Refusing To Make The Cake

[pam]

I would have absolutely no problem providing service to a gay couple.

[Guest]

I oppose gay marriage to the extent mandated by the Church and not a nanometer more.

I would have no problem making a wedding cake for a gay couple, attending a gay wedding, or having close friends who happen to be gay (I have several).  

[Guest]

I am going to play devils advocate and advance a possibly flawed argument.  If we allow for-profit entities (as opposed to nonprofit entities such as churches) to refuse services to gays, will this set precedent for them to refuse services to other minorities and thus overturn civil rights?  Perhaps civil rights should trump freedom of religion in the realm of "for profit" entities, but not nonprofit entities?

Remember, many nonmembers believe being gay is not something one chooses or can change!   This makes the debate at least look like a civil rights debate.  (This is not necessarily what Mormons believe, but is what many non-Mormons believe).

Let the shooting down begin!

Edited July 2, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I am going to play devils advocate and advance a possibly flawed argument.  If we allow for-profit entities (as opposed to nonprofit entities such as churches) to refuse services to gays, will this set precedent for them to refuse services to other minorities and thus overturn civil rights?  Perhaps civil rights should trump freedom of religion in the realm of "for profit" entities, but not nonprofit entities?

Remember, many nonmembers believe being gay is not something one chooses or can change!   This makes the debate at least look like a civil rights debate.

Let the shooting down begin!

Forcing your opinions on others, demanding services from others in the private sector against their will is not civil rights.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, pam said:

I would have absolutely no problem providing service to a gay couple.

Amen.

31 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I oppose gay marriage to the extent mandated by the Church and not a nanometer more.

I would have no problem making a wedding cake for a gay couple, attending a gay wedding, or having close friends who happen to be gay (I have several).  

I've been to a gay wedding before. Beautiful ceremony and shockingly, the same as a heterosexual wedding! Imagine that! 

Edited July 2, 2017 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

In theory, as a general principle I think there's nothing like free economic markets to break down prejudice and erase resentments.  In practice, I think experience shows that this process takes time and that the necessities of life do need to be commercially available to all who are willing to pay a fair price for them.  But wedding services, methinks, don't fall under this "necessities of life" rubric.  Nor does any activity that is by its nature "expressive".  

Regarding @DoctorLemon's proposal: Whether the service provider is by nature "profit" or "nonprofit" is, I think, kind of an artificial distinction anyways (there are some big HMOs that I believe are registered as nonprofits; but that doesn't mean their employees and doctors and board members don't make good livings--very good livings, in some cases--off their services).  I do agree, though, that there's over a hundred years of sound case law supporting that free exercise of religion is subject to "the public interest" (whatever that may be); so I think a free-expression argument is the better road to be taking on these sorts of cases.  The brief linked to earlier leads off very well in this regard, asking (IIRC) whether a black professional shouldn't be free to deny services to the KKK.

If I were in this baker's situation, my current thinking is that I would offer a cake to the client's dimensions and flavor specifications, coated by an icing in one basic color; and decline further decoration on free-expression grounds.  If they got lawyerly, I'd comply but look the other way as a young apprentice accidentally became unable to tell the difference between the sugar and the salt.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Amen.

I've been to a gay wedding before. Beautiful ceremony and shockingly, the same as a heterosexual wedding! Imagine that! 

Certainly your opinion. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Certainly your opinion. 

I was actually expressing the thoughts and views of my pet goldfish, but we happen to agree on this issue. So it's OUR opinion thank you very much. 

[Rob Osborn]

Even if I had a close family member who was gay and getting married I wouldnt go or acknowledge their wedding. I would still love them as family but I wouldnt consider their union as a marriage.

[pam]

This is where I stand.  I believe marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.  Cut and dry.

However, I have a son who is gay and lives with his partner.  They are wanting to get married.  They own a brand new home.  They are both wonderful people.  Both compassionate and will do just about anything for anyone within their power.  They are responsible young men and do service within their community.

