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

[ERayR]

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.

 

Me probably not but what I would do is irrelevant.  In the good old USA we are supposed to have freedom of expression but in some circles this seems to extend to all but Christians.  It is my understanding that Christians are still supposed to be able to be as rude as any other group.

[strappinglad]

It is my understanding that Christians are still supposed to be able to be as rude as any other group.

Christians are self professed ' cheek turners ' . We are tested on that regularly. We are told not to judge , but to forgive all insults. Otherwise , we are not good Christians.

The Jews had similar traditions. When that proved to have its drawbacks they formed the Jewish Defense League. Other religions also turn the other cheek, but only to look for a good sharp stick.

[Jacob]

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.)

 

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.

I agree with much of your statement here. The part that I run into issue with is the use of the term force, and similar language. My take on the question at hand has nothing to do with force, only with a request. A good natured request and a manipulative or forceful request are differing things and the response should be mediated by such. Responding in the same way to both types of request would lack intelligence.

[Jacob]

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?

I don't believe that the question at hand is about whether a principled refusal is discrimination or not. The question at hand is whether or not the refusal is truly "principled". I don't believe it is. I believe a refusal in this case is motivated more by a personal objection and not a threat to that person's principles.

[Jacob]

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.

It seems that you are making the question more complex as a means of finding justification for the refusal. The customer comes in a requests a wedding cake baked for Bob and Tom. What is the moral objection to the request? Is baking the cake a statement of support for a gay marriage? Where does the support end as far as interaction? Is being friends with Bob or Tom supporting their marriage? Is visiting their home supporting gay marriage? Should the bakery that would refuse to bake such a cake have a sign up stating that they will not bake for gay marriage?

 

The Church in another thread donated money to the Pride center in SLC Utah to aid with the homeless teens that are a part of the LGBT community. It seems to me that the Church just baked a cake (not a wedding cake, but still a cake) for a number of LGBT and did not feel that it compromised its principles in doing so.

[Jacob]

Noticed some errors in my responses, sorry. They don't impact what I meant to say, they are just ugly. Maybe it's because I'm new, but I don't see a means of editing them.

[rodheadlee]

Noticed some errors in my responses, sorry. They don't impact what I meant to say, they are just ugly. Maybe it's because I'm new, but I don't see a means of editing them.

25 posts then you can edit and start threads.

[DBMormon]

I think a 100 years from now 99% of the population will look back at LDS who refused to do such things as baking a cake as bigoted and prejudiced and with sadness.

[Jacob]

Thank you

[Kadahow]

My wife makes cakes for those who ask.  Her opinion is that she would not make one based on the life style, as she would not bake an obscene cake as well.  After the church's letter I don't think we are compelled to not bake the cake, take the pictures, or not even go to the wedding.  I think it will be a matter of conscience for each individual.
 

[Meadowchik]

The title and the actual question are two different things.

 

The right to refuse for religious reasons/reasons of conscience shouold not depend on what an organisation says, only what the person believes.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I think a 100 years from now 99% of the population will look back at LDS who refused to do such things as baking a cake as bigoted and prejudiced and with sadness.

 

I wonder how many LDS employers will not hire a man just for being in a SSM. 

 

 

 

I think if I ran a bakery, I might decline to sell or use a same sex couple cake topper

 

Are you in favor of Employment discrimination?

[ERayR]

Christians are self professed ' cheek turners ' . We are tested on that regularly. We are told not to judge , but to forgive all insults. Otherwise , we are not good Christians.

The Jews had similar traditions. When that proved to have its drawbacks they formed the Jewish Defense League. Other religions also turn the other cheek, but only to look for a good sharp stick.

 

One correction.  We are not told not to judge but rather how we should judge because how we judge is how we will be judged.

[ERayR]

I don't believe that the question at hand is about whether a principled refusal is discrimination or not. The question at hand is whether or not the refusal is truly "principled". I don't believe it is. I believe a refusal in this case is motivated more by a personal objection and not a threat to that person's principles.

 

Ones personal objection, would that be based on  ones principles or just arbitrarily selected out of thin air?

[ERayR]

I think a 100 years from now 99% of the population will look back at LDS who refused to do such things as baking a cake as bigoted and prejudiced and with sadness.

 

I certainly hope not.

