Perhaps Love Bakes a Cake?

[missmuffet]

GE I so get it, and both ways though. I mean the guy baking the cake might be dealing with conscience issues. He might feel he is giving his approval in doing this thing. In his circumstance the gay couple might request two men (or two women) to be placed atop the cake, since (obviously) it would not be a traditional cake topper.

 

And here's the thing (although I do see the opposite side of it as well) if someone's conscience is condemning their own participation in it, and believes the same is as giving his approval (against what his conscience allows) what can you say? After all Paul allows for the weak brothers conscience (in respects to another's own eating) however in this case there is no danger in being embolden to eat what he forbids himself (obviously). And it probably wouldn't have been such an issue (at all) if it was just serving food (like in a diner) without the moral attachment of a union (and of the which) he is definitely not giving his blessing.

 

But lets just say there is a couple who has opened up their own home for a bed and breakfast, and a man comes in wanting a room, and the other is not present ( the Christians being clueless until the other shows up) Being either two men or two women in their home. I can understand them being uncomfortable with this. However, it would be hypocritical to allow to unmarried (being man and woman) in either then. And so folks sometimes cant recognized they are being that way until you compare the two different situations. However, if they are consistent and allow not for that either then you can obviously see that they don't wish to use their residence (or employment) to cater to this lifestyle in the sense that they feel they become participants in it, and in the latter case open up their own home for such practices to take place.

It might depend on what the situation was.If I were a pastor I would not marry a gay couple.Baking a cake is a different situation.

[missmuffet]

 

 

One friend said the following:

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

Your friend has said something that I find interesting.I deal with homosexuals everyday.I am kind to them.It is their choice.Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin.It would not be my choice.I think I would make the cake.

 

John 8:7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up^[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

 

 

Yes this is true Bo. John 8:7 is a good reminder.

I particularly like the ending of that section of the chapter...

John 8:7-12

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

 

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

 

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

 

¹² Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

 

It's interesting how quick we are to quote Jesus with "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" and ignore the last part of that verse. "..neither to I condemn you. Go, and sin no more". This is the message of the Gospel. Yes, I believe Jesus did point out their hypocrisy, in a way that only Jesus can. (BTW, when we point out others hypocrisy, we ignore our own in a twisted ironic sense IMO for sure).

But he didn't turn back to the woman and say that since her accusers were hypocrites, she was free to return to her adultery. He extended grace,was forgiving and kind, but gently reminded her they (the accusers) had a point, and she should adjust.

To me, this couple lost their business due to lack of wisdom.

 

God bless,

GE

 

You are right GE we are not to mock God.We can not continue to sin on and on and think that by asking for forgivness that is going to work and we can have our fun.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

 

GE I so get it, and both ways though. I mean the guy baking the cake might be dealing with conscience issues. He might feel he is giving his approval in doing this thing. In his circumstance the gay couple might request two men (or two women) to be placed atop the cake, since (obviously) it would not be a traditional cake topper.

 

And here's the thing (although I do see the opposite side of it as well) if someone's conscience is condemning their own participation in it, and believes the same is as giving his approval (against what his conscience allows) what can you say? After all Paul allows for the weak brothers conscience (in respects to another's own eating) however in this case there is no danger in being embolden to eat what he forbids himself (obviously). And it probably wouldn't have been such an issue (at all) if it was just serving food (like in a diner) without the moral attachment of a union (and of the which) he is definitely not giving his blessing.

 

But lets just say there is a couple who has opened up their own home for a bed and breakfast, and a man comes in wanting a room, and the other is not present ( the Christians being clueless until the other shows up) Being either two men or two women in their home. I can understand them being uncomfortable with this. However, it would be hypocritical to allow to unmarried (being man and woman) in either then. And so folks sometimes cant recognized they are being that way until you compare the two different situations. However, if they are consistent and allow not for that either then you can obviously see that they don't wish to use their residence (or employment) to cater to this lifestyle in the sense that they feel they become participants in it, and in the latter case open up their own home for such practices to take place.

It might depend on what the situation was.If I were a pastor I would not marry a gay couple.