I would be absolutely devastated for them if they were denied any type of service based solely on their sexual preference.  Without knowing anything about them other than that fact.  Granted I would understand a Bishop not performing the ceremony (not that they would ask one anyway).  THAT I understand.  But being able to deny the making a cake, arrangement of flowers or any other type service of this nature for a gay couple to me is just not right.  

My son and I have a very good open and honest relationship with each other.  We always have had this.  He understands totally my thoughts on gay marriage.  But I would never never never shun him or deny him his happiness in the relationship he has chosen.  And I'm not even sure chosen is the right word.  He is what he is and he is still my son who I love more than anything.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

 

 

[prisonchaplain]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

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.

First, I'd argue that ordering a person of faith to direct artistic and public talent towards a sacrament that goes against sincerely held religious beliefs SHOULD be something authority can do only after showing a very compelling government/public interest. That a business sells alcohol does not mean that I endorse that aspect of commerce, if I shop at the business. But, if it bothers me, sure I might avoid that particular store.  Landlords used to be able to restrict who they rent to for any kind of shacking up. Not saying we should go back to that, but I would err in this direction, rather than the current one, in which government excessively controls small business.  Refusing to sell food to any kind of sinners--especially in the name of doing so keeps them alive--is satanic, imho.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I am going to play devils advocate and advance a possibly flawed argument.  If we allow for-profit entities (as opposed to nonprofit entities such as churches) to refuse services to gays, will this set precedent for them to refuse services to other minorities and thus overturn civil rights?  Perhaps civil rights should trump freedom of religion in the realm of "for profit" entities, but not nonprofit entities?

Remember, many nonmembers believe being gay is not something one chooses or can change!   This makes the debate at least look like a civil rights debate.  (This is not necessarily what Mormons believe, but is what many non-Mormons believe).

Let the shooting down begin!

First, I agree with @pam that, in general, I would have no problem serving LGBT folk. That said, I largely agree with @DoctorLemon that we are long past the place where can refuse service to specific races. My question is specific to a public religious sacrament. Weddings are inherently, even organically spiritual, to many of us. Is this not a line where we can say religious liberty trumps civil rights in commerce?

[pam]

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

First, I agree with @pam that, in general, I would have no problem serving LGBT folk. That said, I largely agree with @DoctorLemon that we are long past the place where can refuse service to specific races. My question is specific to a public religious sacrament. Weddings are inherently, even organically spiritual, to many of us. Is this not a line where we can say religious liberty trumps civil rights in commerce?

To me the ceremony itself yes.  The ceremonies are usually heaped with spiritual and religious references.  I agree that clergymen should have the right to deny service based on religion.  

But for someone to own let's say, a bakery that makes wedding cakes, I don't think they have the right to deny service.  

[Fether]

39 minutes ago, pam said:

 

But for someone to own let's say, a bakery that makes wedding cakes, I don't think they have the right to deny service.  

Well they do have the right to refuse to anyone. The problem is WHY are they refusing it. 

The problem, imo, is that many are under the impression that a righteous people is a people that refuse to provide public goods to those that will use said goods in a way contrary to their religious stance.

Again, more similar circumstances keep coming to mind. Should we refrain from selling a car to someone who would use it to drive to a smoke shop? Or not sell fruit to someone who likes fruit in their alcoholic drinks? Or refuse to sell internet/cable service to a man who enjoys Game of Throwns or any other explicit movies/shows?? Sell cake to someone who will eat it at a gay wedding?

I don't believe that the church is even suggesting that we refuse such services, that those that do refuse it under the understanding that it is the morally correct way to act, they are mistaking. Now if they are refusing because they just feel uncomfortable about it, I think that is fine, but don't pin the reasoning on something that isn't there

Edited July 2, 2017 by Fether

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, pam said:

To me the ceremony itself yes.  The ceremonies are usually heaped with spiritual and religious references.  I agree that clergymen should have the right to deny service based on religion.  

But for someone to own let's say, a bakery that makes wedding cakes, I don't think they have the right to deny service.  