 

Old adage:  Statistics don't lie but . . .  

[ERayR]

Are you in favor of Employment discrimination?

 

Yes I am.  I certainly wouldn't hire a convicted thief to run my cash registers or work in a bank.

[Jacob]

Ones personal objection, would that be based on  ones principles or just arbitrarily selected out of thin air?

I would say that a personal objection is a choice that does not have an impact either way on the principle. The principle here would be the LDS belief that homosexuality is a sin. The choice to discriminate against a SSM and not bake the cake does not contradict the principle. Now, if baking the cake is supporting the sin, then the principle would be supporting sin is wrong. If this is the principle, then does it only apply in instances of homosexuality or does it apply to other sins as well? If it does not, is it really a principle that the person lives by? I believe that the case is most likely not a principle unless the principle is to discriminate against individuals who are homosexual, which doesn't fall in line with LDS belief according to my understanding.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Old adage:  Statistics don't lie but . . .  

 

Christians are self professed ' cheek turners ' . We are tested on that regularly. We are told not to judge , but to forgive all insults. Otherwise , we are not good Christians.

 

but the sad reality is that my fellow Christians are not going a good job. The most peaceful nations in the world are not religious. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45fglkm/peaceable-kingdoms/

 

Just look at the murder rate of Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Rep, Finland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

 

The Global Peace Index indicated Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland and Finland to be the most peaceful countries. 

 

Netherlands is among the most peaceful nations, Netherlands was also the first country to legalize same sex marriage. 

 

 

 

I think a 100 years from now 99% of the population will look back at LDS who refused to do such things as baking a cake as bigoted and prejudiced and with sadness.

 

and I think a 100 years from now 99% of the population will be furious about something else

 

 

Yes I am.  I certainly wouldn't hire a convicted thief to run my cash registers or work in a bank.

 

Why are you comparing SSM couples to criminals? 

[ERayR]

I would say that a personal objection is a choice that does not have an impact either way on the principle.

 

Aw yes but the principle can and usually does impact the personal objection.  The personal objection may or may not apply the principle in an arbitrary manner.

[ERayR]

but the sad reality is that my fellow Christians are not going a good job. The most peaceful nations in the world are not religious. 

 

 

Matthew 10:34New International Version (NIV)

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

 

Luke 12:51New International Version (NIV)

⁵¹ Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

Matthew 10:34New International Version (NIV)

³⁴ “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

 

Luke 12:51New International Version (NIV)

⁵¹ Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

 

 

You are giving ammo to the Atheists and anti-religion people. 

[ERayR]

but the sad reality is that my fellow Christians are not going a good job. The most peaceful nations in the world are not religious. 

 

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45fglkm/peaceable-kingdoms/

 

Just look at the murder rate of Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Czech Rep, Finland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

 

The Global Peace Index indicated Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland and Finland to be the most peaceful countries. 

 

Netherlands is among the most peaceful nations, Netherlands was also the first country to legalize same sex marriage. 

 

 

 

 

and I think a 100 years from now 99% of the population will be furious about something else

 

 

 

Why are you comparing SSM couples to criminals? 

 

Why are you not reading the comprehension.  The question had nothing to do with SSM.  The question was "Are you in favor of Employment discrimination?".  See your own post # 112.

 

Nice try but a lacking a bit in honesty.

[ERayR]

You are giving ammo to the Atheists and anti-religion people. 

 

 

It says what it says. 

 

Just giving you a chance to go back and study and perhaps get a bit of understanding of what it is really all about.

[Jacob]

Aw yes but the principle can and usually does impact the personal objection.  The personal objection may or may not apply the principle in an arbitrary manner.

True, the question then is, what is the principle that the individual is basing the choice on? The argument is as to whether or not the principle should be applied to the choice in the manner, and this would be the center of the debate. Without an understanding of the core principle being applied to the choice, it is only arbitrary and persuasion is probably not in the realm of possibility.

[ERayR]

True, the question then is, what is the principle that the individual is basing the choice on? The argument is as to whether or not the principle should be applied to the choice in the manner, and this would be the center of the debate. Without an understanding of the core principle being applied to the choice, it is only arbitrary and persuasion is probably not in the realm of possibility.

 

But the real stickler is deciding who gets to define what is arbitrary and what isn't.