 

 

Exactly, I just cant see John the Baptist (who was shut up in prison) for telling Herod that his lifestyle was unlawful (in having his brother Phillips wife) handing out his blessings for it. That seems to be more double minded in a sense. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth. This is wrong, but I will give you my blessing in it.

 

Besides there is state sanctioned marriages, justice of the peace marries people also, so if the government does the same (offering its benefits) I would think they would go that route rather then trying to get the approval of the church (who also marries others) but refuses to do so (at least most of them).

[MissPlaced_56]

The problem i have with this subject and many other's as well,is simply this...

 

When did I become so perfect that in my own arrogance, I have the right to point a judgemental finger at anybody??

Siting Scripture as my basis for my arrogance??

If I were a pastor would I preside over a gay marriage??...THe answer to that one is no,what i would do is simply this, I would sit down with the couple,take their hands in mine, look them straight in the eye and say, I love you both, and it's because i love you both that I don't believe that you're good for each other,I want you both to be happy, as I would do with any couple that I felt weren't good for each other.

 

Aww but you say "isn't that arrogance and being judgmental?" no for this reason....I truely DO want the couple to be happy, i would suggest counseling before they say I Do.

 

AS in the bed and Breakfast scenerio I would welcome them, treat them with the same dignity and respect as i would anybody else, It's not my job to judge "sinner's" that's GOD's Business, as I am a sinner as well, and perhap's in getting to know these patron's of my estabolishment and loving them, they will see they need to make some changes in their lives....I can't convert anybody...that again is GOD's Business.

 

I figure it like this,they already know the deal....my job is only to love them....Pray for them..and let GOD do what HE does so well.

All I can see is a tiny thread in their tapestry of life...GOD on the other Hand, SEE's all the why's and wherefores!

By loving them, i'm certainly NOT hurting them..and perhap's giving them cause to pause and think....

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

We already know

 

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

But adds...

Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

But now he clarifies

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

However when it comes to the conscience in such instances there are those unsure they are doing the right thing. If it was serving up a big mac on an assembly line (no question) and no such refusal was ever really heard of. If a Christian was working at a hotel (again) they wouldn't have the right to refuse them (its not into their personal space (such as opening up their home) to that activity.

 

Paul was really speaking of those that call themselves a brother and are both in the world and of it, not those who don't call themselves brethren (and who are both in the world and of it) and to whom we are to be the light of the world to.

 

 

[GoldenEagle]

GE I so get it, and both ways though. I mean the guy baking the cake might be dealing with conscience issues. He might feel he is giving his approval in doing this thing. In his circumstance the gay couple might request two men (or two women) to be placed atop the cake, since (obviously) it would not be a traditional cake topper.

 

And here's the thing (although I do see the opposite side of it as well) if someone's conscience is condemning their own participation in it, and believes the same is as giving his approval (against what his conscience allows) what can you say? After all Paul allows for the weak brothers conscience (in respects to another's own eating) however in this case there is no danger in being embolden to eat what he forbids himself (obviously). And it probably wouldn't have been such an issue (at all) if it was just serving food (like in a diner) without the moral attachment of a union (and of the which) he is definitely not giving his blessing.

 

But lets just say there is a couple who has opened up their own home for a bed and breakfast, and a man comes in wanting a room, and the other is not present ( the Christians being clueless until the other shows up) Being either two men or two women in their home. I can understand them being uncomfortable with this. However, it would be hypocritical to allow to unmarried (being man and woman) in either then. And so folks sometimes cant recognized they are being that way until you compare the two different situations. However, if they are consistent and allow not for that either then you can obviously see that they don't wish to use their residence (or employment) to cater to this lifestyle in the sense that they feel they become participants in it, and in the latter case open up their own home for such practices to take place.

I see what you're saying. And I agree in bold.

 

I guess I just look at it this way: baking a cake is a business transaction. I don't have to agree with the purpose of the cake in the customer's eyes. I make the cake, the customer pays for the cake, and we move on. If I had a lawn business and a customer was gay I wouldn't simply not take the yard because I disagreed with their lifestyle. Who knows? Maybe I would be the only Christian that the gay person or couple interacts with on a regular basis.

