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

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

um, what? can you elaborate?!

[filovirus]

Verdict is in.

http://www.kptv.com/story/29465050/gresham-bakery-ordered-to-pay-135k-for-refusing-same-sex-wedding-cake

Refusing to bake a cake will bring financial ruin. I believe it is some people's agenda to bring people with moral objections to utter destruction.

Edit for spelling.

Edited July 3, 2015 by filovirus

[Avatar4321]

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

No. My cooking/baking usually ends with fire

[Stargazer]

No. My cooking/baking usually ends with fire

 

You must be loads of fun at barbecues, then!

[Meadowchik]

um, what? can you elaborate?!

Yes, I can.

Ha! ;

First, if I believed in vegetarianism, for example, for spiritual reasons, the Church doesn't forbid it...it can be a personal religious belief, one that I've spiritually felt moved and convicted about, which I don't declare as doctrine for anyone except me because it does not violate existing revealed law of God.

Second, it really bothers me if religious freedom laws allow a judge to analyze a church's teachings to decide whether an adherent's religious convictions are authentic. I can be convicted in my heart, mind, and soul about something without the approval of any organisation. Imo this is also one way in which religious freedom/ freedom of conscience applies to the non-religious/athiests/agnostics...it would be unfair to nonbelievers if such protections applied only to those who have a church.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Meadowchik

[rodheadlee]

Verdict is in.

http://www.kptv.com/story/29465050/gresham-bakery-ordered-to-pay-135k-for-refusing-same-sex-wedding-cake

Refusing to bake a cake will bring financial ruin. I believe it is some people's agenda to bring people with moral objections to utter destruction.

Edit for spelling.

Great, They got more than double than my wife for losing the use of her hands. Justice in America prevails!

[Russell C McGregor]

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

Argumentum ad Tonium: if she can't substantiate a false accusation, she blames those who reject it.

Accusers bear the burden of proof.

If you can't support an accusation, it fails.

Live with it. 

 

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

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

Umm, Tonie? You appear to have overlooked the fact that I get to determine what I mean.

Don't you think it's just a little bit arrogant for you to presume to tell me what I mean, as if I don't actually know?

Or, indeed, as if you do?

By "involved" I mean "produce any bespoke item, perform any off-premises service, exercise artistic creativity, personally attend or otherwise do anything non-routine in support of" the event in question.

Bakers have refused to bake a cake.

And offered to sell the customers off-the shelf items already in the shop.

Thus proving that the "discriminating against someone because they are gay" libel is an outright lie.

Outright. Lie.

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

Did they refuse to sell flowers to someone who was going to a "gay" person's funeral? To a "gay" customer for his mother's birthday?

Space for your answer here:

 

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."

"By no rational explanation" means "Tonie rejects it, so there!"

Since you're not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not, your emphatic declarations carry no weight.

And the fact remains that all your vituperation has utterly failed to support the libel, my rejection of which so incensed you.

The very fact that you had to resort to vituperation is additional proof, if it were needed, that you have no evidence to support your accusation.

Which not only remains unsupported; but I cite you as an unwilling, nay, hostile witness of the fact that it cannot be supported.

Thank you so very much for that.

[Russell C McGregor]

Great, They got more than double than my wife for losing the use of her hands. Justice in America prevails!

Your wife lost the use of her hands?

That's dreadful.

[Calm]

Amen to that.

[Russell C McGregor]

First, if I believed in vegetarianism, for example, for spiritual reasons, the Church doesn't forbid it...it can be a personal religious belief, one that I've spiritually felt moved and convicted about, which I don't declare as doctrine for anyone except me because it does not violate existing revealed law of God.

Second, it really bothers me if religious freedom laws allow a judge to analyze a church's teachings to decide whether an adherent's religious convictions are authentic. I can be convicted in my heart, mind, and soul about something without the approval of any organisation. Imo this is also one way in which religious freedom/ freedom of conscience applies to the non-religious/athiests/agnostics...it would be unfair to nonbelievers if such protections applied only to those who have a church.

I agree with you on that.

