# Is denying service spreading the message of Christ?



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

As you may have read in news about the bakery in Oregon that closed down (moved into home) because it refused to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple. Here in Canada (New Brunswick), a few years back, a similar situation arose when a florist refused to create foral arrangements to a lesbian couple. My question is; according to 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; what right do we as christians have to refuse service to sinners? I mean, do these businesses screen everyone? What if an adulterer wanted to buy a cake? Or one who is committing polygamy? Or the common law couple who want a cake for their anniversary? Shouldn't we as Christians be gracious to those who are blinded by sin and need to be brought to repentance? Where is Romans 2:4 or Jude 1:23 in this?


----------



## Hamalas (Sep 6, 2013)

The difference in my mind is that these cases have nothing to do with cakes or flowers and everything to do with cultural acceptance. The homosexual couples who push for these things (and those who support them) know that they are not so much trying to obtain services as they are trying to obtain validation and recognition. They want us to call good evil, and evil good. If I sell a cake to an adulterer no one (including the adulterer) would think that was any comment on his or her life or decisions; not so with the homosexual. Everyone knows what is happening here, it is a moral contention (is homosexuality good, healthy, and normal) that is being played out in business and courtrooms across the Western world.


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> Shouldn't we as Christians be gracious to those who are blinded by sin and need to be brought to repentance?



Yes. That is why you would refuse service to them. Before you can bring them to repentance, you must make them aware of their sin. The loving thing is to, in a loving way, call them out on their life of sin.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Edward said:


> Yes. That is why you would refuse service to them. Before you can bring them to repentance, you must make them aware of their sin. The loving thing is to, in a loving way, call them out on their life of sin.



Devil's advocate here: Then why not refuse service to all customers?


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

I understand the agenda of the homosexual couple; that their intent was to cause a furor and get the place closed down, or at least destroy the business. But denying service to someone is not making them aware of their sin. Of course I am assuming that the proprietor just flat out said "no service". Can't we make them aware of their sin, and also provide a service? I think that the couple was expecting this outcome. If the proprietor sat down with them and presented them the gospel making them aware that their sin of homosexuality, is not any worse than any other sin, and that they need to repent turn from their sin and receive Christ.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Hamalas said:


> They want us to call good evil, and evil good. If I sell a cake to an adulterer no one (including the adulterer) would think that was any comment on his or her life or decisions; not so with the homosexual.



nah - You're just as much validating the adulterer's lifestyle as the homosexual. It's just not an active societal battleground like homosexuality. Christians retreated from that war long ago.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 6, 2013)

I think the main point is being missed, here.

I'd sell a cake, a pair of socks, or a car to an obviously homosexual man. But I wouldn't sell him something that he could only sin with.

The "wedding" cake is an instrument of sin and nothing else. It is further a mocking of every legitimate marriage in the world, and a mocking of the marriage metaphor of Christ and His church.

Similarly, I'd rent a rowboat, a chain saw, or a car to a homosexual man. But I wouldn't rent a room in my house overnight to him and his "partner." Because its purpose would be sin only; whereas the rowboat, chainsaw, or car would not be.

I'd give sustenance to a dying homosexual. But I would not bake him a wedding cake.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

I am not familiar with the state law in Oregon, but is homosexual marriage legal or illegal? And by law, do you mean state law or the law of God?


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 6, 2013)

If I knew a man ordering a wedding cake was ordering it for a bigamist wedding, I wouldn't bake it.

Nor would I bake a cake for a man marrying a six year old. Nor for a man marrying his sister. Nor for a p0rn shoot wedding.

There are lots of cakes I wouldn't bake, if I knew for sure they were just instruments for mocking God's truly sacred institution of marriage.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> I think the main point is being missed, here.
> 
> I'd sell a cake, a pair of socks, or a car to an obviously homosexual man. But I wouldn't sell him something that he could only sin with.
> 
> ...



OK so then if the homosexual couple rented your rowboat, would you deny them service? Or would you as them to what end would this rowboat be used for? What about the chainsaw? The person buying it from you may want to do some nefarious act with it? It could very well become an instrument of sin. Yes marriage is the hot button topic in church today; and I do believe that marriage is to be between and man and a woman. But according to your definition of marriage, then most marriages are not based on Eph 5 and therefore are mocking the true meaning of marriage and are in fact sinful.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Nor should we sell computers to any male human.....c'mon really?

