Refusing To Make The Cake

[Fether]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/17/christian-florist-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-arrangements-to-take-case-to-u-s-supreme-court/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557098/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-third-round-of-gay-discrimination-case-but-attorneys-vow-fight-isnt.html

Ever since I heard of this, I felt very uneasy. I feel like if I were approached by a gay couple and asked to provide flowers, make a cake, photograph (maybe not photograph...), or attend a gay wedding, I gladly would. In fact I would likely engage in conversation with said personal and try to become his friend.

I fully understand a doctor refusing abortion, because the very act is immoral. But what about a refusal providing basic amenities such as cake, flowers, photography, etc.? It seems like it is just driving another social wedge between ideologies that do not need more contention? Should landlords not allowing homosexuals to live in their rentals? Should an LDS restaurant owner refuse gays looking for a place for a date? Should jewlers refuse to sell wedding rings?

has the church made any statements? I feel like soon after gay marriage was legalized nation wide, the church began support equality between gays and straights as far as public amenities go... but I couldn't find what I was looking for

Thoughts?  

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Fether

[Backroads]

I have mixed feelings on the matter. The libertarian in me says the business between the producer and consumer is of no concern to anyone else and that the free market will do what it will. But I also see your other point. Ideally, social goodwill would have virtually all people happily providing their services to virtually all people.

 

 

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I have mixed feelings on the matter. The libertarian in me says the business between the producer and consumer is of no concern to anyone else and that the free market will do what it will. But I also see your other point. Ideally, social goodwill would have virtually all people happily providing their services to virtually all people.

 

 

There are a lot of ways to view the question.

Moral view

Political view

societle view

religious (particularly LDS) view

I also wonder what our reaction would be if other sects if people were refusing services to Mormons... I can't say till I'm Faced with it, but if someone refuses out of discomfort, I would say that is fine. But refusal b cause you want to make a stand or out of anger just seems immoral to me.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Fether

[Sunday21]

I lived in cities that were very spread out with bad public transportation systems and no car. I have had to go to various government offices to register my car, pay license fees and to renew my health card. It has been really tough when one office does one thing and another office does another. I wonder about a future where you can't buy birth control in one drugstore because the manager doesn't believe in birth control so you have to catch a bus downtown to buy birth control somewhere else. 

Or you can't buy insect repellant because the manager is a Hindu. 

[Traveler]

39 minutes ago, Fether said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/17/christian-florist-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-arrangements-to-take-case-to-u-s-supreme-court/

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557098/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-third-round-of-gay-discrimination-case-but-attorneys-vow-fight-isnt.html

Ever since I heard of this, I felt very uneasy. I feel like if I were approached by a gay couple and asked to provide flowers, make a cake, photograph (maybe not photograph...), or attend a gay wedding, I gladly would. In fact I would likely engage in conversation with said personal and try to become his friend.

I fully understand a doctor refusing abortion, because the very act is immoral. But what about a refusal providing basic amenities such as cake, flowers, photography, etc.? It seems like it is just driving another social wedge between ideologies that do not need more contention? Should landlords not allowing homosexuals to live in their rentals? Should an LDS restaurant owner refuse gays looking for a place for a date? Should jewlers refuse to sell wedding rings?

has the church made any statements? I feel like soon after gay marriage was legalized nation wide, the church began support equality between gays and straights as far as public amenities go... but I couldn't find what I was looking for

Thoughts?  

 

I believe we should gladly provide services.  I believe the whole matter is based in fraud and a bigoted act of hate intended to put someone out of business – not to buy a wedding cake.  I do not believe for one minute that gay couples really want to do business with someone that does not believe in gay marriage and according to the right of free speech has every right to speak they mind in public.

This is not about what appears at the surface and I think that their dishonest bluff should be called.  I do not believe that gays are playing with a winning hand.

 

The Traveler

[Sunday21]

When the church talks about religious freedoms, I think they are trying to protect the right of BYU  to have an honour code.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Sunday21

[Guest MormonGator]

It's such a complex situation. 

In the real world, you can't pick and choose your customers and sometimes you have to deal with people whose morals you don't agree with. Personally, I don't think anyone should be forced to provide services to someone. I know many tattoo artists who won't tattoo on the face/hands/feet and won't tattoo images they find personally objectionable. 

