"It is like the Lord Himself told me..."

[frater_domus]

I was browing through some old youtube videos and I noticed a someone made a video about an incident in 2016. Here is the article, if you want a reference. In short, a disabled woman had trouble with her car and called a tow truck. The man arrived, saw that she was a Bernie supporter, told her that he will not serve her and left. However, there was one part that the article did not mention. There was an interview for TV and the tow truck driver said: "It is like the Lord Himself told to get into the truck and leave".
This is an issue that is all too common. People use God to justify all sorts of things. "You are wrong and if you argue with me, you argue with God", or something like that, is pretty common line. If taken to an extreme, we will have everyone running around, saying God told them. Who is right? Who is wrong? This sort of thing can not be proven. Thus, we must look at scripture as the final authority in that matter, because even our conscience may lead us astray. Speaking in terms of scripture, should the man have towed the broken truck of the disabled woman? I do not think that many would suggest that he did what was right, especially since his grievance was not based on scripture but on political preference.

But let's make it more interesting and introduce and grievance, that is based on scripture. Remember the baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple? This is where things may become more tricky, because the prevalent biblical interpretations are opposed to homosexuality and the baker may have felt he would promote it. He would feel like the bible and thus God would justify it.
You see, we called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We are called to love and serve. The sermon on the mount holds plenty of info on that. One might say now that what the baker did was unloving. Others may say that he was courageous to have taken a stand and thus preached to world that homosexuality is bad.

So what's the answer? Personally, I do not think that he acted right. I do not condone homosexuality and I agree that the world has become way too liberal in that regard, with gender fluidity being a thing and so forth. However, is an antagonistic stance really what is needed? Isn't that going against the love for our neighbours, appear self-righteous and only increase the disconnect that a lot of Christianity has with the world already and thus damaging our witness and testimony of Christ? To me, these situations often feel all too similar to the Pharisee in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the gospel of Luke. Condoning someone's actions and being loving towards a person and doing one's job are different things, in my eyes. I mean, if you were a doctor, woud you refuse to save the life of a homosexual patient? Or a murderer? Or a terrorist?

But that's my take on the matter. Let's discuss the issue of when God and scripture are used, intentionally or, mostly, unintentionally, to justify ungodly things. Or do you think the contrary and the refusal to serve a sinner is in fact biblically justied?

Though please, let's keep it civil by being as grounded in scripture as possible and as open to a discussion as possible

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The baker should be supported in his religious decisions.

Thank goodness the Supreme Court decided the same.

Still seems to be hope.

The baker believes in the Bible, we Christians should support that.

M-Bob

 

[frater_domus]

The baker should be supported in his religious decisions.

Thank goodness the Supreme Court decided the same.

Still seems to be hope.

The baker believes in the Bible, we Christians should support that.

M-Bob

The final decision and the supreme court are not subject of this discussion. Only the scripture is. I said it in the OP and I will say it again, please base this discussion on scripture as much as possible and see whether those actions are justified in terms of scripture.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

see whether those actions are justified in terms of scripture.

Well then it is plain to see that scripture speaks very negatively regarding homosexual activity. Scripture also teaches me that we need to love these people but, we sure (do not have to) agree with their sin.

Too many looking for sin agreement.

M-Bob

 

[Athanasius377]

I think Paul said it best in Romans 12:9-21 (NASB)

9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.
10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
11 not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
12 rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer,
13 contributing to the needs of the saints, bpracticing hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.
17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.
20 “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


The Christian has a duty towards a neighbor in need regardless of that neighbors political leanings. The truck driver has more affinity towards his political party preference that he does to his Lord. He then doubles down and says the Lord told him to drive away. I can assure him, the Lord said no such thing.

As to the baker, again the passage applies. As a Christian he could not participate since he knows what marriage is and what marriage is not. I think we went out of his way to be at peace with this gay couple and was rewarded with the destruction of his livelihood. There are other verses I could use but this one seems to be the most appropriate.

 

[frater_domus]

Too many looking for sin agreement.

