Refusing To Make The Cake

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

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.

Thanks @Sunday21.

[Rob Osborn]

48 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You really need to watch the words.  

Is it a movie?

[pam]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Is it a movie?

Seriously.  MormonGator has a point.  Talk of lynching and that sort of thing is not a direction we really want to go on these forums.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm probably the middle point in this discussion. There is benefit to government requiring association with people of other races, and requiring that if an employer hires a man and a woman to fill the same position their pay should be the same. I can even endorse government requiring businesses, in general, to serve LBGT patrons. On the other hand, it is not only clergy who should be exempt from providing service to LGBT marriage ceremonies. No one with a sincerely held religious objection should be required to participate.

[person0]

I am way late to this conversation but I have two statements to make:

1)  There should be no such thing as government ordained marriage at all.  This would immediately resolve the marriage problem for both sides as two people being married would not be a government nor public matter.  (except that radicals making all the fuss actually care more about approval of their lifestyle rather than marital rights)

2)  Any privately owned business should have the right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever, bar none.  However, a government operation should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.  If a business owner wants to be racist, bigoted, homophobic etc, etc, etc, then they should have that right, exercise it as they see fit, and suffer the consequences as they affect their sales and other areas of their business.  (okay, okay, a couple exceptions: utilities companies and similar large service/product providers where there may not be, or are no alternatives should not be able to refuse service).

There are likely to be many arguments against these ideas, but once the principles of classical economics are applied over time, I believe these principles prove themselves.  Supply and demand every time!

[Backroads]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:43 PM, 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?

 

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 7:48 PM, 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.  

 

I have yet to have a strong opinion one way or the other on the matter and am currently going "yeah rock on!" to strong points on both sides.

Looking at these two, I think I am in agreement with pam. A wedding ceremony is a sacred event and I imagine few would argue with that. But the cake? It's peripheral. A couple can get married without cake and flowers and acrobats and whatever the kids have at weddings these days.

So by denying a cake, am I really standing up for my own views on a sacred event or am I just denying them a dessert to be served in the vicinity of such event?

[Traveler]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 10:20 PM, 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.

 

Jesus was criticized for teaching sinners (the unclean).  I believe his disciples likewise should be willing to take every opportunity to encourage repentance – especially to those needing it the most.  For example – most wedding cakes are served atop a cardboard base – A little encouraging message about the sanctity of marriage on the cardboard base – kind of like a Chinese fortune cookie.  If they did that with all their customers, as a service, the problem or question would be solved.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I have yet to have a strong opinion one way or the other on the matter and am currently going "yeah rock on!" to strong points on both sides.

Looking at these two, I think I am in agreement with pam. A wedding ceremony is a sacred event and I imagine few would argue with that. But the cake? It's peripheral. A couple can get married without cake and flowers and acrobats and whatever the kids have at weddings these days.

So by denying a cake, am I really standing up for my own views on a sacred event or am I just denying them a dessert to be served in the vicinity of such event?

The thing is--if denial of the cake were such a meaningless gesture; then no gay couple would care about being denied so long as there were some other local baker willing to serve them for an equivalent price.  

But of course, that's not the situation at all.  Gay couples do seem to choose to interpret denial of cake service as a condemnation of their life choice; which of course is how it was intended by the denier.  That may not be very nice; but constitutionally speaking--what's the problem again?

And if it really has no symbolic, expressive, or artistic meaning, then the decor of the cake should be utterly irrelevant--whether the cake is purple, black, or blood-red; and regardless of whether it sports a swastika or confederate flag or a reference to an Old Testament verse or even a homophobic slur written in icing.  Because--it's just food, right?

Edited July 3, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Historically:

• If the mortal Jesus had been asked to make a table and chairs on commission from a Roman consul, would he have done so? Assuming he had free choice in the matter: Probably.
• If the mortal Jesus had been asked to carve an exquisite dining set in commemoration of Rome's conquering of Israel and ascension to power in Palestine, would he have done so? Assuming he had free choice in the matter: I think not.

Today:

• If the mortal Jesus had been asked to make a table and chairs on commission from a homosexual couple, would he have done so? Probably.
• If the mortal Jesus had been asked to carve an exquisite dining set in commemoration of a homosexual relationship, would he have done so? I think not.

To some extent, this is a question of normal product vs. work of art. But really, it's a question of utility vs. celebration. All human beings should be treated with dignity; even a condemned murderer is offered a final meal. Should not a homosexual couple be allowed to buy a table and chairs or a dessert? They are human beings, and should be treated as such.

But requiring someone to join in a celebration, whether by playing music, carving a sculpture, or baking a cake, goes well beyond the mark of treating a fellow human with respect. If I find Roman occupation repugnant, I ought not be legally required to carve special furniture to celebrate it. If I find homosexual unions destructive to the very fabric of society, I ought not be legally required to bake a celebratory cake for a homosexual "wedding".

How to legislate this? Not sure. I'm no lawyer. But to misquote an old coffee commercial: If they can put men on the moon, surely they can write a sensible law about such things.

