What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage

[casslean]

Ah another atheist claiming he understands the way religious people define “participation.” Since the poster claimed that the baking of a cake for a gay wedding was not "participating " my post explained why, from a religious point of view it WAS participating. As I said, I do not know if he was deliberately ignoring what had been said or simply didn’t understand. Either way if he or if you had read the post, you would understand the perspective.

Further you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the facts of these cases. It was clear that the bakers, photographers, B&B owners etc were deliberately being set up. They were told this was for a gay “wedding” or honeymoon, they made it very clear they were aware to proprietor was a Christian and would possibly refuse.

Once more if you 'd read the post and had an understanding of what does or does not qualify as participation you would not have advanced such specious examples regarding the supplier of the flour. Read and respond to the actual argument.

I don’t think it’s fair to point at this as a Christian/Atheist divide. I’m Christian, and (soon-to-be) Catholic, and I don’t feel that providing a cake amounts to “material participation”. Unlike the drive to the abortion clinic - which is actually facilitating grave sin - the cake isn’t facilitating the marriage. It is simply another part of the celebration. If the cake wasn’t there, the marriage could still happen. For me, that’s the test - if I remove that service, can the “sinful action” still occur?

That being said, I understand that there are those who disagree with me, and obviously you do disagree. I can acknowledge that where a baker custom designs a cake and works closely with the couple throughout the design and construction, and even sets up, there might be a line where they view that participation as material to the marriage. I don’t think taking an order and filling that order qualifies as material participation, no matter what kind of special meaning you want to give to the cake. The cake isn’t a religious symbol. It’s a cake.

This is a situation where both sides should be prepared to compromise. It’s possible to define, objectively, what “material participation” means. It isn’t a religious or Christian concept. We can put legal meaning to it. If, as Christians, we just take our corner and defend it viciously without applying objective standards, then we do look like the irrational bigots we too often get accused of being.

 

[LisaA]

I don’t think it’s fair to point at this as a Christian/Atheist divide. I’m Christian, and (soon-to-be) Catholic, and I don’t feel that providing a cake amounts to “material participation”. Unlike the drive to the abortion clinic - which is actually facilitating grave sin - the cake isn’t facilitating the marriage. It is simply another part of the celebration. If the cake wasn’t there, the marriage could still happen. For me, that’s the test - if I remove that service, can the “sinful action” still occur?

That being said, I understand that there are those who disagree with me, and obviously you do disagree. I can acknowledge that where a baker custom designs a cake and works closely with the couple throughout the design and construction, and even sets up, there might be a line where they view that participation as material to the marriage. I don’t think taking an order and filling that order qualifies as material participation, no matter what kind of special meaning you want to give to the cake. The cake isn’t a religious symbol. It’s a cake.

This is a situation where both sides should be prepared to compromise. It’s possible to define, objectively, what “material participation” means. It isn’t a religious or Christian concept. We can put legal meaning to it. If, as Christians, we just take our corner and defend it viciously without applying objective standards, then we do look like the irrational bigots we too often get accused of being.

Not to split hairs here but there are very specific guidelines regarding the term “material participation” in the Catholic Church. That was my point of reference. Your own dispute of my driving to the abortion clinic example makes this point. The wedding would happen without the cake and the abortion would happen without your driving the friend to the clinic. But are you in effect helping the process in some way and in a direct manner. So the person who filled your car with gas to drive the friend to the clinic didn’t participate directly nor did the other poster’s claim about the person providing the flour for the cake. Even attending a gay “wedding” is participating in that instance and we are instructed not to do so. Preparing a custom made cake, decorated to the taste and desires of the couple (actually the bride and her mother in most cases!) setting it up, perhaps helping either serve or providing instructions to serving are far more material than just handing someone a cake across the counter. Have you been involved in any weddings? Seen the way a wedding cake is structured? It’s not without a lot of care and skill and time and that is AFTER all of the decorations are applied. Further the cake IS a very integral part of the celebration. This is not something like who printed the guest book or filled the little bags of rice.

There was another case in Colorado where the baker truly tried to cooperate offering to provide an undecorated cake and the means to decorate it, set it up, etc. This offer was spurned for the opportunity to sue. Ditto with the B&B case where the proprietors offered to make calls and find accommodations for the Lesbian couple. Again it was about setting up for a lawsuit, not finding a place to spend the night.