Very well said. The bible also does instruct us to dissociate from harmful people. Where does one draw the line though? When does the avoidance of sin turn into antagonism towards the person commiting it?

As to the baker, again the passage applies. As a Christian he could not participate since he knows what marriage is and what marriage is not. I think we went out of his way to be at peace with this gay couple and was rewarded with the destruction of his livelihood. There are other verses I could use but this one seems to be the most appropriate.

Yes, the baker disagreed on the wedding cake, though he would sell other products to them. The couple had to get the law involved. In this case, the baker did well, whereas the couple had to go for confrontation.
But what about the hypothetical example of an ER doctor not wanting to help a murderer, thus doing significant harm to the person or at least prolong his or her suffering? Worldly authorities will almost always rule against the doctor, because of the Hippocratic oath. Would the scripture though?
I realize that not baking a cake and saving a life are very different things and are hardly comparable. See it as two extremes juxtaposed against each other. Where do we draw the line between "“BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; [...]" and "[...] Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good."?
Mind you, I would help the injured person, for that would glorify God as it was help for a person in need. Look at the good Samaritan. He helped, without consideration that the person was a Jew and/or sinner.
Would the good Samaritan baked the Jew a cake though? I do not know. Maybe I am focusing more on the phrases of being a loving person as opposed to abhoring evil?

 

[Chinchilla]

I was browing through some old youtube videos and I noticed a someone made a video about an incident in 2016. Here is the article, if you want a reference. In short, a disabled woman had trouble with her car and called a tow truck. The man arrived, saw that she was a Bernie supporter, told her that he will not serve her and left. However, there was one part that the article did not mention. There was an interview for TV and the tow truck driver said: "It is like the Lord Himself told to get into the truck and leave".
This is an issue that is all too common. People use God to justify all sorts of things. "You are wrong and if you argue with me, you argue with God", or something like that, is pretty common line. If taken to an extreme, we will have everyone running around, saying God told them. Who is right? Who is wrong? This sort of thing can not be proven. Thus, we must look at scripture as the final authority in that matter, because even our conscience may lead us astray. Speaking in terms of scripture, should the man have towed the broken truck of the disabled woman? I do not think that many would suggest that he did what was right, especially since his grievance was not based on scripture but on political preference.

But let's make it more interesting and introduce and grievance, that is based on scripture. Remember the baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple? This is where things may become more tricky, because the prevalent biblical interpretations are opposed to homosexuality and the baker may have felt he would promote it. He would feel like the bible and thus God would justify it.
You see, we called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We are called to love and serve. The sermon on the mount holds plenty of info on that. One might say now that what the baker did was unloving. Others may say that he was courageous to have taken a stand and thus preached to world that homosexuality is bad.

So what's the answer? Personally, I do not think that he acted right. I do not condone homosexuality and I agree that the world has become way too liberal in that regard, with gender fluidity being a thing and so forth. However, is an antagonistic stance really what is needed? Isn't that going against the love for our neighbours, appear self-righteous and only increase the disconnect that a lot of Christianity has with the world already and thus damaging our witness and testimony of Christ? To me, these situations often feel all too similar to the Pharisee in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the gospel of Luke. Condoning someone's actions and being loving towards a person and doing one's job are different things, in my eyes. I mean, if you were a doctor, woud you refuse to save the life of a homosexual patient? Or a murderer? Or a terrorist?

But that's my take on the matter. Let's discuss the issue of when God and scripture are used, intentionally or, mostly, unintentionally, to justify ungodly things. Or do you think the contrary and the refusal to serve a sinner is in fact biblically justied?

Though please, let's keep it civil by being as grounded in scripture as possible and as open to a discussion as possible

So you say that I can't blame God for my baking failures

Can I at least make It sound like it was God's punishment and not my lack of skills ?

But I agree , in case of emergency we should do all what's possible to help or rescue somebody no matter of thier skin color or religious beliefs .