Does Twitter have the right to deny service to would-be anti-abortion advertisers, as they've been doing lately?

51 minutes ago, Fether said:

Well they do have the right to refuse to anyone. The problem is WHY are they refusing it. 

The problem, imo, is that many are under the impression that a righteous people is a people that refuse to provide public goods to those that will use said goods in a way contrary to their religious stance.

Again, more similar circumstances keep coming to mind. Should we refrain from selling a car to someone who would use it to drive to a smoke shop? Or not sell fruit to someone who likes fruit in their alcoholic drinks? Or refuse to sell internet/cable service to a man who enjoys Game of Throwns or any other explicit movies/shows?? Sell cake to someone who will eat it at a gay wedding?

I don't believe that the church is even suggesting that we refuse such services, that those that do refuse it under the understanding that it is the morally correct way to act, they are mistaking. Now if they are refusing because they just feel uncomfortable about it, I think that is fine, but don't pin the reasoning on something that isn't there

Why?  In the civil sphere, my answer would be--"Nonya bidness!!!" Any other answer leads us to the act of appointing lord high inquisitors--err, human rights commissions--with absolute authority to judge the "rationality" and "moral coherence" of each and every discriminator's choice and to compel individuals to violate their own code of ethics?  Why can't we just leave workers alone?  If government can force citizens to work for someone they'd rather not, to say what they'd rather not--well, why can't it compel people to worship in ways they'd rather not?  To live in places they'd rather not?  To wear clothing they'd rather not?  To expose their children to things they'd rather not?  To sleep with whom they'd rather not?  I mean, people make all of those choices every day; and all manner of nefarious, irrational, closed-minded worldviews come into play as those decisions are made.  So why not root out all of these terrible motivations?

As has been pointed out earlier--Colorado allows atheist bakers to decline to bake "Christian" or "hateful" cakes.  It's only when discrimination goes the other way that the State gets prickly.  So this isn't about whether we can discriminate in the abstract or whether cake decorators have speech rights in the abstract; it's about who gets to lord it over whom with the backing of governmental force.

I mean, we've spent two centuries developing a system where people don't even have to stand still for two minutes if doing so might be construed as tacit support either for their country or for a divine being.  But suddenly, people (but only a certain *type* of person, mark you!) are supposed to bake entire cakes; because six hours of hard labor preparing for a celebratory event doesn't suggest implicit support for the event itself at all!  

This isn't about cakes, or even about homosexuality.  This is a dry run for whether you can say no when the secular, sex-crazed left starts making even bigger demands for your . . . ahh. . . "services".

Edited July 2, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I am going to play devils advocate and advance a possibly flawed argument.  If we allow for-profit entities (as opposed to nonprofit entities such as churches) to refuse services to gays, will this set precedent for them to refuse services to other minorities and thus overturn civil rights?  Perhaps civil rights should trump freedom of religion in the realm of "for profit" entities, but not nonprofit entities?

Remember, many nonmembers believe being gay is not something one chooses or can change!   This makes the debate at least look like a civil rights debate.  (This is not necessarily what Mormons believe, but is what many non-Mormons believe).

Let the shooting down begin!

I could give the following response to many on this thread.  But this particular post distills most people's argument for forcing these bakers to bake the cake.  So, that is why I've quoted this one.

Everyone is still arguing about feelings.  It has nothing to do with feelings.  If that were all it was, then we'd all be snowflakes.  Anyone who believes the bakers should be forced into the exchange is for tyranny.  Why is this so difficult to understand?  "We don't have a problem with..." is not the issue.  The issue is where are we willing to use force to accomplish our goals?  And the biggest gun you can use is government.

A gay couple want's to get "married".  Fine.  Let them.  But what gives them the right to FORCE another person, through the barrel of a gun, to provide a service for them?