[unixknight]

It is my dream to one day own and operate a web development company.

I know that, given the current political climate, there's a chance that this sort of issue will come up for me, because people want a wide variety of web applications and sites for a wide variety of purposes.

If a gay person comes to me to develop for them a website about their model railroad hobby, I'll happily do so.  Maybe even make a friend, since I'm trying to get into that hobby myself.

If a gay couple want to have me build the website for their dog obedience school business, I'll happily do so, and while I'm at it get some advice for dealing with my family's idiot pit bull.

If a gay couple wants me to build a site to celebrate their marriage, I will not, and for one simple reason.  The act of involving one's self in model railroads or having a well behaved pet are perfectly sinless activities that create no issues.  The act of getting married to someone of the same sex is sinful, and to celebrate it is to celebrate sin.  For me to accept money for enabling and celebrating that sin is itself sinful.  It's no different from building a pornography site or a site to help people cheat on their spouses.  If you accept payment for facilitating or celebrating that activity, the stain gets on you too.

By the same token, if I had a friend who was gay and getting married, I'd politely decline to attend.  Going to a wedding is the act of standing up and declaring your support and congratulations to a couple for their union.  Supporting something inherently sinful and declaring that support publicly is to celebrate disobedience to God's will.

That's just how I see it.  Everybody has to act according to their own conscience.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm thinking about this story:
http://www.ldsliving.com/Unlikely-Friends-a-Mormon-and-a-Conference-Protester/s/75428 - A devout Mormon befrended and got to know one of the regular Antimormon General Conference protesters.  These days, he lets the protester stay at his home free of charge when he comes to protest. They engage in discussion and debate, but they place a higher value on the friendship.

I'm thinking about this story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-man-daryl-davis-befriends-kkk-documentary-accidental-courtesy_us_585c250de4b0de3a08f495fc - a black guy actively goes out and seeks friendships with KKK members.  He engages in discussion and debate, but he places a higher value on the friendships.  He's got a garage full of KKK robes given to him by friends who left the clan because of the things they've learned from his friendship.

I'm thinking about our prison missionaries, how they extend offers of gentle love and acceptance.  You don't find much hellfire and damnation preached by prison missionaries. 

I'm thinking about my own small stories, where I've gone "into the lion's den" - antiLDS debate forums - and picked good natured fights with people like me who like to fight.  Someone at the Countercult Reachout Trust actually conceded the possibility that I was a saved Christian, while being LDS.  One guy in the the Bronies for Christ facebook group called me "the wisest of all mormons" and has defended me to others in the group.

I'm all for the government keeping the heck out of the baker's business.  But I think I'd go to a gay wedding or some such if invited.  They pretty much already know where I stand.  

Edited July 3, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmm...taking that thought to the extreme @NeuroTypical, should a faithful Nephite have made friends with the Lamanite attackers and therefrom allowed them to stay in their home when they came into Zarahemla to kill their brethren?

At what point does such a thing move beyond friendship into moral treason?

I think the idea has merit...but I don't think it's as black and white as choosing to "always place a higher value on the friendship". There are things, it strikes me, that are of higher value than that.

Edited July 3, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[prisonchaplain]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Jesus was criticized for teaching sinners (the unclean).  I believe his disciples likewise should be willing to take every opportunity to encourage repentance – especially to those needing it the most.  For example – most wedding cakes are served atop a cardboard base – A little encouraging message about the sanctity of marriage on the cardboard base – kind of like a Chinese fortune cookie.  If they did that with all their customers, as a service, the problem or question would be solved.

 

The Traveler

With the lawsuit in Oregon, the bakers were accused of causing emotional harm to the plaintiffs. Putting a message that, in 9th-circuit land, is deemed hate speech and bigotry in a location that could potentially be disclosed during the festivities may well bring a larger penalty than the refusal did. It's passive-aggressive, imho.

As to the question raised by @pam and @Backroads, I beg to differ on the florist and baker. The wedding cake is a work of creativity and artistry. Likewise with flower-arrangements. If it were so peripheral anyone could and would do those tasks, and the services would not be so pricey (we recently paid $250 for a modest cake, and garnered that only because of some really good deal-making). Why should I be forced to pour my God-given talents into aspects a ceremony I consider anti-Christian? Likewise, I don't believe LGBT bakers should be forced to bake cakes with traditional-family messaging, say for a political fundraising event. Ironically, judges all agree on the latter point, because they consider our perspective political speech (or hate speech). However, they will require religiously motivated people to compromise their faith, because LBGT is now a protected class of people.

Edited July 3, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

56 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

With the lawsuit in Oregon, the bakers were accused of causing emotional harm to the plaintiffs. Putting a message that, in 9th-circuit land, is deemed hate speech and bigotry in a location that could potentially be disclosed during the festivities may well bring a larger penalty than the refusal did. It's passive-aggressive, imho.