That does not mean that on daily basics we should have fellowship with unbelievers . We are ordered to separate ourselfes . 2 Corinthians 6:14

 

[frater_domus]

So you say that I can't blame God for my baking failures

Thou shalt not bake well, but thy cakes shalt be an abomination in the sight of the customer! -God, probably (not)

That does not mean that on daily basics we should have fellowship with unbelievers . We are ordered to separate ourselfes .

Does fellowship also mean to do the job you have chosen to do? Now, I would definitely go against the baker if he used the gay-excuse to avoid doing work. Diligence is praised while slothfulness is condemned in scripture. As such, is motive the deciding factor then? Looking at Romans 14:6, it shows that we have options, as long as they are for the glory of God. So if the baker abstained for the glory of God, then he is justified, but if he abstained because of hatred or prejudice, he is not?

 

[SkyWriting]

The baker should be supported in his religious decisions.

Thank goodness the Supreme Court decided the same.

Still seems to be hope.

The baker believes in the Bible, we Christians should support that.

M-Bob

The Baker should treat his customers just the same as he would wish to
be treated himself. The baker has no other options. But his confusion is justified.
But biblically, he has no other options.

 

[Chinchilla]

Thou shalt not bake well, but thy cakes shalt be an abomination in the sight of the customer! -God, probably (not)


Does fellowship also mean to do the job you have chosen to do? Now, I would definitely go against the baker if he used the gay-excuse to avoid doing work. Diligence is praised while slothfulness is condemned in scripture. As such, is motive the deciding factor then? Looking at Romans 14:6, it shows that we have options, as long as they are for the glory of God. So if the baker abstained for the glory of God, then he is justified, but if he abstained because of hatred or prejudice, he is not?

God said that it's raining both on the godly and ungodly . There are many massive bakerys where bakers bake bread and have no Idea who is buying it later on . Homosexualists are eating bread on daily basics just like Heterosexualists . Don't think that you would be condemned by God for baking bread which they would eat .

Also Jesus ate with sinners , being gay is the same as saying a lie in God's eyes because he can't have any sin in his presence .

James 2:10

 

[John 1720]

I was browing through some old youtube videos and I noticed a someone made a video about an incident in 2016. Here is the article, if you want a reference. In short, a disabled woman had trouble with her car and called a tow truck. The man arrived, saw that she was a Bernie supporter, told her that he will not serve her and left. However, there was one part that the article did not mention. There was an interview for TV and the tow truck driver said: "It is like the Lord Himself told to get into the truck and leave".
This is an issue that is all too common. People use God to justify all sorts of things. "You are wrong and if you argue with me, you argue with God", or something like that, is pretty common line. If taken to an extreme, we will have everyone running around, saying God told them. Who is right? Who is wrong? This sort of thing can not be proven. Thus, we must look at scripture as the final authority in that matter, because even our conscience may lead us astray. Speaking in terms of scripture, should the man have towed the broken truck of the disabled woman? I do not think that many would suggest that he did what was right, especially since his grievance was not based on scripture but on political preference.

Hi Frater, I agree with you thus far. The attitude of the truck driver goes against the parable Jesus taught us of the good Samaritan as well as His teaching on loving our enemies.

But let's make it more interesting and introduce and grievance, that is based on Scripture. Remember the baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple? This is where things may become more tricky, because the prevalent biblical interpretations are opposed to homosexuality and the baker may have felt he would promote it. He would feel like the bible and thus God would justify it.
You see, we called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. We are called to love and serve. The sermon on the mount holds plenty of info on that. One might say now that what the baker did was unloving. Others may say that he was courageous to have taken a stand and thus preached to world that homosexuality is bad.