"We do not therefore pronounce upon them their condemnation, because the Lord has not subjected them to our cognizance and jurisdiction, in so far as that chastisement and censure are concerned. We are, therefore, constrained to leave them to the judgment of God." It is in this sense that Paul says, that God will judge them, because he allows them to wander about [308] unbridled like wild beasts, because there is no one that can restrain their wantonness." Calvin on 1 Cor. 5:12


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Of course: a business owner has the right to deny service to anyone they choose for any reason they choose. The objection is to the notion you suggest that it becomes every christian's duty to withhold service or goods from any customer or client who will use them for sinful purposes. I've sold computers and computer services in the past: I know for a fact that many of the men (and probably women) would use those computers for vile recreation. I may choose to have a conversation about it with a client if the Spirit so moves me. I may take the opportunity to share the gospel or to speak about internet filters. But NO WHERE in God's Word, which alone has authority to bind my conscience, do I find anything that remotely supports the notion that we can only do business if we know we are not enabling sin. 

What about Doctors? If a homosexual man has a genital infection, should his physician let it rot (you know he's going to sin with it)....


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 6, 2013)

Is not the point the explicit validation of same-sex marriage a wedding cake would make?

*Eph 5:6, 7, 11* Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. . . And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

*Rev 18:4* And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Is such a stand the bakers took not part of a legal testimony to the truth of God's law, which shall judge the world?


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

These kinds of spectacles do more harm than good I think, because unbelievers can smell the inconsistency from a mile away. Why not treat adulterers the same way we treat homosexuals? What point are we proving? Are we standing in the place of God and judging one form of sin to be more acceptable?

I'm so glad you quoted that Ephesians verse, because this is it in it's entirety and it encapsulates my point:

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let 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 become partners with them"

Where are the bakers who refuse cakes to covetous individuals. Surely the tens of thousands of dollars that are spend making sure that the bride's wedding cake is super glamorous is indicative of underlying covetousness. Where are the Christian lawyers who refuse to take on clients who covet? Anyone who sells anything in retail is partnering with covetous individuals......IF IF we take your meaning of the word "partner" as you have here used it. 

No I think these verses have in view actual participation in the grievous acts when they use the word "partner"


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

....

So we should have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

I understand that you see a distinction in the goods/services mentioned above. I disagree that the distinction you are wishing to make is of any substance. It's mere semantics. If the service enables sin, why should I care if it is useful for other things as well? Wedding cake surely has some nutritional value?


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

One summary statement, and I am backing away to allow others to speak because I'm starting to feel my blood boil. 

I think that the difference between thoughtfully following the dictates of one's conscience and grandstanding is borne out in the consistency with which the stand is taken. If God's Word tells us not to partner with the sexually immoral and covetous....then let's take that stand across the board, not simply on the hot button issue circulating on cable news.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Where's is the warrant to declare that a duty? AND Would it not also be in keeping with said duty to investigate just a little bit into every transaction to be sure that you don't violate that duty. OR put another way, how is that different than "don't ask, don't tell"?


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Yes I do, and yes I will be under care of presbytery. I gladly uphold the standards here: it's only this interpretation of it's application that I object to. 

As a baker, my "sphere" is limited to my vocation which is the making of (in this case) cakes. It is nowhere in scripture stated that the eating of cake is a sin. I can only "partake" or "partner" with a sinner so far as to the eating of cake. I'm not conducting their wedding - and I'm not endorsing their (un)marriage. Now: I might extrapolate from the actual commandments some implications that inform my conscience about who to serve those cakes to. Where my spirit-led conscience is bound, I would refuse service; where it is not, I am free. 

A very similar analogue can be found in the alcohol debates among Christians. I may find my self at liberty to drink, or I may see implications of God's commandments that bind me to abstain. You may not find those implications to be compelling.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2013)

The Dark Lord actually had a pretty good post on the topic. The role of wedding photographers and bakers is celebration - to assist in the commemoration and glorification of the wedding event. That is why it's quite different from selling the hammer used to tack up the crepe bunting. The job description entails expressing and capturing happiness. But homosexual marriage is neither an accomplishment to be praised nor a joyous event to be celebrated. 

Or look at it this way. If you had a wedding-cake-topper store, would you keep same-sex-couple toppers in stock? 

Let's change the clients in this scenario. What would the cultural reaction be if word got out that bakeries were selling celebratory protest cakes to Westboro Baptist? The bakers would be deemed to be in agreement and collusion with the Phelps family, in a way that the retail store where they buy the supplies for making their signs would not. In a consumerist society, distinctions between types of purchases and what each implies are attended to quite keenly.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

You haven't. I've enjoyed the push-back. In the south (and particularly the MS delta) I so often encounter a religious inconsistency that wounds the cause of Christ. Many Christians down here oppose homosexuality not because God's Word compels them to, but because they hate homosexuals. They also hate blacks, mexicans, liberals, arabs, and their convictions about homosexuality were likewise formed by nature, not by grace.