It's not like this bakery was a church. The owner of the bakery was not a pastor performing a ceremony.

 

Plus, what did he accomplish really in denying to make and sell the cake to the couple? His business is closed, he faces a lawsuit, he had to get a new job (that I'd imagine he doesn't like but it pays the bills), and ultimately his family (he has 5 kids) suffer for this one choice he made. The lawsuit may cost him any personal bellogings (vehicles or home) that he has as investments. And I'm not so sure that this was the best (wisest) way to handle things. <sigh>

I agree with you about the bed and breakfast scenario. If an owner is going to say that based on thier values and Biblical beliefs they do not allow homosexuals to stay at thier facility they would need to exclude adulterers (say a married man and his girlfriend), fornicators (two unmarried people), etc. And where do you draw the line? "We only accept people who are Christians here." That's really inviting and Christ-like.

I guess too I don't know enough information about this whole situation. Was the homosexual couple trying to get attention and targeting this business? Possibly. Did the owner accept the order for the cake and then when he realized the couple was homosexual did he treat them poorly? Possibly.

My point is IMO this kind of attitude (on the owner's part) does nothing to improve the already widening gap between Christians and homosexuals in America. We can't expect lost people to act saved. But we can as Christians let love guide our actions.

My 2 cents.

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

You are right GE we are not to mock God.We can not continue to sin on and on and think that by asking for forgivness that is going to work and we can have our fun.

 

 

I agree sister.

But this isn't limited to the homosexual. Habitual (wilful) sin of any form is not good. The sin of pride for example (one I admit I struggle with) is still sin. The sin of laziness, gluttony, gossip are also serious to God.

The good knews is that I believe it is possible to repent from the sin of homosexuality and either A. live a celibate life or B. understand that God has made sacred the covenant relationship between a man and a woman.

God bless,

GE

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

 

GE I so get it, and both ways though. I mean the guy baking the cake might be dealing with conscience issues. He might feel he is giving his approval in doing this thing. In his circumstance the gay couple might request two men (or two women) to be placed atop the cake, since (obviously) it would not be a traditional cake topper.

 

And here's the thing (although I do see the opposite side of it as well) if someone's conscience is condemning their own participation in it, and believes the same is as giving his approval (against what his conscience allows) what can you say? After all Paul allows for the weak brothers conscience (in respects to another's own eating) however in this case there is no danger in being embolden to eat what he forbids himself (obviously). And it probably wouldn't have been such an issue (at all) if it was just serving food (like in a diner) without the moral attachment of a union (and of the which) he is definitely not giving his blessing.

 

But lets just say there is a couple who has opened up their own home for a bed and breakfast, and a man comes in wanting a room, and the other is not present ( the Christians being clueless until the other shows up) Being either two men or two women in their home. I can understand them being uncomfortable with this. However, it would be hypocritical to allow to unmarried (being man and woman) in either then. And so folks sometimes cant recognized they are being that way until you compare the two different situations. However, if they are consistent and allow not for that either then you can obviously see that they don't wish to use their residence (or employment) to cater to this lifestyle in the sense that they feel they become participants in it, and in the latter case open up their own home for such practices to take place.

I see what you're saying. And I agree in bold.

 

I guess I just look at it this way: baking a cake is a business transaction. I don't have to agree with the purpose of the cake in the customer's eyes. I make the cake, the customer pays for the cake, and we move on. If I had a lawn business and a customer was gay I wouldn't simply not take the yard because I disagreed with their lifestyle. Who knows? Maybe I would be the only Christian that the gay person or couple interacts with on a regular basis.

It's not like this bakery was a church. The owner of the bakery was not a pastor performing a ceremony.

 

Plus, what did he accomplish really in denying to make and sell the cake to the couple? His business is closed, he faces a lawsuit, he had to get a new job (that I'd imagine he doesn't like but it pays the bills), and ultimately his family (he has 5 kids) suffer for this one choice he made. The lawsuit may cost him any personal bellogings (vehicles or home) that he has as investments. And I'm not so sure that this was the best (wisest) way to handle things. <sigh>

I agree with you about the bed and breakfast scenario. If an owner is going to say that based on thier values and Biblical beliefs they do not allow homosexuals to stay at thier facility they would need to exclude adulterers (say a married man and his girlfriend), fornicators (two unmarried people), etc. And where do you draw the line? "We only accept people who are Christians here." That's really inviting and Christ-like.