Well, if anyone was trying to make the news here and publicize it, I would surmise it would be the homosexual couple who wanted to target a Christian for a takedown. I think the baker was probably just minding his business and attempting to live a fairly quiet life. We are taught to do so as we are to seek justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God. This same-gender couple could have easily just procured a cake from a more secularly principled establishment. So the evidence overwhelmingly points to a targeted agenda in order to strike a blow against the faith community and their first amendment rights to practice their religion. They also seemingly did this knowing it would create a highly public profile, which had the potential to do great damage to both the baker and even moreso to encroach upon the free exercise clause as to the rights of Christians. Notice the target is a Christian bakery and not a Muslim bakery - that would have been politically incorrect for the left. Salt is good but salt that has lost its savor has become tasteless is good for nothing except to be trodden underfoot. Luke 14:34-35

So what's the answer? Personally, I do not think that he acted right. I do not condone homosexuality and I agree that the world has become way too liberal in that regard, with gender fluidity being a thing and so forth. However, is an antagonistic stance really what is needed? Isn't that going against the love for our neighbours, appear self-righteous and only increase the disconnect that a lot of Christianity has with the world already and thus damaging our witness and testimony of Christ? To me, these situations often feel all too similar to the Pharisee in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the gospel of Luke. Condoning someone's actions and being loving towards a person and doing one's job are different things, in my eyes. I mean, if you were a doctor, woud you refuse to save the life of a homosexual patient? Or a murderer? Or a terrorist?

But that's my take on the matter. Let's discuss the issue of when God and scripture are used, intentionally or, mostly, unintentionally, to justify ungodly things. Or do you think the contrary and the refusal to serve a sinner is in fact biblically justied?

Though please, let's keep it civil by being as grounded in scripture as possible and as open to a discussion as possible

Personally, I think he acted according to conscience. It would have been far easier for him to just ignore all this trouble and years of litigation and just have made them a cake celebrating their event as a marriage made in heaven but obviously the Bible says otherwise. It was more than just making a wedding cake for in doing so he was making himself a party to their celebration, a celebration he morally believed to be in direct contradiction to how God calls us to live, and also in contradiction to the definition of marriage contained in the Scriptures. As Christians we are not to make ourselves, or align ourselves, with actions that run contrary to following God and which are in open rebellion to His Word. My understanding is he was willing to do just about any other service for them short of making a wedding cake. Now, at minimum, the Bible clearly defines marriage as between a man and woman, which this was not. If therefore, according to conscience and the Word of God, this was not truly a marriage then it is unlawful fornication in God's sight- which we are not to celebrate or be a party to.

• Ephesians 5:1-12 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.

While God calls us to love the sinner He does not call us to celebrate or bless their sin with them. Doing so aligns us as partakers in their disobedience. Now we were all sinners but Christians have been called to follow the truth in fidelity to God and walk in the Spirit. Should we slip into sin, we are to confess them and ask God for deliverance from our sins. That might also involve help from our sisters and brothers in the Lord as well, such as we see in programs such as celebrate recovery for deep addictions. The point here being we are to recognize the truth about our sin in the sight of God in order to confess it as an act that runs contrary to living our life in the image of God with all fidelity. If we recognize something that is broken it can be fixed but if we ignore it or celebrate brokenness we reap what we sow - more brokenness. Not recognizing sins within ourselves yields only unconfessed and unresolved sin. This breaks fellowship through the Holy Spirit. Now Jesus taught us the function of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. If the Church and its members are not doing this but condoning sin they are by definition dysfunctional according to our Lord Jesus.

• John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment
• Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
• Isaiah 63:7-10 I will mention the loving kindness of the LORD and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD has bestowed on us, and His great goodness toward the house of Israel, which He has bestowed on them according to His mercies, and according to the multitude of His loving kindness. For He said, "Surely they are My people, children who will not lie." so He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and He fought against them.

Those named Christians after the Name of our Savior would do well not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God in the manner of the idolatress Israelites . They grieved God by misrepresenting Him and all the Spirit of God had taught them during their travail.

An illustrative example of this in the NT is found in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. A man was sleeping with his father's wife and the church did nothing about it and so it continued. This type of immorality was even unlawful for the Romans and was a punishable capital offense during that time. So the Church, which was supposed to reflect Godly virtues to the world at large, allowing this to continue allowed themselves to be a party to it. Paul therefore admonishes them for letting themselves be a party to this sin.

