If Someone Forces You To Bake A Cake For A Gay Wedding, Bake For Them Two

[Gray]

http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

 

 

Takeaway: Jesus taught that if someone compels you to do something you disagree with, you should do even more than you've been compelled to do. 

 

Couple of quotes from the conclusion:

 

Christians, our Jesus said to not only follow the law, but to rise to a higher standard of love. Christians should be the FIRST people baking cakes — for everyone who asks us. We should be known for our cake baking. People should be saying, “There go those crazy Christians again, baking cakes for everyone. They just won’t quit!” Then, when we share the reason for our wild, all-inclusive love, people will want to hear it. “Let your light shine before others,” said Jesus, “that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

 

Christians, when we dig our heels in and insist on our right to discriminate, we are hurting people — we are hurting so many people, so deeply. Behind the ACLU and the liberal media are real people, who have been hurt again and again in the name of Christ. Christians, you and I have hurt them. I know most of us have really good intentions, but we are making Jesus the last thing they want to hear about.

 

If we “snatch one person from the fire” by refusing to condone behavior we believe is immoral, but send hundreds and thousands of others fleeing churches and Christianity entirely, what have we really accomplished? Someone else will make that cake and fewer and fewer people will look to Christianity for love and hope. We will have won a battle that we were never called to fight in the first place, but lost the war.

[bluebell]

It's an interesting way to look at it.

[california boy]

Hear Hear!!!!

 

We need Christians to be more Christ like.  I personally believe that these "christians" who are acting so unChrist like are one of the main reaons young people are leaving religion in droves.  They see through all the hypocricy and want no part of it.  Organized religion is getting a horrible name by these people who lead a campaign of discrimination and break the law the law in the name of Christ.  What a shame.

[Brian 2.0]

Amen!

[UtahTexan]

I like!!!

[rpn]

I don't think advocating for religious liberty to say no to involving one's self in what seems like promotion of something we oppose  is contradictory to going the second mile.   For Jesus the second mile was the choice, over and above the compulsion.   Religious liberty preserves the choice.

[JLHPROF]

My take is this:

Do you REALLY think God will be displeased or consider YOU a sinner for baking a wedding cake for a gay couple?

You and HE still consider their homosexual relations sin and recognize that fact.  

 

But is selling them a cake a sin?  Condoning their sin?  Participating in their sin?

If there is no sin on your part, why should you discriminate?  And if forced to by law, I really think God would be understanding if it was considered condoning.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hear Hear!!!!

 

We need Christians to be more Christ like.  I personally believe that these "christians" who are acting so unChrist like are one of the main reaons young people are leaving religion in droves.  They see through all the hypocricy and want no part of it.  Organized religion is getting a horrible name by these people who lead a campaign of discrimination and break the law the law in the name of Christ.  What a shame.

Is it really Christ like to drum up fake controversy? The media going after conservative owners of business who are just trying to run it according to the dictates of their conscience.

 

 

 

“As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild.”

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/06/gay-woman-who-donated-20-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-reveals-why-she-took-bold-stand/

 

Here is some additional perspective.

 

 

 

 

“My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” she said. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”

 

She sums up the whole fake controversy rather well. She also does it with love in her heart. I applaud her.

 

I also posted this story because she does show a Christ like example.  We all should learn to get along.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

 

 

Takeaway: Jesus taught that if someone compels you to do something you disagree with, you should do even more than you've been compelled to do. 

 

Couple of quotes from the conclusion:

Some one wants to pay for me to have sex with them. What is the take away there? Maybe you can enlighten all of us.

 

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

 

Cherry picking verses is fun but not very useful.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Kenngo1969]

Personally, I might well bake the dang cake and wish the happy couple well.  They're gonna have the ceremony whether I bake them the cake or not, so I might as well accept their business rather than letting someone else have it. Still, I might also have a policy that someone else apply the sentiment, if they wish one to appear ... e.g., "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!" ... although I've never seen such a sentiment used on a wedding cake ... but, if so, I would be up-front about my policy to preclude any, "Eh, wot?  You say this cake's for a gay wedding?  Sorry; no can do. " surprises.

 

All of that having been said, I still support the right of someone else to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding if the would-be baker feels it violates a religious principle, provided the cake baker is consistent in his application of the policy and refuses, carte blanche, to bake a cake for any gay wedding rather than making exceptions.  To those who say, "Agh!  That's the first step back to Jim Crow!  " I say, "Balderdash!"  First of all, there's a vast difference between widespread, systemic, de jure discrimination and isolated, non-systemic, de facto discrimination.  And secondly, I would still allow someone denied such service to sue, but I would require proof by the relevant evidentiary standard that the couple could not reasonably obtain a similar wedding cake elsewhere at a similar price.  I don't think any other mechanism provides adequate protection of personal religious liberty, and I think forcing the cake-baker to violate his conscience does undue violence to his First Amendment free-exercise rights.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Mystery Meat]

If I had a personal issue with baking a cake for a gay wedding instead of fighting it, I would bake them the best darned cake they have ever had with the disclosure that all proceeds from said cake will be donated to the LDS Church, or the GOP, or the NRA, or some pro-life group, or some other group that supports traditional marriage. 

 

But I don't think I would have a problem with it.