But in reality, just save yourself a TON of headaches and bake the cake. You'll feel proud of yourself for standing up for your morals-but pride can't feed your family. You'll lose a lot of money on legal fees and customers leaving because they don't want a "bigot" to make cookies and cake for them. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by MormonGator

[mordorbund]

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's such a complex situation. 

In the real world, you can't pick and choose your customers and sometimes you have to deal with people whose morals you don't agree with. Personally, I don't think anyone should be forced to provide services to someone. I know many tattoo artists who won't tattoo on the face/hands/feet and won't tattoo images they find personally objectionable. 

But in reality, just save yourself a TON of headaches and bake the cake. You'll feel proud of yourself for standing up for your morals-but pride can't feed your family. You'll lose a lot of money on legal fees and customers leaving because they don't want a "bigot" to make cookies and cake for them. 

I think I see what you're saying, but if you own the business you can make all kinds of rules. Sure it may be considered business stupid to close on Sunday, but it's a call Chik-fil-A continues to make (just like you're tattoo artist friends decline business so they can look in the mirror).

By the way, this was about more than baking a cake. Wedding cakes are considered artistic endeavors, so it also can be cast as a freedom of speech issue as well as a freedom of religion issue.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I think I see what you're saying, but if you own the business you can make all kinds of rules. Sure it may be considered business stupid to close on Sunday, but it's a call Chik-fil-A continues to make (just like you're tattoo artist friends decline business so they can look in the mirror).

Like I said, a business owner no question, 100% should have the right to refuse service to anyone they please. However, as anyone who has ever had a job before will tell you, you will not like or agree with all of your customers and keeping your mouth shut and taking their money is usually (key word, usually) the best thing to do. Even when it's not the best thing, sometimes it's the most pragmatic thing. 

8 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

By the way, this was about more than baking a cake

By the way, yup we agree. It's about religious freedom. 

8 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

 Wedding cakes are considered artistic endeavors, so it also can be cast as a freedom of speech issue 

I think it's more about religious freedom and freedom of association than freedom of speech, but I'm not a lawyer. We can a useless debate about if a wedding cake is art or not (I certainly think it is) but it's obviously a business. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by MormonGator

[mordorbund]

And for what it's worth, in Colorado (the origin of the case in question) it's perfectly acceptable for a cake decorator to refuse business based on his or her conscience (see here) except when your conscience is socially wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

If I was a wedding cake maker I probably wouldnt bake any cake for a gay wedding. Same thing for wedding photography- I wouldnt do photo shoots for gay couples either. We have rights too as private business owners and that should be a protection of our religious liberty. 

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I also wonder what our reaction would be if other sects if people were refusing services to Mormons... I can't say till I'm Faced with it

I can tell you what I would do because I was faced with it. As a missionary in California, I walked into a barber shop to get a haircut. The proprietor says, "Ah.... Mormons?" I tell him yes we are. "Can you read?" and he points us to a sign on the wall.

Quote

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

He then reads each word to us. And repeats "anyone... anyone... You can read?" I nod my head and turn around to leave.

Then he laughs and waves us back in. He was just having a joke. He got my business and it wasn't a big deal, just like it wasn't a big deal if I had to drive elsewhere for a haircut.

[mordorbund]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's more about religious freedom and freedom of association than freedom of speech, but I'm not a lawyer. We can a useless debate about if a wedding cake is art or not (I certainly think it is) but it's obviously a business. 

For those following along, the cake petition specifically frames it as a religious freedom and free speech issue.

Quote

The question presented is:

Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Housing, access to medicine, the courts, food, utilities, government services, goods provided by monopolies or only a few providers - stuff like this should be discrimination-proof.  It doesn't matter if you're gay, Chinese, black, a paroled child molester, a Nazi party leader - landlords shouldn't be able to refuse to rent to you, hospitals can't deny service, the utility company can't turn off your water.

If you make something that's widely available, you should be able to choose who you sell and don't sell to.  A wedding cake isn't a 'food', it's a 'service', and even 'art' if you're good enough at it.

If you go talk to folks who have been in a creative industry for a while - professional dance, cake decorating, photography, catering, etc - these people all have stories of "that time someone actually asked them to..."  Strip nude, make porno, photograph an occult rabbit mutilation, serve food to the KKK, etc.  Everyone has a story.  Everyone came to a time in their life where they considered where the line must be drawn.  Some chose to draw the line at "can they afford me?  I'll do anything.".  Some draw the line according to some sort of moral or ethical sense.  All of these folks have said "no" to something.

