Posted on 03/04/2014 9:08:24 AM PST by Morgana
March 3, 2014 (Breakpoint.org) - The call for tolerating same-sex marriage has become a demand for compliance. Cases like Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado and Elane Huguenin’s New Mexico photography business have shown us that “tolerance” ends exactly where the right to say “no” begins. And so people, businesses, and non-profits are forced to choose between their livelihoods and their convictions.
Some fellow Christians are giving this new state of affairs a thumbs-up, including Kirsten Powers, whose fearless stand against abortion I admire, and Skye Jethani, a friend I respect greatly.
They argue that Christians who won’t participate in gay “weddings” are “applying Scripture selectively.” If you object to baking a cake, shooting photographs or playing music for a ceremony for two men or two women, they say, you should also object to serving anyone with an unbiblical lifestyle. But since no business owner can do a background check on every client’s personal life, Powers and Jethani conclude that any religious objections to doing business are illegitimate.
Plus, they say, baking a cake or providing floral arrangements doesn’t mean that a Christian is participating in or affirming gay “marriage.” They’re only conducting business.
Now before I reply, it’s important to understand how confused this whole conversation has become, especially with all the noise surrounding the anti-discrimination bills in Kansas and Arizona.
Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.
The Kansas bill was very problematic, and unfortunately created enough negative sentiment to defeat the Arizona bill, which did not give anyone the right to refuse to serve gays, members of other faiths or political parties, or even Yankees fans for that matter.
And neither the baker in Denver, nor the photographer in New Mexico, nor the florist in Washington refused to serve customers because they were gay. They refused participation in a same-sex wedding.
Every good baker and photographer I know who take their work seriously see themselves as participating in the ceremonies they service, especially weddings. Their cakes adorn the celebration and their pictures document the story. And that’s why they object to being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. It’s not something they can do in good conscience.
A baker friend of mine told me he turns down cake business all the time because of convictions that have nothing to do with same-sex weddings, like if they’re sexually explicit or crude. He wouldn’t bake a wedding cake if he knew the couple to be abusive. His faith has shaped his business for over 15 years, so why should he be forced to disconnect his faith from his business now?
Again, if he refused to serve a gay person a cupcake, he’s sinning. However, that’s not the same as baking a rainbow cake to celebrate gay marriage. It just isn’t.
Powers and Jethani are right that Jesus would serve, wash the feet of, and have dinner with a gay person. But that’s different than saying that Jesus, the carpenter, would carve an altar for a same-sex wedding with a rainbow on it in place of a cross. He spent time with tax collectors, but He didn’t help them steal more.
Theologian Russell Moore makes a strong case for avoiding any involvement with same-sex “weddings.” But I’m with Eric Teetsel, there’s much more to consider about what constitutes involvement and what doesn’t. And there’s also another question.
Even if we assume that Jesus would participate in a gay “wedding,” does that mean we should force everyone to do it? Stamping out the freedom of those whose consciences differ is still unthinkable. I’d never want a judge to order a bakery owned by someone who identifies as gay or lesbian to be forced to bake a “God hates gays” cake for Westboro Baptist Church. I would defend that baker’s right to say no every single time.
We can’t shrug off conscientious objections as if religious liberty doesn’t matter. As Os Guinness argues in his book “The Global Public Square,” religious freedom is essential, not only for Christians or for religious people, but in this deeply polarized society, it’s essential for maintaining peace, prosperity, maybe even civilization itself.
They can't forgive their own sins. A cake is the least of their problems.
That was so not necessary!
When it comes to "What would Jesus do" I am often reminded of his taking a bullwhip to certain miscreants in His Father's House.
Like it or not, baking cakes for gay weddings a real item in the news. Courts really have ruled in favor of forcing Christians to violate their faith and bake cakes for gay weddings.
This author asks the “What Would Jesus Do?” question. Too often, the responses I’ve seen are nothing but dodges. “He wasn’t a baker.” “They didn’t have wedding cakes back then.” “He would offer them salvation.” “It’s hypothetical.” All true, but all dodges.
What if it’s a young person with a serious question? Would Jesus do this or not?
Would Jesus do cocaine? (”That’s a hypothetical...they didn’t have cocaine in Israel in Jesus’ day.”) Kid walks away wondering about cocaine use.
Would Jesus watch movies made in Hollywood? (”That’s a hypothetical...they didn’t have movies...blah, blah, blah)
At some point it becomes, “Don’t ask the Christian...he’s too afraid of losing the debate to answer.”