I know you are not them, but my frustrations coming out all the same as if they were here to hear it.


----------



## Bethel (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> Where's is the warrant to declare that a duty? AND Would it not also be in keeping with said duty to investigate just a little bit into every transaction to be sure that you don't violate that duty. OR put another way, how is that different than "don't ask, don't tell"?



The duty for the Christian is found in James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The Christian business owner was obviously convicted by the Holy Spirit when the customer boldly relayed the fact that the cake would be used for a same-sex ceremony, and for the owner to ignore that conviction is sin.

I'm sure that the adulterer who comes in for a cake does not announce that he (or she) is having an affair. While affairs are more culturally acceptable, they are still viewed as wrong by the offended party. I don't think a wife (or husband) will say that an affair is okay because that's the way their spouse was made by God. No, usually when an affair is discovered, it leads to divorce or counseling and the sinful action is stopped (or at least suppressed for a time). Adultery is usually secretive and adulterers are not out on a political agenda to change laws and force acceptance as an alternate lifestyle.

Yes, people sin and we deal with them (and ourselves) daily; but the homosexual advocates have a higher goal--they want to get rid of our freedom of religion because Christianity is offensive to them. Christians will never accept their sin as a mainstream alternative to God's word. This forced acceptance of homosexuality was very evident in the New Mexico Supreme Court decision last month in which Justice Bosson insisted that business owners must compromise their religious beliefs for the good of the nation because that's that price of citizenship. I like being an American, but I'm a Christian first and will choose Jesus Christ above all things.

Christian business owners should not capitulate to the demands of the homosexuals not because we are singling them out for their specific sin, but because we are wrestling against the rulers of the darkness of this world. When other groups of sinners try to silence Christianity, I will say the same about them.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

py3ak said:


> Let's change the clients in this scenario. What would the cultural reaction be if word got out that bakeries were selling celebratory protest cakes to Westboro Baptist



Would it be my Christian duty as a cake baker to refuse service to Fred Phelps?

Let me be careful here: I am not asking must I follow my conscience. Obviously it is my duty to follow my conscience. I'm asking if all Christians consciences are bound on this issue (Fred Phelps), and bound by God's Word.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Let's change the clients in this scenario. What would the cultural reaction be if word got out that bakeries were selling celebratory protest cakes to Westboro Baptist
> ...



No, but that wasn't the point of the comparison. Not "must I refrain from selling cakes to a certain individual?" but "in this culture what message does providing cakes for certain events send?" Cakes telegraph enthusiastic approval in a way that many items don't. But make it very simple: say someone orders a cake with a blasphemous inscription. Do you go through with it? Say someone orders an obscene cake: do you sculpt it? Many bakers, obviously, will; but as a Christian baker can you do that?


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

py3ak said:


> No, but that wasn't the point of the comparison.


If your answer to my question is no, then I will politely rest my case or ask that you find a comparable situation. If Fred Phelps is engaged in unrepentant sin, and the cake is a celebration of that sin; the rest of your statement is interesting, but ultimately moot because you don't find the Christian's duty as apparent in this situation even though all other things are equal. 
If I inscribe blasphemy on a cake or express obscenity, then I am truly partaking in sin - which is not comparable to the issue at hand


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Now if a man were to say...transform gallons upon gallons of water into alcoholic wine at a feast in which many had already drunken freely.... what kind of a message was he sending to that culture. Was he endorsing drunkenness? Is that a comparable situation?


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> If your answer to my question is no, then I will politely rest my case or ask that you find a comparable situation. If Fred Phelps is engaged in unrepentant sin, nd the cake is a celebration of that sin; the rest of your statement is interesting, but ultimately moot because you don't find the Christian's duty as apparent in this situation even though all other things are equal.
> If I inscribe blasphemy on a cake or express obscenity, then I am truly partaking in sin - which is not comparable to the issue at hand



I wouldn't rest the case just yet. Selling Fred Phelps a cake and selling him a-cake-that-celebrates-sin are two different things. In your original question, you didn't say anything about it being "a celebration of that sin."

The point behind raising him was to show, from a different angle, how society regards making celebratory cakes. I'll restate the question once more, and then let's put him to rest with a large slice of Black Forest cake and a glass of milk, neither of which it is wrong to sell him. If it were reported that a bakery were supplying cakes with "appropriate" inscriptions for use at Westboro Baptist-sponsored protests, would the bakery be considered a supporter of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist? 