I believe there may be some relevant case law on that, too. Perhaps one of the resident lawyers can chime in (especially if we offer them a fee!? ) but I think I read about some cases regarding conscientious military objectors who were prosecuted on the grounds that their church (actually ours) didn't forbid military service, and they were able to successfully argue that their private consciences weren't defined by the limits of official doctrine.

[Meadowchik]

I agree with you on that.

I believe there may be some relevant case law on that, too. Perhaps one of the resident lawyers can chime in (especially if we offer them a fee!? ) but I think I read about some cases regarding conscientious military objectors who were prosecuted on the grounds that their church (actually ours) didn't forbid military service, and they were able to successfully argue that their private consciences weren't defined by the limits of official doctrine.

Please nudge!

I'm new here, so I don't know who's who quite yet.

[rpn]

So, summarizing this, as yet there no post arguing that LDS doctrine and policy compels refusal to bake a cake, provide flowers for or photograph a same sex marriage.    One post argues that LDS doctrine and policy compels agreeing to bake the cake on grounds of kindness and loving.    Lots of arguments about personal feelings leading to this or that choice, but not on the thought that whether I want to or not, the faith I espouse means I should refuse because of XY or Z doctrine or policy.

 

Did I miss anyone's position?  (It is hard to tell since there is so much stuff OT, but there are five poll votes saying yes, and two other,  so maybe those people haven't posted?)

Edited July 3, 2015 by rpn

[Ahab]

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.

Very nice addition to the discussion. And I agree. And fortunately my job is essentially being a tax collector payment processor, and tax refund processor, that doesn't involve directly doing something that is a sin.

[ERayR]

I think if I ran a bakery, I might decline to sell or use a same sex couple cake topper.  I might also post my pro man-woman marriage opinion inside my store.   But I cannot see any way to argue that my LDS faith, and its teachings about man-woman marriage requires me to refuse to bake a cake, or sell flowers to someone, or photograph the wedding.

 

Would it matter if  you were not just selling the cake or flowers but also delivering it to the venue? 

 

If anyone else sees it differently, what in LDS doctrine would compel or suggest that refusal was inherent in LDS faith and official position on same sex marriage, and required by it.

 

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

I see nothing that requires me to refuse them.  Now if someone wants to require me to attend the wedding I would probably respectfully decline.  Selling them a cake does not equate to support of their actions. 

[ERayR]

No offense but you need to go to Law School to figure out the question!!! here's a statement I never thought i'd ever in my life use but cakes are non sexual so I don't see how baking one is bad, a wedding is a wedding is a wedding

 

Luke 16:9

 

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness;

 

Besides once it is in the till you can't tell which money is which and if it bothers you donate it to the Salvation Army.

[tonie]

Argumentum ad Tonium: if she can't substantiate a false accusation, she blames those who reject it.

Accusers bear the burden of proof.

If you can't support an accusation, it fails.

Live with it.

Umm, Tonie? You appear to have overlooked the fact that I get to determine what I mean.

Don't you think it's just a little bit arrogant for you to presume to tell me what I mean, as if I don't actually know?

Or, indeed, as if you do?

By "involved" I mean "produce any bespoke item, perform any off-premises service, exercise artistic creativity, personally attend or otherwise do anything non-routine in support of" the event in question.

And offered to sell the customers off-the shelf items already in the shop.

Thus proving that the "discriminating against someone because they are gay" libel is an outright lie.

Outright. Lie.

Did they refuse to sell flowers to someone who was going to a "gay" person's funeral? To a "gay" customer for his mother's birthday?

Space for your answer here:

"By no rational explanation" means "Tonie rejects it, so there!"

Since you're not the arbiter of what is rational and what is not, your emphatic declarations carry no weight.

And the fact remains that all your vituperation has utterly failed to support the libel, my rejection of which so incensed you.

The very fact that you had to resort to vituperation is additional proof, if it were needed, that you have no evidence to support your accusation.

Which not only remains unsupported; but I cite you as an unwilling, nay, hostile witness of the fact that it cannot be supported.

Thank you so very much for that.