• 1Corinthians 5:1-2 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father's wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.

Now Paul advocated that the Church was to turn the man over to the secular authorities for his crime. In the 2nd letter we see the man and the Church repented and so they shielded him from Roman prosecution. Now if the man had been outside the fellowship of Christ's Church Paul wouldn't have called for judgment here. If someone doesn't know Christ and the Holy Spirit is not abiding upon them or awakened conscience to the realities of sin we do not judge them but certainly we do not help them to celebrate their sin either. But the Spirit of God within the believer is to talk about Christ and the coming judgment and not shy away from calling sin for what it is, the corruption of the image of God that He has naturally endowed to man. We are to love the sinner, for Christ died for sinners but hate the sin, representative of the nails which held Him on that cross.
In Christ, Patrick

 

[1213]

...
But that's my take on the matter. Let's discuss the issue of when God and scripture are used, intentionally or, mostly, unintentionally, to justify ungodly things. Or do you think the contrary and the refusal to serve a sinner is in fact biblically justied?

I think it depends on what kind of service person must do. If for example Satan would ask me to serve him, should I do that? If person who follows Satan asks me to do propaganda material for Satan, should I do that? Or if homosexual asks me to do cake that promotes homosexuality, should I do that? I think the baker should have made cake that has text “Eternal life is for righteous” on top of it. If they would not have liked it, they would have been bigoted racists.

 

[tansy]

God said that it's raining both on the godly and ungodly . There are many massive bakerys where bakers bake bread and have no Idea who is buying it later on . Homosexualists are eating bread on daily basics just like Heterosexualists . Don't think that you would be condemned by God for baking bread which they would eat .

Also Jesus ate with sinners , being gay is the same as saying a lie in God's eyes because he can't have any sin in his presence .

James 2:10

Except I don't think the baker would have refused to make a 'normal' cake for him...and I'm sure he would have fed him if hungry and would have helped him if he was injured etc. I think he should have the freedom of conscience to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding he disagrees with. (If he truly believe, from Scripture etc) that he is doing the right thing. However, even that may cause problems, because there are different interpretations of the Bible
It's actually difficult to know where to draw the line, I feel. It seems to me (hope I'm not going off-topic) that certain groups aren't supposed to be 'discriminated' against...but on the other hand, there ARE groups who it, could be argued, are being discriminated against. For example, in Britain, a couple lost their B&B business because they refused to let a gay couple share a room (though they would have allowed them to have separate rooms). Yet, there are quite a lot of holiday places where no children are allowed (in order to give adults a peaceful time). One could argue, I should have thought, that some families could say that they too are being discriminated against.

 

[frater_domus]

Except I don't think the baker would have refused to make a 'normal' cake for him...and I'm sure he would have fed him if hungry and would have helped him if he was injured etc. I think he should have the freedom of conscience to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding he disagrees with. (If he truly believe, from Scripture etc) that he is doing the right thing. However, even that may cause problems, because there are different interpretations of the Bible

The official statement of the court was that the baker refused to bake a weddign cake, but was still open and willing to bake them anything else, like a birthday cake. Then the couple got the discimination folks involved.

On second though, it may have been a bad idea to use the recent bakery incident as an example. What I am interested in is a hypothetical scenario. By using the real one, I drag along the consequent actions and the result.

It's actually difficult to know where to draw the line, I feel. It seems to me (hope I'm not going off-topic) that certain groups aren't supposed to be 'discriminated' against...but on the other hand, there ARE groups who it, could be argued, are being discriminated against. For example, in Britain, a couple lost their B&B business because they refused to let a gay couple share a room (though they would have allowed them to have separate rooms). Yet, there are quite a lot of holiday places where no children are allowed (in order to give adults a peaceful time). One could argue, I should have thought, that some families could say that they too are being discriminated against.