It seems you concede that it would be sin if you, as a baker, accede to a customer who requires you to send a sinful message with your cake. So let's test that. Would you sell a cake featuring Pope Francis on edible paper in support of a papal appearance and book signing? Would you accept a commission for a cake reading "Way to Go, Militant Atheist of the Year!" to be presented at a gala in honor of Daniel Dennet?


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

py3ak said:


> In your original question, you didn't say anything about it being "a celebration of that sin."


in your original question introducing westboro to the discussion, you said it was a "protest cake"





py3ak said:


> Would you sell a cake featuring Pope Francis on edible paper in support of a papal appearance and book signing?



I would relish the opportunity to have people eat the holy pontiff! 

I'm not quite sure about the second one. But in both you are asking me how my conscience would guide me in those situations, and I've already (i hope) been clear that I think we must follow our conscience. 

Your argument depends in large part upon the assumption that the Christian is responsible for the way others interpret his actions. "What message are you sending..." types of questions. Without denying that we must avoid the appearance of evil, I can't think of a passage of scripture that makes this our clear duty. 

If given the opportunity to be an elder in Christ's church I wouldn't discipline a member-baker for rendering services to a lesbian couple. I would need further proving from scripture to declare all such baking to be unlawful for the Christian baker.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

I understand the complexity of this senario. As it seems to some that the proffering of the wedding cake is more signifcant transaction than selling a rowboat or chainsaw, eventhough, they can be used for heinous and nefarious ends. I go back to the wedding then. Can I only sell cakes to those who are getting married in a church? Or if the participants of the wedding are not churchgoers and are atheists who want to have a traditional wedding? A marriage should reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church; so, if the couple are living in sin and you sell them a cake, then you are making a mockery of the symbolism. 

All I wanted to do at the outset was to find a better way to make a stand as christians than denial of service.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > In your original question, you didn't say anything about it being "a celebration of that sin."
> ...



That's true, but it wasn't clear to me that you were keeping the discussion within that limitation.



littlepeople said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Would you sell a cake featuring Pope Francis on edible paper in support of a papal appearance and book signing?
> ...



Edible paper is in such bad taste that it seems difficult for anyone to seriously ask them as a way to honor someone; but apparently some are genuinely clueless that way. I'd imagine that as a Protestant you'd rather protest than honor the pope.



littlepeople said:


> I'm not quite sure about the second one. But in both you are asking me how my conscience would guide me in those situations, and I've already (i hope) been clear that I think we must follow our conscience.



Yet conscience ought to be informed. If you draw the line at a celebratory atheist cake there ought to be a reason. Of course conscience isn't always properly informed, but that's one reason why what conscience requires sometimes changes.



littlepeople said:


> Your argument depends in large part upon the assumption that the Christian is responsible for the way others interpret his actions. "What message are you sending..." types of questions. Without denying that we must avoid the appearance of evil, I can't think of a passage of scripture that makes this our clear duty.



Communication is by, its very nature, a shared endeavor. In the person of Humpty Dumpty, Lewis Carroll has already shown how inevitable this is. So if I were to call you (and just to be clear, I am not) a two-faced ratfink with the personal charm of a decaying hyena corpse, the onus would certainly be on me to explain that I meant it as a compliment: and such explanations would be prima facie implausible. Because of the corporate nature of communication, we are not free to simply ignore what our actions may say. To take a simple example, would you hang a number of bright rainbow flags in the windows of your shop or home? If you were building a new church, would you incorporate swastikas into the decorative details?



littlepeople said:


> If given the opportunity to be an elder in Christ's church I wouldn't discipline a member-baker for rendering services to a lesbian couple. I would need further proving from scripture to declare all such baking to be unlawful for the Christian baker.



Would you discipline them for attending such a 'wedding' as a guest?


----------



## alec (Sep 6, 2013)

This discussion is important not only because it brings out the restrictions on all of us, business-owners and not, Christians and not, to conform to societal norms and values, the most important of which is the unspoken cultural requirement not to judge. Anyone remember the old sign found in restaurants, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."? Even if you could find one today, it wouldn't be permitted. The main issue is that the bakery owner is claiming that there is an objective standard which all of us are accountable. That is taboo. As the society continues along its rapid trajectory of ahistoricism, distraction and ignorance, we as an educated minority and as Christians are going to each have to decide where we will take our stand. God help us all to have wisdom, grace and love as we do so. 

Josh and Miss Marple, I found your thoughts helpful (though as a new member I'm not able to mark the comments such.)

Brandon, I share your strong reaction to the hate and inconsistency that comes from many who identify themselves as Christians on the issue of homosexuality. It's ugly. 