So, which bears more weight in the answer about baking wedding cakes: “If your enemy compels to carry his pack for a mile, then carry it for two miles.” or “Render unto...God that which is God’s.”?
Because history shows that any inch you give them (no pun intended), the agenda at large will take a mile...or more. They go after the kids. Innocent, unassuming KIDS.
In addition, it's an abomination to God. I will not willingly participate in that any more than I wll participate in performing an abortion.
Oh I know it’s real. Had this been a Muslim baker they would not have been forced. They are only doing this because the people who protested were Christian.
If your free then you can have the luxury to hash out these moral dilemmas. If you aren’t then it becomes a question of does Jesus want me to be to become a martyr over this issue.
Jesus was free. I don’t think he’d make an item specifically designed to violate God’s law. For example, as a carpenter, I don’t think he’d have carved a wooden image of Jupiter for the occupying Romans.
would mohammed?
as it appears our doj only gives a sh1t about their religious rights, perhaps that is how we should frame it.
the answer would be he’d chop their heads off.
their goal is to destroy marriage. if it can be anything it’s been destroyed and they’ve done their job. it becomes meaningless if it can mean other things than it actually is.
paul didn’t either. and paul considered himself chief among sinners.
Jesus said he would do his Father's will. God destroyed the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their immoral and perverted behavior. I am sure he would have no problem bringing down the same result on a homosexual wedding party.
If the question is, should I provide the homosexual couple a cake, or do I risk a civil suit that would force me to hand over all my worldly assets to them.
God may have a different answer to that one for different people.
The author comes closer to the issue when he cites a hypothetical about the Westboro Church. The issues isn’t religious but ethical or moral: Should an entity (person, company, government) be forced to provide services for an activity it considers morally or ethically wrong?
1. Should a gay baker be required to bake a cake to celebrate a man’s denouncement his homoxexuality with the script: “Back in God’s graces”?
2. Should a signmaker be required to produce signs for the next Westboro demonstration?
3. Should an animal rights activist photographer be required to photograph a deer hunt?
4. Should a store chain be forced to sell guns and ammunition?
5. Should a shop be forced to stay closed on Saturdays to accommodate certain faith sabbaths?
6. Should restaurants be forced to serve only Halal or kosher foods?
7. Should public conveyance companies be forced to use only natural gas vehicles?
8. Should naturists force all beaches to be opened to nude bathing?
Fact is, value judgments are made all the time by all types of entities. Religion is only one aspect. If groups can use the coercive power of government to force an entity to serve them, regardless of how the entity considers the activity, then we are indeed on the slippery slope of tyranny.
The power of the purse should be enough. If an entity refuses to serve me, for whatever reason, I have the right to take my money elsewhere and use my mouth and pen to affect that business. We see this preached all the time when there are complaints about immoral entertainment, that folks offended just need to go (look) elsewhere. But when the offended are of some specially-favored group, suddenly the groups and government believe they have the right to force compliance on everyone. When we get stuck in the notion that the issue is religious, it obscured the general principle of whether anyone ought to be forced to do business they find repugnant, for whatever reason.
We don’t do weddings, we only do matrimonies.
Bunt cakes?
Kristin is deadly wrong.
The error in her thinking.
Putting it only on a logic refutation of Kristin (not 100% of what I think the limits of “illegal” “discrimination” ought to be):
A couple of “gay” guys (I’m assuming they happen to be “obviously” “gay”, walk into a bakery. They order some pastries, get their order and leave.
Later
A couple of “gay” guys (that may not even be “obvious) walk into the SAME bakery. They ask the lady behind the counter if they can order a wedding cake. She asks them “when is the couple getting married.” They answer: “it’s for us, we’re the couple, and we’re getting married in three weeks’. The lady answers: “We don’t do wedding cakes except for traditional marriages. Any others are against our beliefs. Sorry.”
Was the bakery being “selective” with Christian scripture?
No. They did not have a sign saying “no gays allowed”, nor when an obvious “gay” couple came into the store did they refuse to sell them anything. No matter what they thought of “gays”, normal business did not make what they did supportive of “gays” or “gay marriage”.
But, the wedding cake is not merely a product they make. It has a purpose and its purpose celebrates a wedding. If they were forced to make the wedding cake they would be in effect being forced to support and help celebrate a form of marriage that is against their beliefs. They have not been hypocrites about scripture.
They could make the same kind of call, based on their religious beliefs, “discriminating against” a couple of “hookers” wanting a party cake with decoration celebrating their street life. It would not be scripturally hypocritical to sell the hookers some donuts but refuse to make their party cake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.