[UtahTexan]

If I had a personal issue with baking a cake for a gay wedding instead of fighting it, I would bake them the best darned cake they have ever had with the disclosure that all proceeds from said cake will be donated to the LDS Church, or the GOP, or the NRA, or some pro-life group, or some other group that supports traditional marriage. 

 

But I don't think I would have a problem with it.

 

That was the exact thing I would do

[Daniel2]

Beautifully written article.

Thank you for sharing a refreshing perspective.

[thesometimesaint]

Personally, I might well bake the dang cake and wish the happy couple well.  They're gonna have the ceremony whether I bake them the cake or not, so I might as well accept their business rather than letting someone else have it. Still, I might also have a policy that someone else apply the sentiment, if they wish one to appear ... e.g., "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!" ... although I've never seen such a sentiment used on a wedding cake ... but, if so, I would be up-front about my policy to preclude any, "Eh, wot?  You say this cake's for a gay wedding?  Sorry; no can do. " surprises.

 

All of that having been said, I still support the right of someone else to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding if the would-be baker feels it violates a religious principle, provided the cake baker is consistent in his application of the policy and refuses, carte blanche, to bake a cake for any gay wedding rather than making exceptions.  To those who say, "Agh!  That's the first step back to Jim Crow!  " I say, "Balderdash!"  First of all, there's a vast difference between widespread, systemic, de jure discrimination and isolated, non-systemic, de facto discrimination.  And secondly, I would still allow someone denied such service to sue, but I would require proof by the relevant evidentiary standard that the couple could not reasonably obtain a similar wedding cake elsewhere at a similar price.  I don't think any other mechanism provides adequate protection of personal religious liberty, and I think forcing the cake-baker to violate his conscience does undue violence to his First Amendment free-exercise rights.

 

That's not the question. If you are in the business of baking cakes for the public. You don't get a say in who buys those cakes based on race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. It really is that simple. There is no law requiring you to bake cakes, or putting anything on them you don't want to.

 

If you bake wedding cakes for the public you don't get a say in who buys them. It is not a violation of the First Amendment to require a business to follow the law concerning public accommodations. 

[Gray]

Some one wants to pay for me to have sex with them. What is the take away there? Maybe you can enlighten all of us.

 

 

 

 

Cherry picking verses is fun but not very useful.

 

I fail to see the relevance - sorry!

[Calm]

I fail to see the relevance - sorry!

I think he is asking if out of Christian compassion he should have sex with them twice.

[Mormonmaniac]

http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/

 

 

Takeaway: Jesus taught that if someone compels you to do something you disagree with, you should do even more than you've been compelled to do. 

 

Couple of quotes from the conclusion:

Your logic is all screwed up. What you are proposing is if someone compels you to support their sin then you should doubly give. Lets apply this screwed up logic- If an adulterer comes and asks for your wife to lay with should you also give her your daughter also?

[Mormonmaniac]

Or another- does it apply with robbing a bank? If a man compels thee to help rob a bank should thou rob two?

[Calm]

MM, I don't think the last applies because the counsel Jesus gave was in response to compelling by law, not asking someone for help in breaking it.

 

Which is why Gray probably saw the question about being paid for sex irrelevant.

[Mormonmaniac]

MM, I don't think the last applies because the counsel Jesus gave was in response to compelling by law, not asking someone for help in breaking it.

 

Which is why Gray probably saw the question about being paid for sex irrelevant.

I read Matthew 5:41 and I do not see where it has anything to do with law.

[Mormonmaniac]

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Your logic is all screwed up. What you are proposing is if someone compels you to support their sin then you should doubly give. Lets apply this screwed up logic- If an adulterer comes and asks for your wife to lay with should you also give her your daughter also?

 

I dunno, Lot did 

 

Tis you who has the logic screwed up.  Baking a cake is not being compelled to support anyone’s sin. 

[Nephi Inspired]

Gay cakes are always pink, are they not?

[Kenngo1969]

That's not the question. If you are in the business of baking cakes for the public. You don't get a say in who buys those cakes based on race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. It really is that simple. There is no law requiring you to bake cakes, or putting anything on them you don't want to.

 

If you bake wedding cakes for the public you don't get a say in who buys them. It is not a violation of the First Amendment to require a business to follow the law concerning public accommodations. 

Perhaps your argument would gain more traction if used in the case of someone who won't bake the cake ... period.  I thought I made clear that I am not that person.  Further, essentially, you have made the argument that some constitutional protections are more worthy of advancement than other constitutional protections.  I don't necessarily disagree with you with respect to what the law is; however, whether the status quo adequately protects the constitutional rights of all involved also is an important question.  

 

In fact, it could be argued that Free Exercise rights should be preeminent because they are enshrined in the First Amendment.  That said, I'm not necessarily making that argument.  I think the regime I have proposed adequately protects both the cake baker's Free Exercise rights and the cake buyer's Equal Protection rights. And while we're at it, another reason why I don't think what I have proposed is a step back to Jim Crow is because there's a difference between cake-baking (nice, but not absolutely necessary), on the one hand, and, e.g., running a hotel or a restaurant (much closer to necessary if we are to afford travelers adequate nourishment and protection from the elements).  I stand by my position that  all "discrimination" isn't created equal.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Mormonmaniac]

I dunno, Lot did 

 

Tis you who has the logic screwed up.  Baking a cake is not being compelled to support anyone’s sin.

A gay wedding is a sin. A person shouldnt be compelled into supporting it if they wish not to.