Glad to be here with all of you.
Alec


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

off topic, Phelps is a calvinist and he was a lawyer before he was a pastor. I think he was a human rights lawyer and was successful in abolishing Jim Crow laws while representing african americans who were in need of assistance.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

py3ak said:


> Yet conscience ought to be informed.


We are agreed. The question is who get's to do the informing. Where does man learn of his duty? What rule hath God....?




py3ak said:


> Communication is by, its very nature, a shared endeavor. In the person of Humpty Dumpty, Lewis Carroll has already shown how inevitable this is. So if I were to call you (and just to be clear, I am not) a two-faced ratfink with the personal charm of a decaying hyena corpse, the onus would certainly be on me to explain that I meant it as a compliment: and such explanations would be prima facie implausible. Because of the corporate nature of communication, we are not free to simply ignore what our actions may say. To take a simple example, would you hang a number of bright rainbow flags in the windows of your shop or home? If you were building a new church, would you incorporate swastikas into the decorative details?



A little scripture would go a long way here. I'm not sure that you appreciate how murky the water gets where your example lead....What about the Mississippi State flag? Do I might need to spell that out, i'm not sure. Some would say that to fly the state flag above your home is a sin. Is it? Why or why not? are you willing do discipline accordingly? Communication is a messy thing. I appreciate your common sense approach to it, and we would probably agree about a great many things related to the ethics of communication. But all of this dodges the issue at hand. Namely where does God tell us that such mass-communicative-self-awareness is our duty and therefore binding upon all consciences. 




py3ak said:


> Would you discipline them for attending such a 'wedding' as a guest?


At this time I would not.

If I were to come to a different conclusion about that from studying the word, then I would also be compelled to discipline any member who attends an event which might seen as condoning unrighteousness. The list would include many straight weddings for a great number of reasons, SEC football games, Passion Plays, the list goes on.---If this is where God's word leads me, then I'm happy for it. But, I won't sit in the soggy middle taking a stand at gay weddings while divorcees in the flock take up new girlfriends in peace.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> off topic, Phelps is a calvinist and he was a lawyer before he was a pastor. I think he was a human rights lawyer and was successful in abolishing Jim Crow laws while representing african americans who were in need of assistance.



That's interesting to know. I like stories like that because they show that real life is not melodrama, where the heroes are lily white, the bad guys thoroughly evil, and the victims are all helpless. There was a man who acted very bravely during WWII, placing himself in great harms way for the sake of the other men in his unit (long story short) That man later went on to murder Medgar Evers.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 6, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> I understand the complexity of this senario. As it seems to some that the proffering of the wedding cake is more signifcant transaction than selling a rowboat or chainsaw, eventhough, they can be used for heinous and nefarious ends. I go back to the wedding then. Can I only sell cakes to those who are getting married in a church? Or if the participants of the wedding are not churchgoers and are atheists who want to have a traditional wedding? A marriage should reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church; so, if the couple are living in sin and you sell them a cake, then you are making a mockery of the symbolism.
> 
> All I wanted to do at the outset was to find a better way to make a stand as christians than denial of service.




It is not always and issue of what "better ways" there are to make stands. We are to walk the path we are given to walk by. I am sure the poor Christian photographers that have been pommeled in New Mexico might wish for a better way out but to say that their refusal to look through the lens of a camera at two people of the same sex getting married was wrong or inappropriate is way off base. 

The other side of our coin is our patronage as Christians. I think we as Christians would do well to be discerning yet at the same time respectfully patronize businesses ran by homosexuals. This should be more and more the case as heroic Christians have their businesses shut down by the state by fines or fiat. We as Christians need to be there for these saints. Having said that, what better opportunity to demonstrate Christ's principles of "loving our enemies" and "blessing those that persecute us" than making their businesses more prosperous than they could possibly imagine. This would no doubt upset many people (no doubt some would become violent) but it would also melt the hearts of some. Such heaping coals would take "love" back from the liberals and force some homosexuals, even those who don't convert, to give serious thought to their behavior.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Yet conscience ought to be informed.
> ...



God alone is lord of the conscience, and has left it free from anything that is contrary to God's word or beside it in matters of faith and worship. 



littlepeople said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Communication is by, its very nature, a shared endeavor. In the person of Humpty Dumpty, Lewis Carroll has already shown how inevitable this is. So if I were to call you (and just to be clear, I am not) a two-faced ratfink with the personal charm of a decaying hyena corpse, the onus would certainly be on me to explain that I meant it as a compliment: and such explanations would be prima facie implausible. Because of the corporate nature of communication, we are not free to simply ignore what our actions may say. To take a simple example, would you hang a number of bright rainbow flags in the windows of your shop or home? If you were building a new church, would you incorporate swastikas into the decorative details?
> ...



