I believe that legally and morally we should sell a cake no matter how it's going to be used. There's no direct Biblical answer to this question, but 1 Cor 10:25 is close. It looks at the consumer side, saying that a product isn't contaminated by its origin. He was dealing there was meat from a animal that had been dedicated to a pagan god. If that's not a problem, I would say, similarly, that for a producer, it isn't contaminated by its use.
Racists get to eat cake too.
Putting a specific message on the cake, or making it in a specific shape that has symbolic implications, is expression, and in my view should not be compelled. Masterpiece Cake didn't try to argue for refusing to sell an existing cake for a gay wedding. It was trying to argue that making a "custom" cake was expression, even if there's nothing specific about the cake associated with the type of wedding. That seems like an odd argument, because I don't think the baker articulated any real concept of customization, as long as it's a standard cake design. However if they had, for example, asked for a statue on top of the cake with two men on it, that would become expression, and I would say that baker would be within his rights to refuse it. Similarly with any message or design on the cake that specified gay marriage.
If I can believe a long analysis I read recently, the printer issue hasn't been settled. I'm fairly surprised at that. I had previously assumed that it had been. It will probably be settled in the tee shirt case. I think printed messages are expression, and thus should be protected under the concept of compelled speech.
First, please quote references by first looking to see if a post has been edited before you place it in your quote.
I believe that you are not being consistent. I used a clear and irrefutable example (the rental van example) that intended product usage is a factor that determines the morality of providing a service/product and further demonstrates the reality of the moral component of providing a product or service. A created cake (even without an explicit message) is in fact a product and so falls under that principle of product intended usage. If you have a solid refutation of that, then lets see it.
I believe you are also wrong concerning the clarity of the Bible on these matters. The bible condemns the practice and glorification of sin/evil including homosexual practice. Are you reading from a modern Bible perversion that seeks to accommodate/justify homosexual practice?
There are plenty of biblical examples that demonstrate that intended usage of an object (living or otherwise) is in fact a determining factor in the biblical lawfulness of
creating such object. For example, there is the general prohibition against creating/using images (Exodus 20:4; Deut. 4:15-19), but then God allows images in the Temple (Ex. 36:8; 1 Kings 6:29; Ezekiel 41:25; Exodus 25:20). Why the allowance in one instance but not in the other? Because motivation/intended usage is a factor in determining the morality of
creating and/or using objects.
A cake is in fact a created object.
You have also misapplied 1 Cor 10:25. A bad comparison for your apparent intent. The food in the Scriptural reference offered to idols is
not products or services
created by Christians. It literally does not follow that because I can lawfully (biblically) eat a cake after it has been used in a gay wedding that such cake can be lawfully (biblically) created by a genuine christian in the first place. They are two issues that you are apparently conflating.
You are conflated issues. I agree with you that Scripture and sound logic makes it clear that an object is not made
inherently or intrinsically evil by its original or continued usage. Physical matter knows nothing of morality. That is not what I have argued for. I have argued that there is inherently evil/sinful
usage and
creation, not inherently evil or sinful objects. Acts/practices can certainly be inherently evil or sinful. The supposed evilness of an object based on its original usage should not be confused with the morality of
creating such object in the first place.
Who is responsible for bringing into being an object to be used to glorify sin? The buyer of the cake? No, the baker. One of the key issues in these matters is the responsibility of the person bringing into being the object known to be used to glorify sin. That was one major issue of the Masterpiece Cake shop case. The baker refused to shoulder such responsibility; and no human has the moral justification to force him or anyone else to shoulder such responsibility