Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn't Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

Paidiske said:

It's who the customer is and what they want to do with it.

Click to expand...

It is not who the customer is at all.
It's the event the cake is for.

Hank77 said:

It is not who the customer is at all.
It's the event the cake is for.

Click to expand...

That much is clear. The judge in this case agrees...not losing site of the OP of course.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids,” Judge Lampe’s ruling reads. “For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech.”

The judge issued his ruling Monday, stating it would only be discrimination if Miller refused to sell an existing product to the lesbians. He discerned that forcing a business owner to violate his/her beliefs is “the stuff of tyranny.”

U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

redleghunter said:

That much is clear. The judge in this case agrees...not losing site of the OP of course.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

“The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids,” Judge Lampe’s ruling reads. “For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech.”

The judge issued his ruling Monday, stating it would only be discrimination if Miller refused to sell an existing product to the lesbians. He discerned that forcing a business owner to violate his/her beliefs is “the stuff of tyranny.”

U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

Click to expand...

The judge worded that statement very well and pointing out that the cake was not yet conceived.
Maybe the SCOTUS will take this case into consideration when making their decisions in the Masterpiece Bakery case.

Hank77 said:

It is not who the customer is at all.
It's the event the cake is for.

Click to expand...

But the event is defined by who the customer is, in this case.

Paidiske said:

But the event is defined by who the customer is, in this case.

Click to expand...

The judge disagreed:

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."


The judge issued his ruling Monday, stating it would only be discrimination if Miller refused to sell an existing product to the lesbians. He discerned that forcing a business owner to violate his/her beliefs is “the stuff of tyranny.”

U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

Paidiske said:

But the event is defined by who the customer is, in this case.

Click to expand...

If straight parents went in the bakery and wanted to order a cake for their lesbian daughter's wedding they would be refused, and it wouldn't be against the law to refuse them.

My point was that if you'd sell an identical cake to another couple (for another event) then you're putting more moral meaning to the design and selling of that cake than is reasonable.

The event shouldn't matter to the baker, because the baker is not involved by the act of making and selling cake.

Paidiske said:

The event shouldn't matter to the baker, because the baker is not involved by the act of making and selling cake.

Click to expand...

If that argument was valid, the Apostle Paul would be wrong in 1 Corinthians 10:28.

That being said, I don't think that either the judge in the OP or the Supreme Court in the other, ongoing, case is going to take any notice of what's said here.

Radagast said:

If that argument was valid, the Apostle Paul would be wrong in 1 Corinthians 10:28.

Click to expand...

The difference there is that Paul is telling people not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, if it leads others to believe it's okay to sacrifice to idols. It's generally okay to eat, but not if it leads someone else to sin.

But since there is no idol in sight here, and a cake is not an item used in cultic worship, the issues are different.

Paidiske said:

the issues are different.

Click to expand...

Not really. Paul is saying that there's a connection between the person preparing the food and the person eating the food, and that if it goes against your conscience to participate in an activity, then you should also not be knowingly linked to it through that connection.

Radagast said:

Not really. Paul is saying that there's a connection between the person preparing the food and the person eating the food, and that if it goes against your conscience to participate in an activity, then you should also not be knowingly linked to it through that connection.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Paul is saying we should avoid even the appearance of idolatry, lest we lead others into idolatry. His whole argument is that it's fine to eat the meat, but the distinction between eating without worship and worshipping by eating needs to be clear to all concerned.

Would that the distinction between baking without sinning, and sinning in cake-related activities, were so clear!

Paidiske said:

Not at all. Paul is saying we should avoid even the appearance of idolatry, lest we lead others into idolatry. His whole argument is that it's fine to eat the meat, but the distinction between eating without worship and worshipping by eating needs to be clear to all concerned.

Would that the distinction between baking without sinning, and sinning in cake-related activities, were so clear!

Click to expand...

Do you think it is okay for Christians to design and create a custom-made cake for an event to celebrate the worship of an idol and then delivering it to the idol's temple?

Lily of Valleys said:

Do you think it is okay for Christians to design and create a custom-made cake for an event to celebrate the worship of an idol and then delivering it to the idol's temple?

Click to expand...

Yes, providing there's nothing inherently offensive in the design. Making and selling the cake does not involve them in what the purchasers do with it.

That's the whole point of this argument.

Paidiske said:

Yes, providing there's nothing inherently offensive in the design. Making and selling the cake does not involve them in what the purchasers do with it.

That's the whole point of this argument.

Click to expand...

I assume you would think dining in an idol's temple is okay too?

Lily of Valleys said:

I assume you would think dining in an idol's temple is okay too?

Click to expand...

Yes. If you're not worshipping the idol, go ahead and eat. There's no sin in doing so. (Isn't that Paul's point?)

We're not required - and it's not possible - to avoid ever being near anything sinful. We're only required to choose our own actions with integrity.

Paidiske said:

Yes. If you're not worshipping the idol, go ahead and eat. There's no sin in doing so. (Isn't that Paul's point?)

We're not required - and it's not possible - to avoid ever being near anything sinful. We're only required to choose our own actions with integrity.

Click to expand...

I think what Paul meant is, we should not dine in the idol's temple for the sake of the conscience of our brother. By sinning against the brother and wounding their conscience when it is weak, we sin against Christ:

Right, so if you have a brother who still thinks the idol is a god, you don't do something which lets that brother think that it is okay to worship the idol (by him thinking you are worshipping the idol).

But that's not relevant to the whole gay-wedding-cake scenario. The closest comparison there would be, don't do something which lets others think that you are in a homosexual marriage.

Paidiske said:

Right, so if you have a brother who still thinks the idol is a god, you don't do something which lets that brother think that it is okay to worship the idol (by him thinking you are worshipping the idol).

But that's not relevant to the whole gay-wedding-cake scenario. The closest comparison there would be, don't do something which lets others think that you are in a homosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

I would say facilitating and assisting with the celebration of two people's commitment of a homosexual relationship could give others the impression that we endorse homosexuality and that homosexuality is acceptable in God's eyes. Even if we don't think it is an endorsement, there could be others who think it is an endorsement.

We have brothers who used to live a homosexual lifestyle before they became Christians and came to realize that homosexual act is sin by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. We do not want to cause them to stumble because of what we do.

Except that selling a cake isn't an endorsement.

Claiming that it is, doesn't make it so.

Paidiske said:

Except that selling a cake isn't an endorsement.

Click to expand...

The judge, in this case, disagreed. He took the view that a creative work, such as a specially designed cake, was a form of speech, and that if it was for a certain purpose it was an endorsement of that purpose, and that the baker couldn't be compelled to endorse something he didn't believe in, per the 1st Amendment.