Certainly. In the requirement not to give any offense, we see that we should be concerned with the effects of our actions. In the requirement not to let our good be evil spoken of we see that we should counteract false notions about our actions and ideas. In the requirement to speak that which is edifying and may minister grace to the hearers we see that our speech is meant to be a blessing to others. In Paul's preference for prophecy over tongues we learn that communication should be clear. In order to be clear, we have to communicate in a known language. And that means respecting the norms of the language we are using. The sound made up by b-o-g means very different things in Russian and in English, and so will be used differently in each language, at least if I want to be clear. Symbols also have a grammar, if you will: hence there is outrage over flag burning, over drawings of Mohammed, etc. We may regret the meaning a symbol has acquired, but in interacting with the world we can't simply use our own private meaning to them. It would be like Tolkien speaking in Quenya to a plumber he'd hired: he's got only himself to blame if he gets the wrong sort of pipes.

Obviously there are extreme examples, which are quite clear to almost everyone (like using swastikas as design features in your church building). Not all instances will be equally easy, but once the _principle_ is admitted, it is possible to begin attempting to reach a wise consensus. But if people are using different principles, naturally it will be almost impossible to come to a practical agreement; and even if they should, it will not be adequately founded. Thus I'll ask the question again: would you incorporate swastikas into the design of your church?



littlepeople said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Would you discipline them for attending such a 'wedding' as a guest?
> ...



Certainly not. You ought to take a stand against no-fault divorce, violations of the 2nd and 4th commandments, and many other points. It is difficult to be entirely consistent; and of course we grow in our understanding of sin, as well as of other things. But we ought to try to consistently oppose what we know to be sin, in a way that is in keeping with the other duties of our callings and stations. May the Lord have mercy on us for our failures in this regard.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

No one yet has addressed my question. If a same-sex marriage is sinful as it is a mockery of the mystery and symbolism found in Eph 5, then why isn't a marriage of a couple who were living common-law for x amount of years and then decides to get married. They do not attend church and the groom will not love his wife as Christ loves the church. So,why then is it ok for those who have no regard for Christ and His Church, to get married, just because they are heterosexual. I do not see the difference in the magnitude of the sin.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 6, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> No one yet has addressed my question. If a same-sex marriage is sinful as it is a mockery of the mystery and symbolism found in Eph 5, then why isn't a marriage of a couple who were living common-law for x amount of years and then decides to get married. They do not attend church and the groom will not love his wife as Christ loves the church. So,why then is it ok for those who have no regard for Christ and His Church, to get married, just because they are heterosexual. I do not see the difference in the magnitude of the sin.




You have to be kidding.


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> No one yet has addressed my question. If a same-sex marriage is sinful as it is a mockery of the mystery and symbolism found in Eph 5, then why isn't a marriage of a couple who were living common-law for x amount of years and then decides to get married. They do not attend church and the groom will not love his wife as Christ loves the church. So,why then is it ok for those who have no regard for Christ and His Church, to get married, just because they are heterosexual. I do not see the difference in the magnitude of the sin.



Are you brainwashed or a troll?


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

what? because I only posted a dozen times that makes me a troll? Are you guys serious? And to say I am brainwashed or kidding is juvenile to say the least. If you are going to make a statement like that I would like to know what I have said something that is kidding or brainwashed?


----------



## ZackF (Sep 6, 2013)

I don't think I've read you(JohnnyCannuck) charitably. Forgive me for not doing so. The phrase "just because they are heterosexual" sounds flippant at first glance. It sounded like a typical cultural leftist talking point. I don't that was your intent. Heterosexual relationships can be legitimate. Homosexual ones cannot. If the hypothetical heterosexual couple mentioned above became Christians before getting married they would need to be challenged and disciplined if necessary on their behavior. The same with a homosexual couple that started visiting the church. They shouldn't be singled out nor condemned but if they convert to Christ they should know that they can no longer carry on the way they were. They, like heterosexuals, are called to chastity. 

In the broader sense, regarding unbelievers, we can at some level appreciate that heterosexuals would marry instead of continuing on as if they were. We cannot have the same appreciation with homosexual couples. 

Regarding "withholding services", were I a professional photographer I would have no problem photographing a homosexual's car collection or backyard landscaping. However a wedding is an entirely different situation. I am forced to select angles, foci and lighting to create memorable photos let alone just witnessing the event. It makes no sense why anyone would want a Bible believing Christian to photograph a gay wedding for the purposes of capturing the moment. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is about bullying and force. People will force Christians because they think they can. It's ugly and nasty. The challenge to us is not to respond in kind via vitriolic rhetoric, violence or any other sordid behavior.