Again I would be opposed to someone not allowing public access or to purchase “off the shelf” items because they didn’t want to serve gays or Lesbians (but again how would the baker KNOW unless told?). But there is some kind of a test where the compulsion of someone’s artistic talent is not allowed if if violates a religious belief. Further there is the concept of goodwill and in the cases I’ve become familiar with, the Christian business owners DID extend goodwill. They were not rude, they did not demean the people for being gay, call them sinners or other uncharitable names. They offered to accommodate to the extent they could without violating their religious belief. They demonstrated goodwill. The gays/Lesbians did not.

Again tell me why someone that wants “just a cake” can’t just go to a different baker?

 

[casslean]

Not to split hairs here but there are very specific guidelines regarding the term “material participation” in the Catholic Church. That was my point of reference. Your own dispute of my driving to the abortion clinic example makes this point. The wedding would happen without the cake and the abortion would happen without your driving the friend to the clinic. But are you in effect helping the process in some way and in a direct manner. So the person who filled your car with gas to drive the friend to the clinic didn’t participate directly nor did the other poster’s claim about the person providing the flour for the cake. Even attending a gay “wedding” is participating in that instance and we are instructed not to do so. Preparing a custom made cake, decorated to the taste and desires of the couple (actually the bride and her mother in most cases!) setting it up, perhaps helping either serve or providing instructions to serving are far more material than just handing someone a cake across the counter. Have you been involved in any weddings? Seen the way a wedding cake is structured? It’s not without a lot of care and skill and time and that is AFTER all of the decorations are applied. Further the cake IS a very integral part of the celebration. This is not something like who printed the guest book or filled the little bags of rice.

As a matter of fact, my mother worked for years custom designing and baking wedding cakes, and taught me to assist her in that job. So I’ve probably baked, decorated, and constructed more wedding cakes than most people have ever even seen. You have a tendency to make arguments assuming your opposing side is ignorant; it’s a poor strategy.

This is how I know that the level of involvement for the baker varies dramatically from client to client. For some, the cake is incredibly important; for others, it is nothing more than a social obligation. This is also why I acknowledge that there may be a point at which it becomes material participation in the ceremony (particularly if attendance at the wedding or reception is required). But simply being asked to make a custom wedding cake is not, on its face, enough to trigger that for me. It isn’t helping the process (to be fair, by the time they get to the cake, the marriage is a fait accompli).

There is also distinct difference between giving someone a drive to an abortion clinic and providing a wedding cake. You are correct that the abortion MIGHT occur if you don’t drive your friend (assuming they find another person willing to help), but it certainly WILL occur if you do drive them. To the contrary, I can think of no couple who would call off a marriage because they did not have a cake, nor is that reasonable proposition.

Again, I’m asking that you define an objective standard for me. If printing the guest book isn’t material participation, is printing invitations? Or only if they design the invitation? What if the guest book is custom-designed? Filling bags of rice isn’t material participation, but what about hand-making custom favours? What about flowers? Is there a difference between standard table arrangements and custom bouquets? Is the line drawn where you have to actually interact with the couple - because if so, that’s not an acceptable place to draw the line. That’s not treating people with equal dignity.

 

[casslean]

Again tell me why someone that wants “just a cake” can’t just go to a different baker?

Because when we refuse to serve someone without solid, objective reasons for doing so, that is discriminatory. Same-sex couples have a right not to be discriminated against on account of their sexuality. Christians have a right to practice in accordance with their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t give us the right to discriminate. Decisions to treat anyone differently on account of their sexuality must have a bona fide justification.

 

[Bradski]

Ah another atheist claiming he understands the way religious people define “participation.” Since the poster claimed that the baking of a cake for a gay wedding was not "participating " my post explained why, from a religious point of view it WAS participating.

Please don’t be insulting. It’s not a difficult concept (which I already understood) and as you said, you explained your understanding of it earlier. The bone of contention is your application of it.

Further you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the facts of these cases. It was clear that the bakers, photographers, B&B owners etc were deliberately being set up.

Good grief, could you please cut out the derogatory references to my knowledge of the situation. I am FULLY aware of the facts. I think we can all separate the principles behind such situations without having them clouded by the specific intentions of the couple in this case (with which I do not agree).

But as has been said above, your case that a cake is an integral part of the ceremony doesn’t really stand up. If it did, then anything that someone said was integral to the service would be. Including a taxi to the venue - you couldn’t drive someone to an abortion, so why couldn’t someone refuse to take a person to a gay wedding?