To have the government rob these folks of the right to choose their own line, the right to decline to enter into a voluntary business transaction - well, that ain't right. 

Ok Gorsuch - so many of us are stomaching Trump because of you - don't let us down.

Edited July 1, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO the fine line between "public commerce" and religious liberty hits right at the wedding scenario. Yes, baking cakes and providing flowers are commerce. However, weddings are a sacrament in most religious traditions. Most of these bakers/florists/photographers would not hesitate to serve LGBT customers in general. Their resistance is to servicing a sacrament they find contrary to their faith traditions. Ironically, there have been many stories of Democrat businesses refusing to serve Republicans. The consensus is that this is their right, since it's ideology. On the other hand, sincere Christians may not refuse service because LGBT folk are considered a protected group, and so doing so is perceived as bigotry. The secular fundamentalists, and their liberal religious allies have done a fine job of framing this as hate.  And it is--but not on the part of the Believers.

[fatima]

6 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

IMHO the fine line between "public commerce" and religious liberty hits right at the wedding scenario. Yes, baking cakes and providing flowers are commerce. However, weddings are a sacrament in most religious traditions. Most of these bakers/florists/photographers would not hesitate to serve LGBT customers in general. Their resistance is to servicing a sacrament they find contrary to their faith traditions. Ironically, there have been many stories of Democrat businesses refusing to serve Republicans. The consensus is that this is their right, since it's ideology. On the other hand, sincere Christians may not refuse service because LGBT folk are considered a protected group, and so doing so is perceived as bigotry. The secular fundamentalists, and their liberal religious allies have done a fine job of framing this as hate.  And it is--but not on the part of the Believers.

I own a business that participates in weddings, and while I haven't yet been approached to provide service to a gay 'wedding', one thought occurred to me that might help me avoid a legal battle if religious freedom is my reasoning...

As a person who has a 'sincerely held religious belief' that gay marriage is wrong/a sin/whatever, I also believe that no matter what the state calls it, in the eyes of God, no marriage actually exists.  God does not suddenly accept these two people as 'married' because the U.S. gov't accepted it.  

If I want to make a political/cultural statement about gay marriage, I would save it for somewhere else.

[prisonchaplain]

@fatima If that approach works for you, then fine. However, you used the language of RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act). Those with sincerely held religious beliefs should not be have those beliefs and practices restricted unless there is a compelling government interest. In this case the interest is primarily to humiliate and subjugate faith communities before the altar of gender and sexual orientation identity politics. So, if now is not the time to make that "political" statement--yes about marriage, but also about religious liberty--then when is?  If this is not the place, then where is?  If we are not the people, then who will take that stand?

Edited July 1, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Jedi_Nephite]

I'm not sure why some seem to think this is a complicated issue.  It's not.

If someone is asking me to provide a service that contradicts my personal beliefs, I have every right, and, I daresay, obligation, to refuse that service.  While the refusal would not be meant to offend anyone personally, the fact is that I should not provide a service that helps promote and celebrate a perverted lifestyle, as well as openly mocks the sacredness of marriage.

I find it very strange how so many people, including some members of the church, will take a firm stand against issues that conflict with basic Christian values, yet, for some inexplicable reason are soft on the gay issue.

What if someone was asked to bake a pro-abortion cake?  or An anti-Semitic cake? or what if a few members of a fraternity asked you to make a cake for a friend of theirs that lost their virginity?  Would that still be okay?  Where is the line drawn?

People are free to indulge in whatever self-destructive choices they wish; however, just leave me out of it.

[NightSG]

9 hours ago, fatima said:

As a person who has a 'sincerely held religious belief' that gay marriage is wrong/a sin/whatever, I also believe that no matter what the state calls it, in the eyes of God, no marriage actually exists.  God does not suddenly accept these two people as 'married' because the U.S. gov't accepted it.  

I need to figure out a way to isolate gay yeasts. After all, then God won't recognize any fermentation process they're involved in, so I can brew LDS friendly beer. 

[Fether]

12 minutes ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I'm not sure why some seem to think this is a complicated issue.  It's not.

If someone is asking me to provide a service that contradicts my personal beliefs, I have every right, and, I daresay, obligation, to refuse that service.  While the refusal would not be meant to offend anyone personally, the fact is that I should not provide a service that helps promote and celebrate a perverted lifestyle, as well as openly mocks the sacredness of marriage.

I find it very strange how so many people, including some members of the church, will take a firm stand against issues that conflict with basic Christian values, yet, for some inexplicable reason are soft on the gay issue.