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> what? because I only posted a dozen times that makes me a troll?



No, because you seem to be promoting the homosexual agenda the question came to mind. You keep comparing apples and oranges, and failing to grasp the points raised by those who are certainly more gentle in their presentations than me. Since you were being addressed by those who would teach, rather than argue, I generally withdrew from the discussion earlier on. But their points may be too gently put to penetrate. 

I have attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt by considering that your position is informed by an immersion in a politically correct society. I do apologize for the troll comment if that is the case. It could be that we don't have enough of a common point of reference to have a discussion on this point. 

As this is a Confessional board, the common point of reference should be:

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time. 

Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.



johnnycanuck said:


> If a same-sex marriage is sinful as it is a mockery of the mystery and symbolism found in Eph 5, then why isn't a marriage of a couple who were living common-law for x amount of years and then decides to get married.



As you can see, the the first instance violates every point, the second serves all but the penultimate point.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 6, 2013)

I have mentioned in many posts that I am against same sex marriage. I am trying to find a way to reach out to all sinners, and denying service is not the way. As for being part of a confessional family, I suscribe to the London Baptist Confession of 1689. Yes I live in Canada, which is unfortunately a politalically correct society. I would just like to seek a way to be a good christian witness but at the same time be gracious and kind.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 6, 2013)

"OK so then if the homosexual couple rented your rowboat, would you deny them service? Or would you as them to what end would this rowboat be used for? What about the chainsaw? The person buying it from you may want to do some nefarious act with it? It could very well become an instrument of sin. Yes marriage is the hot button topic in church today; and I do believe that marriage is to be between and man and a woman. But according to your definition of marriage, then most marriages are not based on Eph 5 and therefore are mocking the true meaning of marriage and are in fact sinful. "

No, I don't think you understand my position.

It is not a sin for a homosexual man to row a boat. Nor is it a sin for a homosexual couple to rent a rowboat. I'd inquire of no one what the rowboat is being rented for. If someone said hey, I'm going to row this boat over to my ex-wife's house and kill her, then no, I'd not rent them the row boat. In short, if they announce they are using it for an indisputable sin, I'd not rent it. Otherwise, fine.

There is no right use of a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. They need not announce their intentions to me beforehand.

No, most marriages are not sinful. They are composed of sinners, but the most marriages themselves are not sinful. I most strongly disagree with that characterization.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 6, 2013)

"Nor should we sell computers to any male human.....c'mon really?"

There are literally millions of non-sinful uses of computers to male humans. I could sell computers to men all day long. 

Were I a computer salesman and my customer said to me, I will use this for p0rnography, only that, I'll produce this and that and edit it, that's all I want it for. . .

no, I'd not sell it to him.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 6, 2013)

"What about Doctors? If a homosexual man has a genital infection, should his physician let it rot (you know he's going to sin with it).... "

There are all sorts of non sinful uses for his body, also - all parts. Most of what he uses his body for is not sinful, and is even necessary. No one is advocating withholding medical care.

Again, there is no reasonably non-sinful use for a homosexual wedding cake.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Miss Marple said:


> Again, there is no reasonably non-sinful use for a homosexual wedding cake.


Eating cake is no sin whether performed by a heterosexual, or homosexual. The whole conversation swings upon the assumption that baking a cake for someone's wedding is necessarily an endorsement of that wedding, and I would say that has yet to be proven. Or at the very least I remain unconvinced. Polyamory is a marriage perversion of equal weight I would argue. For a man to divorce his wife unlawfully and take another wife is just as sinful. I don't think are consciences can be cleared on this simply by adopting a don't ask don't tell policy toward heterosexual bakery customers. It send the same message to the world. 

Perhaps I would settle at this. Most of evangelicalism seems to be caught up in obsession over homosexuality. An inordinate weight is placed upon that particular sin while equally heinous are glossed over. (not by members of this board, but evangelicalism at large) There have been other times in history in which a "distracting sin" allowed socially acceptable sins to be glossed over to the great detriment to the church's gospel witness. I can think of the slave-trade, prohibition, and others as easy examples. Unbelievers are not so stupid that they don't notice this. Every charge of hypocrisy, protecting our own white-anglo-middle social club, and hate is more difficult to defend against when the church becomes lop-sided in its animus toward a particular sin. I'm not suggesting that we downplay the weight of homosexuality - I am suggesting that until we STOP downplaying the grievous nature of hetero sins so that mouths would be stopped by our fair and balanced hatred of sin. Perhaps it is an issue of just weights and measures. The generation above me has had to prove themselves at every step with regard to racial reconciliation because the generation before them seemed so unmoved by that "acceptable" sin of racism. Regardless, I am more concerned to encourage healthy biblical marriages, and to condemn faithlessness in hetero marriages than I am to push back against the wave of homosexuality crashing over our heads. I think a holistic renewal on all fronts related to marriage and sexuality serves as a lifevest, whereas grandstanding against homosexuality is simply slapping at the crashing waves. 

