake! 😃

K
 
agnes_therese said:
So then, the question is whether baking a cake, providing flowers, etc., is “facilitating.”
Click to expand...
Well, there are various degrees of responsibility involved in determining the culpability of a facilitator. For example, is an employed cashier wrong when he “sells” condoms to a customer? Is a store owner wrong for selling condoms? That sort of thing.

Here is a chart which shows the various means of cooperation. I want to try to review these terms because I had them down some time ago, but am a little hazy on them now.
 
St_Francis said:
There is a difference between doing something which is not at all immoral (carrying a load, giving a coat), and facilitating immoral behavior. It’s like the difference between giving a straight-A child money for college and giving a drug-addict money to buy herion.

So to me, this comparison is completely moot.

The actual question should be, is the cooperation inherent in baking and decorating the cake sufficient that a baker commits a wrong act when baking and decorating a cake for a SS “wedding”?

If the baker’s act is not immoral, then refusal would be discrimination. If the baker’s act is immoral, then refusal is not wrong.
Click to expand...
Arguably the Jews at the time would have consider carrying the load an immoral act because it was helping the occupying Roman force. It’s true that that carrying a load is not an intrinsically immoral action, but then neither baking a cake. It’s situation that makes both actions problematic.

What I think the author has missed is some of the historical context behind that comment. In order to reduce the tensions between the Romans and the occupied citizens, the Romans were prohibited from asking Jewish citizens from doing any more for the Romans. Going the extra mile would then be problematic for the soldier, as he was liable to discipline from his superiors. At least, that’s what I’ve heard. Similarly, turning the other cheek was a way of indicating that the act of slapping him hadn’t possessed its intended effect. The idea, here, is that Jesus was advocating a form of non-violent protest for the Jews.

Still, I think Fr. Z. had the best possible advice I’ve heard for a baker in this situation. Perform the service but donate the money. He suggested donating the money to an anti-same-sex marriage advocacy group as a way to insensitivize the customers is question to go elsewhere. Provide them with a list of alternatives who may be more supportive. You’ll still probably suffer for your decision (i.e. the pizzeria people) but I don’t think anyone here was asking for anything but the free market to decide.
 
carmelitenovice said:
… Jesus would not … judge and therefore neither should we. …
Click to expand...
But Jesus did judge. Consider the woman caught in adultery. Too many think that Jesus’ forgiveness was permission to continue committing adultery, but it wasn’t. In addition to saying, “Your sins are forgiven” He added “Go and commit this sin no more.” Thus He judged the acts as sinful. If we are not to judge, perhaps you can explain how we are to avoid sinning if we don’t judge. 🤷
 
Interesting discussion! I too like the idea of donating the proceeds from such a cake order to an anti-SS-marriage or similar organization.

What about the FB discussion described in the original post – the whole “Jesus would never exclude/judge anyone” argument?
 
Judge not refers to judging the states of people’s souls: Christ ciuld see into their hearts, so He had information we do not. Of course we must judge *actions, *and we do all the time. In fact, people who wag their fingers and say Judge not! when we say a certain action is wrong are themselves judging our action.

Christ did exclude people: the money-changers in the Temple. He also told the Apotles to shake from their sandals the dust of the towns who refused to listen to them.
 
St_Francis said:
Well, there are various degrees of responsibility involved in determining the culpability of a facilitator. For example, is an employed cashier wrong when he “sells” condoms to a customer? Is a store owner wrong for selling condoms? That sort of thing.

Here is a chart which shows the various means of cooperation. I want to try to review these terms because I had them down some time ago, but am a little hazy on them now.
Click to expand...
Here’s an article which explains the various types of cooperation. Searching for the words {Catholic cooperation with evil examples} brought up lots of articles.
 
carmelitenovice said:
Interesting discussion! I too like the idea of donating the proceeds from such a cake order to an anti-SS-marriage or similar organization.

What about the FB discussion described in the original post – the whole “Jesus would never exclude/judge anyone” argument?
Click to expand...
FB is just a vehicle to ridicule people with other beliefs.
I would not read those postings nor would I friend people like that.
I have a FB account, and honestly, I don’t see any benefit to it at all. It’s worse for young people because most of their friends don’t see anything wrong with anything, and the postings get way out of line with what we believe as Catholics. It’s hard for young people to constantly have to see this stuff. Eventually they become immune to the ramblings of people who think they are behaving in a Christian manner but actually have no clue.
 
carmelitenovice said:
Hello:

A FB acquaintance posted a link to this article: tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

I wanted to get thoughts on it from other Catholics.

In a nutshell, the author of the article opines that Jesus would paraphrase “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.” (Matthew 5:41) and urge people who are asked to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex union to bake them two instead.

I responded with several quotes from both the Old and New Testament that are among the bases for Catholic/Christian teachings against homosexual behavior and same sex unions. My FB acquaintance and others responded that Jesus would not exclude and he would not judge and therefore neither should we. While I agree with the sentiment that we are to leave judgment to God, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would advise us to bake cakes and otherwise celebrate behaviors that go against His (and His Father’s) law.

(I have no real burning interest in the issue, by the way, except that I dislike the notion of people being forced to violate deeply held religious beliefs and teachings.) I have no real connections to anyone interested in having a same sex wedding and I am not employed by a company in which this would be an issue.

While the FB discussion has ended, with both sides agreeing to disagree, wondered about opinions on the article and the issue here on CA forums.

Your turn?
Click to expand...
We understand that homosexual activity is a sin according to Holy Scripture:

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (NABRE)

8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, 9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, 10 the unchaste, sodomites,* kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.**

Notice all that is listed in that passage. So if you should bake two cakes instead of one knowing that the person is a sodomite, then there should be nothing wrong with giving two bullets (instead of just one) to a known murder, right?:eek:*
 
SJacob7 said:
So if you should bake two cakes instead of one knowing that the person is a sodomite, then there should be nothing wrong with giving two bullets (instead of just one) to a known murder, right?
Click to expand...
Seriously?!?!?

You’re equating gay people with murderers?

Your comments here reinforce every single negative stereotype of Christians and bring shame to the cause of Christ.

When people want to claim that Christians hate gay people, they’ll use comments like yours as evidence.

Calling them sodomites isn’t going to win any souls either. :blackeye:
 
on_the_hill said:
I’m just glad I’m not a baker.
Click to expand...
“When they came for the bakers, I said nothing because I was not a baker.
When they came for the photographers, I said nothing because I was not a photographer. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.”

Seriously, you can be a baker; just don’t do cakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top