Can A Believing Lds Legitimately Refuse To Bake A Cake For A Sg Marriage?

[Jeanne]

The title of the thread and the question in the poll are two different questions in my opinion.  

 

I do not believe that LDS doctrine compels people to refuse to bake a cake, but i do believe that LDS members can legitimately refuse to bake a cake depending on their personal beliefs about the action.

What if refusing to bake a cake can cost you a job? 

[Calm]

TSC,

 

Nothing in your quotes refers to alcohol usage as sinful.

 

I am not saying that breaking covenant behaviours are the only sins.

 

I would consider alcohol abuse as sinful if the person was aware of the damage it could cause.

Edited July 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

What if refusing to bake a cake can cost you a job?

a job = something somebody else wants you to do, usually for a certain amount of money

So what if it is something you shouldn't do in the first place, like when it is in support of something sinful?

[Russell C McGregor]

The topic heading is: "Can A Believing Lds Legitimately Refuse To Bake A Cake For A Sg Marriage?"

The answer is yes.

But the poll question is: "Does believing LDS doctrine about ssm compel refusal to bake a cake or photograph a ss marriage or anything short of refusing to perform one?"

The answer is no.

The answers don't contradict each other; the questions do.

[Duncan]

What about members who are cops, lawyers, judges, doctors (who have to see other married people's nudidity) Jobs come with all kinds of weird ethical problems and situations

[Ahab]

The topic heading is: "Can A Believing Lds Legitimately Refuse To Bake A Cake For A Sg Marriage?"

The answer is yes.

But the poll question is: "Does believing LDS doctrine about ssm compel refusal to bake a cake or photograph a ss marriage or anything short of refusing to perform one?"

The answer is no.

The answers don't contradict each other; the questions do.

Yet if we're we to change the Can and Does in each question to Should the answers to both questions would be yes regardless of other legitimatly possible answers.

[tonie]

TSC,

Nothing in your quotes refers to alcohol usage as sinful.

I am not saying that breaking covenant behaviours are the only sins.

I would consider alcohol abuse as sinful if the person was aware of the damage it could cause.

mormonnewsroom.org

"For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. ... The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law,..."

Is acting contrary to Gods law, sinning?

Edited July 2, 2015 by tonie

[Calm]

Did Jesus not partake of wine?

Good quote for the claim though...

I would be interested to hear a response from the leadership to my question as well as does not Christ state he will drink again with the Saints when he comes again?

As well as the commandment to use it for the Sacrament.

Edited July 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

... The hurt feelings and animosity that I see in this and other non-member relationships are due to members of the Church treating people outside the Church negatively. If members want to increase the effectiveness of spreading the Gospel, they need to be, and even just come across as, more loving and less judgmental of those who do not believe as they do. 

Well, I can't argue with what you see or perceive, but sometimes, attempting to do as you suggest ends up seeming like the rough equivalent of trying to hug a porcupine.  (Hint: It isn't (always) members of the Church of Jesus Christ who have their quills out.)

 

Refusing to bake a cake is not a good way to display the behavior and character of the Church imo.

 

Insisting that a baker better bake me just the cake I want, even if he feels doing so would go against his religious convictions, is in equally poor form.  With all due deference to anyone who may suffer genuine hurt and genuine harm upon being met with such a refusal, I hope you'll forgive those of us who are more than just a little bit skeptical that the insistence that this (religiously devout) baker do the baking is nothing more than a publicity stunt meant to garner sympathy, and the resulting claim that genuine hurt or harm resulted seems more than a bit contrived.

 

Now, having said that, I'm devout LDS.  If I were in such a business, would I bake a cake or provide another service for a gay wedding? I don't see why not.  Nothing in my religious tradition demands that I force people to accept my paradigm, I'm too practical to lose business in such a case, and, as you said, a refusal would only engender needless bad will.   I might draw a line at decorating the cake with gay-themed items because that, in my opinion, comes closer to a line I don't feel comfortable crossing, but if they're willing to decorate their own cake if they want to use such items, why not?