And if the baker said it was OK, then what about any help he receives. Including having the flour delivered. What about a supplier refusing to sell flour to an outlet that supplied cakes only for gay weddings. What about the person who delivers it?

As I said. you start drawing arbitrary lines on what you personally think the rules should be and you end up tying yourself in knots.

Not to split hairs here but there are very specific guidelines regarding the term “material participation” in the Catholic Church.

Notwithstanding that, and despite the fact that this is being discussed on a Catholic forum, the debate is a Christian matter and not specifically Catholic. Notwithstanding that a majority of Catholics would not support your view in any case.

 

[JimG]

Because when we refuse to serve someone without solid, objective reasons for doing so, that is discriminatory. Same-sex couples have a right not to be discriminated against on account of their sexuality. Christians have a right to practice in accordance with their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t give us the right to discriminate. Decisions to treat anyone differently on account of their sexuality must have a bona fide justification.

But the baker is not treating them differently because of their sexuality. The baker is refusing to cooperate in a same sex wedding which he considers a gravely immoral act. A baker might also have moral qualms about baking a cake celebrating a polygamist wedding or a pederast wedding. He should not be required to choose between his conscience and his business. That is what the Hobby Lobby case was about.

 

[DrTaffy]

I believe you had stated you were homosexual.

No, you have implied several times that I am gay, as well as other uncomplimentary things about my personal life, and been corrected.

Kindly point out where I have claimed to be homosexual.

Further I do not believe any heterosexual man would be such an apologist for homosexual b-]/-]ehavior and imagined ‘rights.’

Well, that says a lot.

One generally doesn’t get too exorcised unless one’s own ox is being gored.

So anyone who gets ‘exorcised’ about racism must be black or Jewish? No man can be a feminist?

BTW I don’t believe you are a doctor but maybe you’d like to educate me on who is the real “DrTaffy.”

Another uncharitable accusation. But no, I do not want to derail this thread onto detailed rebuttals of your various insults, I would like to stick to the topic.

 

[DrTaffy]

Since the poster claimed that the baking of a cake for a gay wedding was not "participating " my post explained why, from a religious point of view it WAS participating.

Actually, I implied only that it was not taking part in the ceremony itself, which it is not. In the Masterpiece case the ceremony had already taken place in another state.

As I said, I do not know if he was deliberately ignoring what had been said or simply didn’t understand.

But you assume that it must be one or the other.

Further you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the facts of these cases. It was clear that the bakers, photographers, B&B owners etc were deliberately being set up.

In every single case? No way Jose!

But that would not have been correct.

So you are clearly stating that you feel no remorse for calling me homosexual? Again?

 

[DrTaffy]

There was another case in Colorado where the baker truly tried to cooperate offering to provide an undecorated cake and the means to decorate it, set it up, etc. This offer was spurned for the opportunity to sue.

If you are referring to the Masterpiece case, and I can find no other similar Colorado case, then the above is wildly inaccurate. There was no such offer, the baker had a history of refusing same sex couples, and had both refused to provide standard cup cakes to a couple and compared a couple to paedophiles. This is one very clear case where your assertion that all the cases were set ups very clearly fails.

There is a case where a Colorado baker was asked to put an anti gay message on a cake shaped like a Bible, and offered to supply the cake and necessary tools but refused to do the decoration. But that hardly supports your case does it?

I would agree that a baker should be able to refuse to apply a decoration that they find offensive, including one like “support gay marriage”, but not refusing to sell any cake at all.

 

[ChainBreaker]

What about the guy who supplies the flour for the cake. Should he ask if the baker is going to make a cake for a gay wedding? Can he refuse to sell it? And the guy who delivers the flour. Can he refuse the delivery if he knows it will be used to promote homosexuality? Or who services the van. Or the guy who supplies the oil to the guy who services the van which deliver the flour which makes the cake which is maybe for a gay marriage.

opcorn:

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you are referring to the Masterpiece case, and I can find no other similar Colorado case, then the above is wildly inaccurate. There was no such offer, the baker had a history of refusing same sex couples, and had both refused to provide standard cup cakes to a couple and compared a couple to paedophiles. This is one very clear case where your assertion that all the cases were set ups very clearly fails.
.

Just as i feared. When the facts are revealed what we have is not a genuine stand for religious rights, but rather just plain hatred and disgust cleverly disguised as a religious rights.

And this idea that it was all a set up is just desperate.