Russell/pahoran, I am glad you agree with me that "serve" means "bake a cake" and I am glad you have confirmed that "involve" means "bake a cake"; your own defintion confirms that my assesment of what you meant is correct.

please review the case against the florist who refused to sale twigs/sticks to a gay man who was goong to create his own displays.

Masterpiece bakery, refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Sweetcakes by melissa, refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple.

as for your use of vituperation, thank you for providing a word that so often accurately describes your bitter and abusive postings.

Edited July 3, 2015 by tonie

[Stargazer]

So, summarizing this, as yet there no post arguing that LDS doctrine and policy compels refusal to bake a cake, provide flowers for or photograph a same sex marriage.    One post argues that LDS doctrine and policy compels agreeing to bake the cake on grounds of kindness and loving.    Lots of arguments about personal feelings leading to this or that choice, but not on the thought that whether I want to or not, the faith I espouse means I should refuse because of XY or Z doctrine or policy.

 

Did I miss anyone's position?  (It is hard to tell since there is so much stuff OT, but there are five poll votes saying yes, and two other,  so maybe those people haven't posted?)

 

Well, I voted NO, but at the same time I don't feel that an individual cannot legitimately refuse to bake a cake because his or her own interpretation of gospel doctrine compels him or her to refuse to do so.  That's an individual decision, and I don't believe it can be rightfully judged by the State.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

Drink what?  I will ask for a nice cold glass of chocolate milk. 

[rpn]

 

... I don't feel that an individual cannot legitimately refuse to bake a cake because his or her own interpretation of gospel doctrine compels him or her to refuse to do so.  That's an individual decision, and I don't believe it can be rightfully judged by the State.

I don't disagree with the theoretical view that someone might see LDS doctrine or policy as compelling refusal.   But I note that so far no one here has invoked such a view, nor described their reasoning for having that viewpoint.   

[Stargazer]

I don't disagree with the theoretical view that someone might see LDS doctrine or policy as compelling refusal.   But I note that so far no one here has invoked such a view, nor described their reasoning for having that viewpoint.   

 

Of course not. 

 

If I remember when the time comes, I think I will ask my HPG class your question.  I wonder what they will say?

[strappinglad]

I didn't vote, as a protest . The poll did not provide the required answer which all recent polls have also ignored. There must be some kind of passive / aggressive tactics going on.

 

  I guess I'm just

[Rain]

 

 

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

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?

These are 2 separate questions.  My answer is yes to the first one and no to the second.  That doesn't mean that a believing LDS should refuse.  It just means that there are circumstances in which it would be right for them to do so.

[Kenngo1969]

Of course not. 

 

If I remember when the time comes, I think I will ask my HPG class your question.  I wonder what they will say?

You guys go off on all kinds of interesting tangents in High Priests Group.  Too bad I'm "Only An Elder."  

 

 

Then again: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/06/only-an-elder?lang=eng

Edited July 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Jeanne]

It is a cake.  A cake that would make everyone happy..  It doesn't mean that YOU are getting married to someone of the same sex, but it will make a couple happy.  Who in the heck doesn't want to make someone happy????  They are children of God who just want a cake.  What sacrifice is it to do this?  What proof of faith does this provide if you make someone unhappy.  It is paid for..it may be a job requirement..and doesn't hurt any one at all.  For me , working in a bakery, I live for the moments when customers smile and say a big "thank you".  What's more...it is none of our business who the couple is.  None at all. 

[Calm]

 

Who in the heck doesn't want to make someone happy????....What sacrifice is it to do this?....and doesn't hurt any one at all

 

So if it makes someone happy that gay couples not get marry, would you suggest that happening?  Probably not.

 

What is a sacrifice depends on the person.  And what hurts depends on the person as well.  For some posters it would be a sacrifice to give up posting on the board, for others it would be a blessing.  For some people it would be a sacrifice, even a life threatening one, to skip a couple of meals, others wouldn't be phased by it at all.  For some people, calling them horrible names would be laughed off as meaningless, others might be so crushed they emotionally shut down (most are probably in the middle, they can endure it but don't like when it happens).

 

I would have thought part of tolerance was allowing people to determine what something means to them personally and not impose on them our own standards.