 

That said, I understand the objections of the religiously devout (be they Mormon or of whatever other stripe) who feel that being forced to provide such service would go against their deeply held religious beliefs.  Here's how I would "split the baby": I would still allow gay couples refused such service to sue, but I would require them to show that reasonable efforts to obtain comparable, comparably-priced services were unavailing, and I would limit recovery to the difference between what the refusing baker would have charged them and what the accepting baker actually did charge them (along with related expenses such as travel).

 

The respect you advocate is admirable, and I support such efforts: but it's a two-way street.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Avatar4321]

I couldn't in good conscience bake a cake for a gay wedding. Or anyone's wedding for that matter. I have no desire to ruin anyone's day with an ugly, bad tasting (possibly on fire) cake.

[3DOP]

Would you give up on a job at the postal service because the postal service delivers pornography?

Would you refuse to repair the elevator at an abortion clinic and lose your job over it?

What about that good job working for a food service company? Must you refuse because they deliver to the strip club?

Bravo to those who have lost money because they have decided to never cooperate with any sin in their employment, or in their business venture. But I wonder where they will work that is not in any way tainted.

I believe that when our "cooperation" with sin is unintentional we are permitted to maintain our livelihoods.

What about that mutual fund that supports something you think is wrong? Again, I hold that we are permitted remote cooperation with businesses we could not in good conscience own.

[strappinglad]

Let's get specific. A man comes to a baker and requests a cake with a sketch on it of a white hooded fellow standing beside a black man hanging from a tree. Can the baker refuse to make the cake? I say yes. Will he likely be sued for discrimination? I think not.

A lady comes to a baker and requests a cake with a sketch of a woman about to stab a male who is about to hit her with a club. Can the baker refuse the request ? Yes. Will he likely be sued for discrimination against females? Unlikely.

A gay couple request that a baker make a cake with sketch of a male couple in a compromising position. Can the baker be sued for refusing the cake request? Well now here the water gets murky. Will he possibly get sued for discrimination against homosexuals? In today's environment there is a high degree of probability. Is the suit likely to succeed? One would hope not, but the costs might just break the bank.

To the lawyers on the board, what value does a sign in a business saying " the establishment reserves the right to refuse service " have ? I'm guessing less that none.

[Kenngo1969]

3DOP,

 

There are reasons why, if what I've heard is true, there are more than a few Mormon dealers (and other gaming professionals) in Vega$, notwithstanding the opposition of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to gambling.  (There didn't used to be very much else to do in Vega$ besides gamble, according to some of those who know about such things: times have changed.)

[Russell C McGregor]

Also, is it just to deny a SSM the cake? It seems that another implication is whether you are punishing them for their "sin", isn't it God's purview to judge them and mete the punishment accordingly? If they are punished by members here, are members robbing God of His right to punish His child? As a father I have issue when one of my children decides to take it upon themselves to punish another child for something they have done wrong because doing something is not their right.

Here we go again.

I'm aware that there exists a group of people who are, shall we say, "ethically challenged," in much the same way as a totally blind person may be described as "visually challenged," and who have tried to misrepresent a principled refusal to be involved in a same sex "wedding" as "discriminating against someone because they are gay."

This misrepresentation is conscious, intentional, calculated, and manipulative.

I have not heard of even one single authentic case where a business owner has made a blanket refusal to serve "gay" customers.

I have only heard of business owners trying to refuse to be involved in a same sex "wedding."

And, subsequently, being sued into financial oblivion.

How dare they expect their principles to be more important than a homosexual's demands? Who do they think they are?

[Thinking]

I think the reason that wedding professionals (who oppose ssm) struggle with how to deal with requests from same-gender couples is the personal nature of their service.

[tonie]

Here we go again.

I'm aware that there exists a group of people who are, shall we say, "ethically challenged," in much the same way as a totally blind person may be described as "visually challenged," and who have tried to misrepresent a principled refusal to be involved in a same sex "wedding" as "discriminating against someone because they are gay."

This misrepresentation is conscious, intentional, calculated, and manipulative.

I have not heard of even one single authentic case where a business owner has made a blanket refusal to serve "gay" customers.

I have only heard of business owners trying to refuse to be involved in a same sex "wedding."

And, subsequently, being sued into financial oblivion.