Indeed. It usually depends on circumstance and it also appears that it depends on the gravity of the situation. Not baking a cake and not saving their lives are not even in the same postal code, much less the same ballpark.
The topic of homosexuals is pretty difficult to approach. On the one hand, it is a sin like any other sin. The bible says that God does not discriminate in that sense and that one who has committed one has committed them all. We are all in the same boat. However, when it comes to homosexuality, it seems like the US discriminates harder against them and the homosexuals themselves are much more self-righteous and for the most part even unwilling to accept that it is not good. This is the perfect receipt for an all-out conflict, making a sound judgement on the matter rather difficult and volatile.

 

[com7fy8]

The man arrived, saw that she was a Bernie supporter, told her that he will not serve her and left. However, there was one part that the article did not mention. There was an interview for TV and the tow truck driver said: "It is like the Lord Himself told to get into the truck and leave".

Jesus wants me to love any and all people >

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Mathew 5:46)

I can use a towing opportunity to talk with the lady, to reach her for Jesus while I do the towing thing. I think this is what Paul means by becoming "all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

So, I can see that if I were to answer a call by a Bernie supporter, I would need to keep the focus on winning her to Jesus, instead of getting into politics.

"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." (2 Timothy 2:4)

So, we need to stay with the objective of reaching people for Jesus, and my personal opinion is that refusing to serve her was not doing that. Also, by answering the call, he was giving his word what he would do; this could matter. I do not think that her political preference is enough to warrant his not serving her; it would be good to have a notice in the advertising of the garage, that they would not serve people who favored politicians they don't care for.

But what if she had spoken to him abusively or disrespectfully? Jesus says, "do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you" (in Matthew 5:44).

the prevalent biblical interpretations are opposed to homosexuality and the baker may have felt he would promote it. He would feel like the bible and thus God would justify it.

"Abstain from every form of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

"For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret." (Ephesians 5:12)

1 Corinthians 4:8-13 > here, I understand, is an example of how you might do something which you know makes no difference, really, but someone seeing you do it might make a big deal out of it and be harmed by doing it, because of how that person is able to be harmed.

So, like this, in case a Christian were to make a cake for what the Christian understands is not God's will . . . the ones getting the cake could take it to mean the Christian approves of what they are doing. Of course, they might say we understand you do not believe in what we are doing, and we will not misrepresent the fact that you made the cake for us. We do not control how others might take what we do.

I myself think I would not write or present anything which promoted or communicated favor of what is wrong. So, I might be willing to sell a blank cake which only had neutral decorations.

Isn't that going against the love for our neighbours, appear self-righteous and only increase the disconnect that a lot of Christianity has with the world already and thus damaging our witness and testimony of Christ?

It would depend on how each individual is honest or not to perceive what you do.

There are plenty of scriptures where we see how people took Jesus the wrong way . . . because of their own wrong way of perceiving.

if you were a doctor, woud you refuse to save the life of a homosexual patient? Or a murderer? Or a terrorist?

Jesus says to do good to those who hate you. I would say helping a needy person is good, plus it has the potential of helping the person to change from one's evil ways, after meeting with you and seeing how you have had mercy on the person >

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21)

But we are told not to be partakers in someone else's sinning > Ephesians 5:3-13.

But you are right that self-righteousness is wrong; we need to have compassion on people about however they are wrong >

"He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness." (Hebrews 5:2)

do you think the contrary and the refusal to serve a sinner is in fact biblically justied?

It depends on how you would be serving the person.

 

[Athanasius377]

I realize that not baking a cake and saving a life are very different things and are hardly comparable. See it as two extremes juxtaposed against each other. Where do we draw the line between "“BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; [...]" and "[...] Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good."?

The line exists pretty far from baking a wedding cake. In fact I would say the extremes are actually two different categories if I can explain. The couple weren't starving, in need of sustenance or medical care. Had that been the case and the baker refused to serve them then both the moral law along with the secular law would condemn him. It wasn't the cake the couple were after rather it was his artistic ability. That's where the line gets blurred. Had the baker been a musician instead the case would have been rightly seen as forcing someone with artistic talent to celebrate something the musician believes is participating in evil.