I guess too I don't know enough information about this whole situation. Was the homosexual couple trying to get attention and targeting this business? Possibly. Did the owner accept the order for the cake and then when he realized the couple was homosexual did he treat them poorly? Possibly.

My point is IMO this kind of attitude (on the owner's part) does nothing to improve the already widening gap between Christians and homosexuals in America. We can't expect lost people to act saved. But we can as Christians let love guide our actions.

My 2 cents.

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

 

Blessings GE, I agree and can understand both sides of the situation. I mean even Paul had to clarify who he was speaking of, and I honestly don't know what went on. He could be very honestly mistaken. But heck, the man stood on what he conscientiously objected to and  was at least willing to forfeit it all over it. Which is a lot more then what many Christians are willing to do for what we might deem as better reasons. He took no gain (only loss) from this situation. Making the cake would have been far easier for him. This is still all iffy to me. We still got to allow for ignorance or conscience on his side of things too. Maybe he felt that he would be a partaker in another mans sins in his own going through with this? I don't know. We allow for a minister to say no, or perhaps a bed and breakfast to say no, and we could probably think up a few others we could understand their no to it, but bottom line is folks can say no (according to their conscience) and will end up paying the consequences for where it is deemed disallowed (just as this man did) and I suppose it is his right to.

 

Its really hard to dictate to another mans conscience when he might feel he is being a partaker of something (or in it) "somehow" in his own reasonings. Which is why I'd love to see an interview with him (I haven't) so I can only guess what was going through his mind (and his own reasons). For which (I would think) would be far easier to  talk himself out of (because of the cost to himself alone) but he didn't opt for that. Im sure someone had tried to convince him it was just not worth it but he stood on his own reasons.

 

Here's where don't ask don't tell comes in handy. Though I know that's not being realistic because a lot of homosexuals  announce themselves, or rather wear their sexual preference on their sleeve. Which I don't understand so much, because I don't meet others with a Hi my name is... and a... I am proud to be a heterosexual. I mean no one ever has felt the need to ask and I sure haven't ever felt the need to tell. So I honestly don't understand the need to tape it on your forehead or anything. Someone's sexual preferences is not the first thing I even care to know about when I meet a stranger at a workplace, and I would just never ask.

 

 

But if you work in this world you will be dealing with folks doing things you do not approve of whether secretly so (or openly so). That's just how it is. 

 

God bless you GE

[shorryshaggy]

If this is the bakery in Oregon there is a lot more to it. First the couple actually were ok with it at first and he makes other cakes for them like birthday and such. the mother of one of them came back in threw a fit and she is the one that spured on the law suit. the question is if it were a muslim owned resturant would they serve alcohol which is against that religion and if they didn't under religious terms would anyone complain or would a jewish caterer serve unkosher foods. Also the state of Oregon really had a lot to do with harrasment and the protests

[ayin jade]

 

For clarification I think it's horrible/despicable that those involved threatened and boycotted the business to where it was shut down.

However, one friend said the following:

 

 

 

Lance: No one's saying that a Christian pastor should be a part of a gay wedding. And yes, the bakery owners have the legal right to refuse to do business with whomever they please. The point Micah was trying to make with the bakery example is this: would those bakery owners apply the same criteria of "we don't want to aid in a sinful lifestyle" to couples that had pre-marital sex? What about non-Christian hetereosexual couples? What about clients who struggled with gluttony? Would the bakery owners apply the "not aiding sin" criteria apply to those other categories? I think not.

 

 

 

Couples who had premarital sex are stopping that sin when they get married. So the bakery is not giving the appearance of condoning any sin. 

 

Gay couples who get married are not stopping a sin and baking a cake for them does give the appearance of condoning the sin.

 

It is not hypocrisy.