No, actually, that is not where I am coming from. I actually believe that the baker should not of been forced to make a cake in this circumstance. I just disagree on why. Let me try to explain. I have no issues with people holding the religious view that homosexuality is wrong. I also do not take issue with their idea that encouraging or participating in a homosexual celebration would be wrong. I am not nor should I be the judge of the validity of religious belief in this context.
Thanks for this clarification, belk.
My issue is that I do not see the claim that baking a wedding cake and selling it to homosexuals is either a religious expression or participation in a wedding. Selling someone a product does not show endorsement for said activity.
I think it's an issue of perspective. Some people may not view it as endorsement, while others may see it as support. What really matters is the man's own personal perspective. If he felt that it was showing support for gay marriage, then isn't that enough? If we cannot make important decisions based on our personal convictions, then what should we base our decisions on?
We may even say it's unreasonable for him to feel that baking a cake, as part of what his business does for dozens of people every week, is the same as showing support for the occasions for which all those cakes are baked, but it's his personal conviction so the bottom line is how he feels about it. If he feels that baking a cake for a gay marriage is showing support for gay marriage in general then it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks; he must follow his conscience.
Personal integrity is an important part of the Christian religion.
If I sell wine and a priest comes in to buy wine for communion I am not endorsing Christianity by selling it to him. I am endorsing commerce of wine at most.
I've been trying to keep my posts shorter these days, but it seems there's always so much to say. Allow me a bit of leeway here.
Jesus told a parable about sheep and goats. He rewarded the sheep because they helped the sick, visited prisoners, sheltered strangers etc.
But the most surprising thing is that they were
surprised to be rewarded. They asked, "when did we help you"? It's like they were clueless. They didn't realize that, from God's perspective, helping these random people was the same as helping God.
Perspectives about who/what we support or don't support can be very different from person to person and if God really is the creator of everything then his perspective is the most important of all. So be careful belk, you may end up playing a harp after all. ^.^
Now, that said I can also see that the baker was forced to participate in something that he felt uncomfortable with. When I first heard of this I imagined myself in the bakers position and how would I feel if I was forced to make a cake for the KKK or WBC? That is why I think they would of had a much stronger case if they had followed the free association angle. No one should be forced to associate with those they do not want to. It is a delicate balance though.
Your explanation about having imagined yourself in the baker's shoes was very satisfying to read as I think that's an important part of understanding one another. Thanks for sharing it.
How do we maintain the right of free association while we also maintain the rights of people to engage in commerce?
This is the same as asking, "how do we get along" and it's a fantastic question.
My suggestion is that, as Christians, we need to be working on strategies which will cause people to look to us as leaders in genuine caring; i.e. not just people who say, "if you don't like what the bible says then you can go to hell".
People need to believe that we care about them even when we disagree with their behaviour. We've done a very poor job of this with homosexuals. As a result, they've learned to not listen to us because almost certainly the average Christian will fall back on "the bible says so" or some other glib dismissal rather than empathizing with what they are going through emotionally.
If we want them to stop touching one another, then we need to give them an alternative; something more than just a religious formula like go to church, read the bible, sing songs, perform various rituals etc...
I made this suggestion earlier on a different gay thread, but is there any (single) Christian who would be willing to be an accountability partner with a homosexual? If we ask them to remain celibate, then perhaps we should be willing to do the same thing in solidarity with them? Sure, we don't have to but maybe we should see it as our responsibility to care for them; like being a servant. If we are faithful with this, then we could build a reputation where gays think twice before taking us to court, because they will see evidence that we care for them despite our differences.
Alcoholics Anonymous has been using this strategy for years because they know it works. Addicts have a sponsor or accountabilibuddy. When they feel tempted, they call their sponsor for support.
If a homosexual felt encouraged to refrain from sexual contact with another gay because he/she knew that I was also refraining from sexual contact (I'm not married anyway) then I would also feel encouraged about that person feeling encouraged; like the opposite of a vicious cycle. ^.^