Does this mean civil rights may be trodden upon?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  Civil rights are the rights that we have in spite of government intervention.  It has nothing to do with our rights between individuals.  We do not have a RIGHT to be free from being offended.  We do not have a RIGHT to be free from getting hurt.  The only argument I keep hearing is that it "just isn't right" for someone to turn someone away because of their sexual orientation.  That is completely beside the point.

I have a brother who is gay.  I'm a minority.  Do you think I don't know what that kind of hatred or even fairly harmless discrimination can feel like?  I assure you I do.  But if I were given a choice between making someone respect me by force of government or simply taking some minor offense on the chin, I'd vote for the offense any day of the week.

One has the right to be wrong in a democracy.  One has the right to do some things that will offend people in a free society.  One has the right to be an uncouth person in a nation of decent, forgiving people.  And NO ONE has the right to use force to gain their own happiness at the cost of someone else's in a nation of laws.

The only question to ask is this: "Is the offense great enough that we're willing to use a gun to force someone to do something about it?"  If so, then great, vote for laws that state bakers MUST bake the cake.  If you cannot say you are willing to use a gun to force them into it, then you have to be against using government to do so.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Guest

[bytebear]

I don't have a problem voluntarily associating with anyone.  I do have a problem when government mandates that I do so.

[Rob Osborn]

The issue really shows how morally corrupt we are getting as a society. Marriage used to be a completely religious ceremony strictly between man and woman that carried with it holy covenants with God. Over time government became a separate entity from religion and when it did marriage then became, in many eyes, a legal bond between two people and much of the ceremony itself became a pagan ritual of sorts. It then paved the way to make marriage an acceptable means legally for anyone of any gender to become protected under law. The problem is though, those arent marriages, they are mere legal unions that carry no religious weight, no moral obligations or covenants, etc. In many ways its rather pure mockery before God to make laughter out of his ordinances.

That said, a baker has every right in the world to deny a cake to a gay wedding. Even more than that, I believe a baker has the right to deny anyone a cake based off of any reason they want- whether they are LDS, Jewish, Muslim, or plain just look funny. Thats what should be great about our laws. I think any private business should have the right to deny service to anyone they choose for any reason at all.

[CV75]

On 6/30/2017 at 7:28 PM, 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 think our system of government allows that each State can decide what constitutes public accommodation and religious conscience exemption, so these decisions need to be made jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Sometimes compromise is the result, and the Church masterfully exemplified how to graciously participate in the process and accept the compromise even if not getting 100% of what is sought (see: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865623399/Utah-lawmakers-unveil-anti-discrimination-religious-rights-legislation.html ).

The Supreme Court can offer constitutional interpretation when needed, but hopefully we can agree as a community before it reaches that point. For me, broadly protecting religious freedom with appropriate tests for proving conscience comes before identifying and protecting specific points of public accommodation. To me, an "amenity" is a convenience that does not rise to the level of being essential to maintaining and protecting the essentials of our Constitution:our union structure, justice, domestic peace, defense from outside forces, general welfare, or the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity. Religious freedom does actually contribute to and even helps define these goals.

Allowing people to accommodate their amenities in the marketplace is actually a good way to ensure diversity and need not be divisive.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by CV75

[Colirio]

It amazes me that any Latter Day Saint believes that a supposed "right to marry" would in ANY capacity trump someone else's freedom of religion. 

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

Crooked and morally corrupt judges who work to destroy religious freedom should be hanged.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Crooked and morally corrupt judges who work to destroy religious freedom should be hanged.

You really need to watch the words.  

[Sunday21]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You really need to watch the words.  

Any further thoughts from GatorGoldfish?

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

Any further thoughts from GatorGoldfish?

For the record, I actually keep Siamese Fighting Fish, but my last one died several months ago and I haven't gotten a new one yet. 

[Sunday21]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For the record, I actually keep Siamese Fighting Fish, but my last one died several months ago and I haven't gotten a new one yet. 

I am so sorry! I can understand that you need to take a break after losing your fish. My father had tetras and angel fish but as he had great difficulty remaining sober enough to look after them, the poor fish were always dieing. Sigh.