 

Even if I lost the suit - I would love the opportunity to allow the 9th-circuit the opportunity to rule religious freedom and the first Amendment into hate speech and bigotry in a court of law.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Even if I lost the suit - I would love the opportunity to allow the 9th-circuit the opportunity to rule religious freedom and the first Amendment into hate speech and bigotry in a court of law.

 

The Traveler

Just don't double-dare them ... because they will. 

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 7/1/2017 at 4:14 PM, Fether said:

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.

Those are false comparisons.  Cakes are for celebrations.  The examples you listed have nothing to do with that.  Again, society needs to stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.  We are talking about why someone would refuse to make a gay wedding cake.  One should refuse because gay marriage is wrong, disgusting and mocks the sacredness of marriage.  Now, I can extend an olive branch and be courteous to those whose personal decisions I disagree with and even find reprehensible.  After all, no one is perfect and we are all corrupt to some degree.  However, we are not talking about a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a Jewish wedding.  We are talking about making a gay wedding cake for a gay wedding.  Think about that for a moment.  Doesn’t the whole concept sound insane?  I can’t believe I’m even typing the term “gay wedding cake.”  The world, and too many members of the church have become too passive on this issue. 

Quite frankly, gay people have become way too comfortable with their lifestyle choices.  I don’t want gay people to feel comfortable ordering a gay wedding cake.  They should feel uncomfortable about it.  Their lifestyle is wrong, and unnatural.  The problem is that over the years, the adversary has worked so hard at normalizing the idea of homosexuality that people now think of it as a mere personality trait; they think it is as natural as a person’s race, thus if they reject a person’s gay lifestyle, they are rejecting the person entirely.  They tend to think that you cannot reject a person’s gay lifestyle while still being civil and Christ like.  Of course, that is absurd, as Christ rejected people’s sins, was not passive about it, and still loved them.

Homosexuality needs to be recognized for what it is, which is mental illness.    That does not mean they are bad people.  However, it does mean they need to seek help in the same manner as someone with a pornography addiction or someone suffering from depression needs help.  Being passive about the issue in the guise of “reaching out” to those whose views differ from ours is only compounding the problem.  We should not ridicule and persecute them, but we should not coddle them either.  They should be encouraged to get the help they need.  Let’s not forget, the Romans were also once passive about homosexuality, and it led to their eventual downfall.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

Those are false comparisons.  Cakes are for celebrations.  The examples you listed have nothing to do with that.  Again, society needs to stop making this more complicated than it needs to be.  We are talking about why someone would refuse to make a gay wedding cake.  One should refuse because gay marriage is wrong, disgusting and mocks the sacredness of marriage.  Now, I can extend an olive branch and be courteous to those whose personal decisions I disagree with and even find reprehensible.  After all, no one is perfect and we are all corrupt to some degree.  However, we are not talking about a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a Jewish wedding.  We are talking about making a gay wedding cake for a gay wedding.  Think about that for a moment.  Doesn’t the whole concept sound insane?  I can’t believe I’m even typing the term “gay wedding cake.”  The world, and too many members of the church have become too passive on this issue. 

 

Quite frankly, gay people have become way too comfortable with their lifestyle choices.  I don’t want gay people to feel comfortable ordering a gay wedding cake.  They should feel uncomfortable about it.  Their lifestyle is wrong, and unnatural.  The problem is that over the years, the adversary has worked so hard at normalizing the idea of homosexuality that people now think of it as a mere personality trait; they think it is as natural as a person’s race, thus if they reject a person’s gay lifestyle, they are rejecting the person entirely.  They tend to think that you cannot reject a person’s gay lifestyle while still being civil and Christ like.  Of course, that is absurd, as Christ rejected people’s sins, was not passive about it, and still loved them.

 

Homosexuality needs to be recognized for what it is, which is mental illness.    That does not mean they are bad people.  However, it does mean they need to seek help in the same manner as someone with a pornography addiction or someone suffering from depression needs help.  Being passive about the issue in the guise of “reaching out” to those whose views differ from ours is only compounding the problem.  We should not ridicule and persecute them, but we should not coddle them either.  They should be encouraged to get the help they need.  Let’s not forget, the Romans were also once passive about homosexuality, and it led to their eventual downfall.

 

Vort mentioned the celebration vs service on a post and that sold me on it completely. I hadn't differentiated the two before. I agree now that making the cake should be discouraged.

[Rob Osborn]

We had a discussion at work a while back and decided it would be too much of a conflict to hire an active homosexual because of how we look at and treat our business. We have discussed it at length and have concluded that a business has every right to hire or fire a person based off their morals as it can and does effect the outcome of what the business is about. My brother has taught us that even our daily work is our ministry and we should include God in giving thanks for our customers, asking for guidance in all matters and also asking God for forgiveness as needed. Our work is a service towards others. That mentality and ethic should be shared alike. Discussions at work often revolve around morals and ethics. The environment may indeed create discontent with others who do not have morals. We thus screen who we hire to find those who share our vision. Is it our right and liberty to do such a thing? Absolutely.