What if someone was asked to bake a pro-abortion cake?  or An anti-Semitic cake? or what if a few members of a fraternity asked you to make a cake for a friend of theirs that lost their virginity?  Would that still be okay?  Where is the line drawn?

People are free to indulge in whatever self-destructive choices they wish; however, just leave me out of it.

I fully support individual decisions on sccepting and denying service based on the fact that it's your business and you are allowed to, but I do t believe it is a moral high ground or an obligation of a church member to deny a wedding cake for a gay couple. Anti-Semitic, anti-abortion and other stances like that... not sure, I wouldn't because I would just feel uncomfortable. But do I believe God would want me to refuse the make the cake? Unless I was writing or depicting images of abortion or anti-semitism on it I would say it doesn't matter as far as a religious stance goes.

How far do we take this ideology? Do you boycott restaurants and stores that sell alcohol because that conflicts with our beliefs and our service allows them to sell more? Refuse a rentor because a couple is gay? Refuse to sell food to people in a same sex marriage because it keeps them alive and being alive allows them to sin more? 

I just don't believe it is a moral issue, but rather a personal comfort issue. I imagine if it was a moral decision of importance, general authorities would have said something.

[Fether]

20 hours ago, Fether said:

has the church made any statements? I feel like soon after gay marriage was legalized nation wide, the church began support equality between gays and straights as far as public amenities go... but I couldn't find what I was looking for

Thoughts?  

 

Found it

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination

[fatima]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@fatima If that approach works for you, then fine. However, you used the language of RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act). Those with sincerely held religious beliefs should not be have those beliefs and practices restricted unless there is a compelling government interest. In this case the interest is primarily to humiliate and subjugate faith communities before the altar of gender and sexual orientation identity politics. So, if now is not the time to make that "political" statement--yes about marriage, but also about religious liberty--then when is?  If this is not the place, then where is?  If we are not the people, then who will take that stand?

I'm just throwing it out there as a thought process, I'm not saying there is one way to handle the situation.  While I think I should be able to refuse service to anyone, the fact is, we don't have that freedom in our country today, the way I see it.  

My little business is not our livelihood, so I could take that stand and not lose everything.  But, if my small business was family's sole income?  I might choose to make my statement by working on campaigns.  My own sister has just decided not to do weddings at all because she lives in a super-liberal area.

 

[fatima]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@fatima If that approach works for you, then fine. However, you used the language of RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act). Those with sincerely held religious beliefs should not be have those beliefs and practices restricted unless there is a compelling government interest. In this case the interest is primarily to humiliate and subjugate faith communities before the altar of gender and sexual orientation identity politics. So, if now is not the time to make that "political" statement--yes about marriage, but also about religious liberty--then when is?  If this is not the place, then where is?  If we are not the people, then who will take that stand?

Continuing, I fully admire, support and believe those good Christians did what is pleasing in the sight of God. I think the LGBT groups and courts have offended God.  And perhaps if the time comes, I will find my stomach turning and ultimately determine that refusal to provide service is God's Will, and He will give me that Grace at that time to take a stronger stand for the Sacrament of Marriage.

[Guest]

It's simple slavery.  I don't say that to be sensational.  I mean it literally.

What is slavery?  That you get paid for the work?  Nope.  Slaves get paid through food, clothing, and shelter.  Slavery is a commercial exchange just as any other.

What about something you don't really want to do?  Nope.  Any given day there are things I'd rather not do at work.  But I know it's part of the job description.  What about garbage collectors or sewage workers?  No, it's not slavery.

The thing that makes it slavery is that it is not a consensual exchange.  When government forces you into the exchange, it is the use of force.  Therefore it is slavery.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

But do I believe God would want me to refuse the make the cake? Unless I was writing or depicting images of abortion or anti-semitism on it I would say it doesn't matter as far as a religious stance goes.

But that was exactly the problem.  The couple was required to write a message on the cake supporting gay marriage.

3 hours ago, Fether said:

I just don't believe it is a moral issue, but rather a personal comfort issue. I imagine if it was a moral decision of importance, general authorities would have said something.

It is a government control issue.  If the government weren't involved, it simply wouldn't be an issue.  They have freedom of speech to call themselves whatever they want.  And businesses would be able to choose what to do on their own and would succeed or fail via the free-market system.  No religion or government even needs to weigh in at all.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Guest