How dare they expect their principles to be more important than a homosexual's demands? Who do they think they are?

 

Arguementium Ad Mcgregorium, If Russell McGregor hasn't heard of it, the claim asserted is not true.

 

 

And by "serve" you mean "bake a cake"

And by "involved" you mean "bake a cake".

 

Bakers have refused to bake a cake.    

Florist have refused to sell flowers to a man who was going to make his own displays for his same sex wedding.

 

By no rational explanation can "baking a cake" be considered "to be involved in a same sex "wedding."

By no rational explanation can selling flowers be considered "to be involved in a same sex "wedding."

[tonie]

Let's get specific. A man comes to a baker and requests a cake with a sketch on it of a white hooded fellow standing beside a black man hanging from a tree. Can the baker refuse to make the cake? I say yes. Will he likely be sued for discrimination? I think not.

A lady comes to a baker and requests a cake with a sketch of a woman about to stab a male who is about to hit her with a club. Can the baker refuse the request ? Yes. Will he likely be sued for discrimination against females? Unlikely.

A gay couple request that a baker make a cake with sketch of a male couple in a compromising position. Can the baker be sued for refusing the cake request? Well now here the water gets murky. Will he possibly get sued for discrimination against homosexuals? In today's environment there is a high degree of probability. Is the suit likely to succeed? One would hope not, but the costs might just break the bank.

To the lawyers on the board, what value does a sign in a business saying " the establishment reserves the right to refuse service " have ? I'm guessing less that none.

 

 

The value of the sign is great.

 

It means "I, proprietor of this establishment can refuse service to anyone I please, within the bounds of the law"

 

What the law does not permit " the establishment reserves the right to refuse service, to Jews, Muslims, Baptists, Asians, Blacks"

 

 

As for baking a cake (service) v drawing/message (speech). I believe refusing a service is punisable at law.  There is sufficient case law supporting the notion that Government can not compel speech - i.e. punish a baker for not drawing/writing a particular message.

[Stargazer]

The fact that the Church will not sanction (as in perform, nor recognize) a same-sex marriage does not compel me to refuse to bake a cake for such an event.  So I voted NO.

 

Not being a baker offering my services to the public, I am somewhat ambivalent about this.  But I don't believe it is right to legally prosecute those, like Alan, who would refuse to bake such a cake.

[Stargazer]

I wouldn't bake a SSM celebration cake.

Neither would I bake a cake in support of Charlie Hebdo's ridicule of Mohammed. 

Nor a cake promoting white supremacy; or a cake with a Swastika on it for an anti-Semetic political rally munch and mingle.

 

But that wasn't the question.  The question is do you believe church doctrine compels you to refuse to bake such a cake, regardless of your personal feelings about baking one.

[Stargazer]

Or would you bake a cake for a party where the company ordering it, and having their name/logo on it, was an alcohol producing organization?

 

My first job after returning from my mission had me unloading an entire boxcar full of Jack Daniels hooch, among other fine lickers.  I certainly found that ironic.

[Stargazer]

alcohol producing organization? you mean like Miller Lite? if they or Molson Canadian wants a cake I doubt they'd go a small time baker, they'd go to a costco or that guy in New Jersey, Alfie or Pal or Stumpie or whatever his name is

 

You're dodging the question, Duncan.  Assume you are the biggest cake-baker in town and answer it!

[Stargazer]

I couldn't in good conscience bake a cake for a gay wedding. Or anyone's wedding for that matter. I have no desire to ruin anyone's day with an ugly, bad tasting (possibly on fire) cake.

 

So, you have an overpowering urge to add habanero peppers to all your cakes?

[Duncan]

You're dodging the question, Duncan.  Assume you are the biggest cake-baker in town and answer it!

 

well!!!! if I was the proprietor of " For Goodness Cakes" i'd sell gay wedding cakes but I wouldn't sell adult cakes and would put a sign up

[Calm]

Maybe I am prejudiced, but I sure hope there would be no occasion for you to bake wedding cakes for nonadults even though you are willing to.

Edited July 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[Meadowchik]

The Church does not prohibit personal religious beliefs more specific than its own and religious conscience protections should not be limited to the dictates of organised religion.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Meadowchik