Turn the other cheek for surving gay weddings?

[ignatius777]

At what point does participation no longer exist because it is too neutral or too far removed from the event? If a cake is baked WITHOUT offensive decorations or inscriptions, and then happens to be used in a gay wedding, is this still morally objectionable to the baker? What if a guest to a gay wedding would like a cake baked as a gift to the gay couple? Even if the guest is morally culpable, is the baker culpable as well?

If the baker is aware its to celebrate sin then the baker has an obligation to not participate. AGAIN if the baker doesn’t know what its for then there is no culpability.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There are Protestant sects which are pretty harsh towards Catholicism. Whether or not opposing Catholicism forms a tenet of their faith is arguable, but let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it does. That opposition includes refusing to support any explicitly Catholic activities, such as catering baptisms or weddings.

Would you be comfortable with the state stepping in and legitimizing that opposition?

Heck, if I had my way, the government would REQUIRE businesses to post a list of causes they do or do not support. I would not want an anti-Catholic to cater my Catholic wedding! Who would???

If I went to a caterer and she told me that I could take my business elsewhere, because she was part of the Westboro Baptist Church, I would THANK her for her honesty, and HAPPILY take my business elsewhere.

 

[ignatius777]

Heck, if I had my way, the government would REQUIRE businesses to post a list of causes they do or do not support. I would not want an anti-Catholic to cater my Catholic wedding! Who would???

If I went to a caterer and she told me that I could take my business elsewhere, because she was part of the Westboro Baptist Church, I would THANK her for her honesty, and HAPPILY take my business elsewhere.

I couldn’t agree more. And if I had a choice between a catholic baker and a non catholic one I’d choose the catholic every day of the week and twice on Sundays

 

[Della]

If you don’t ordinarily bake cakes and you agree to bake a cake for this particular occasion, then yes, I’d agree with you that it is tacit approval. If you are providing the cake for free, then I’d agree with you. If they are paying you to provide a service that you provide to anyone else who walks through the doors, and for which you would not ordinarily conduct an in-depth examination of the moral character of the customer ordering it, then baking the cake is simply providing a service to an individual in a non-judgmental manner.

You’ll probably be surprised, but I agree with this. My suggestion to stop writing messages on cakes was meant to be compromise for those who have a tender conscience about such things, bless 'em. It’s my belief that no one should force another to violate his conscience even if we think that person’s conscience is too fine/they’re wrong. That’s what I object to with the government forcing people to comply and more, telling them they need to be “reeducated”–shades of “1984” there. I’d serve anyone if I had a business that catered to the public. I just thought I’d suggest a way for those who feel pressured to go against their conscience to eliminate their need to involve themselves in the issue. Of course, those determined to force acceptance would not like such a move, but that’s too bad, IMHO. Those who are forcing others to accept what they cannot accept are in the wrong no matter what agenda they may be pushing.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

If you don’t ordinarily bake cakes and you agree to bake a cake for this particular occasion, then yes, I’d agree with you that it is tacit approval. If you are providing the cake for free, then I’d agree with you. If they are paying you to provide a service that you provide to anyone else who walks through the doors, and for which you would not ordinarily conduct an in-depth examination of the moral character of the customer ordering it, then baking the cake is simply providing a service to an individual in a non-judgmental manner.

Why is that SO HARD to understand?

However, like Della says, "Those who are forcing others to accept what they cannot accept are in the wrong no matter what agenda they may be pushing. " should include the Government.

The Indiana law was simply protecting people’s right to follow their conscience.

But if someone asked for an obscene decoration on the cake, THAT should be permitted to be refused without fear of legal reprisals.

But for a bakery to refuse to sell an ordinary cake to someone because they are gay, and will use it in some gay event, then that truly is discrimination, which is not moral either.

 

[ignatius777]

You’ll probably be surprised, but I agree with this. My suggestion to stop writing messages on cakes was meant to be compromise for those who have a tender conscience about such things, bless 'em. It’s my belief that no one should force another to violate his conscience even if we think that person’s conscience is too fine/they’re wrong. That’s what I object to with the government forcing people to comply and more, telling them they need to be “reeducated”–shades of “1984” there. I’d serve anyone if I had a business that catered to the public. I just thought I’d suggest a way for those who feel pressured to go against their conscience to eliminate their need to involve themselves in the issue. Of course, those determined to force acceptance would not like such a move, but that’s too bad, IMHO. Those who are forcing others to accept what they cannot accept are in the wrong no matter what agenda they may be pushing.

You are correct when you say “Those who are forcing others to accept what they cannot accept are in the wrong no matter what agenda they may be pushing”. That’s the issue here. The cake is irrelevant, its that this is about forced acceptance.

 

[ignatius777]

Why is that SO HARD to understand?

However, like Della says, "Those who are forcing others to accept what they cannot accept are in the wrong no matter what agenda they may be pushing. " should include the Government.

The Indiana law was simply protecting people’s right to follow their conscience.

But if someone asked for an obscene decoration on the cake, THAT should be permitted to be refused without fear of legal reprisals.

But for a bakery to refuse to sell an ordinary cake to someone because they are gay, and will use it in some gay event, then that truly is discrimination, which is not moral either.

And the Indiana law only allows for religious freedom as a defense against charge levied against individuals or businesses. That is no different than whats already allowed in 19 other states I believe.

 

[Shaolen]

But for a bakery to refuse to sell an ordinary cake to someone because they are gay, and will use it in some gay event, then that truly is discrimination, which is not moral either.

I’m sorry but I have to step in here. None of these high profile cases have been business owners refusing to sell “to someone because they are gay”. They had nothing to do with that. They were refusing because they know that what they’re doing (baking the cake) is contributing to something contrary to their faith. That’s not truly discrimination. It has nothing to do with the people buying, who they are, or even that they hold certain views or are part of a particular group.

 

[Shaolen]

It has to do with what the business owner is doing. What he is contributing to. Hes contributing/participating in an event that signifies that a relationship between two people of the same sex can be called a marriage and treated as such. If he doesn’t agree with this he shouldn’t be forced to contribute/participate. This is not discrimination