I have 3 children who sin in very different ways. I don't mind it so much that my oldest girl get's out of bed at night, and is something of a smart aleck. My middle son's sins really aggravate me stirring up anger at him. "What's your problem!" I want to say. In truth, it's my own prejudice that makes me so much more aware of his sin, and so frustrated by it. If I am not careful to be balanced in my dealing with him, all three will be hardened by the inequality of punishment.


----------



## ZackF (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > Again, there is no reasonably non-sinful use for a homosexual wedding cake.
> ...



Proven by who? Many pro-homosexual people see it as just that. The lifestyle must be applauded or else....that is the whole point. These battles are not about eating cake and picture taking, it is about the it the celebration and endorsement of homosexuality. Do so or else....that is what is being demanded. Would you have a problem with a Christian baker preparing a cake with heterosexual, pornographic images on it? Should they be forced by law to prepare such cakes? Do they have a right to refuse since eating cake by a pornographer isn't sinful after all?



> Perhaps I would settle at this. Most of evangelicalism seems to be caught up in obsession over homosexuality. An inordinate weight is placed upon that particular sin while equally heinous are glossed over. (not by members of this board, but evangelicalism at large) There have been other times in history in which a "distracting sin" allowed socially acceptable sins to be glossed over to the great detriment to the church's gospel witness. I can think of the slave-trade, prohibition, and others as easy examples. Unbelievers are not so stupid that they don't notice this. Every charge of hypocrisy, protecting our own white-anglo-middle social club, and hate is more difficult to defend against when the church becomes lop-sided in its animus toward a particular sin. I'm not suggesting that we downplay the weight of homosexuality - I am suggesting that until we STOP downplaying the grievous nature of hetero sins so that mouths would be stopped by our fair and balanced hatred of sin.



I would watch the white-anglo thing. There are many white and non-white members who probably don't appreciate having racial strife in and out of the church conflated with the issue of homosexuality. With a few ridiculous examples aside society and not the church is caught up with homosexuality. Homosexuality and its issues are a different animal entirely. Very few people have lost their jobs when they say that bigamy or polygamy is evil. There is no social consequence to criticizing hetero sins. Unless you are a university professor you are not going to get much flack for saying that people are not taking their marriage vows seriously or that too many fathers are cutting out on their families. Puhlease. I've heard so much about "family and marriage breakdown" from both believers and nonbelievers in the past twenty years I could scream. I would concur, if you wish to make to this point, that Christians can sound ugly and demonstrate the sinfulness of man and not the holiness of Christ and His Law. If that is your beef I am with you one hundred percent. However, taking the Rob Bell and Rachel Held Evans road of rolling and trampling on dear brethren who in obedience can't participate in direct celebration of homosexual relations by deliberately confusing Phelpish/redneck behavior with steadfastness is wrong.


----------



## Herald (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> These kinds of spectacles do more harm than good I think, because unbelievers can smell the inconsistency from a mile away. Why not treat adulterers the same way we treat homosexuals? What point are we proving? Are we standing in the place of God and judging one form of sin to be more acceptable?



If I knew that a cake was being ordered for a wedding born out of adultery I would decline the business. But look at the practical side of it. If the cake order is for a male-female wedding how is the baker to know the reason for the wedding? If the prospective customer said, "Oh, I cheated on my wife and left her for a younger woman and I am now marrying that woman" then they brought information into the conversation that I will be forced to act upon. But most of the time that will not happen, so the intimate details of the wedding may never be learned. The homosexual couple on the other hand is going to be obvious. If Bob and Phil show up in my shop looking for a cake for _their _wedding, there is nothing left to the imagination. 

Also, professional services are quite different than, say, making a purchase at Best Buy or McDonalds. Point-of-sale purchases have nothing to do with the lifestyle of the individual. Buying a Big Mac or a television does not validate sinful life choices. Professional services are quite different. Photographers, attorneys, financial planners, and yes, even bakers can fall into the category of professional services. It becomes a matter of conscience for the business owner. Of course, just like the bakery owners in Oregon, and the photographers in Arizona, there may be a price to pay if a business owner decides to act according to conscience. They be fined and/or face civil/criminal charges. 

Do not lose sight of what is happening in this country. Godlessness is incrementally advancing in society. Christianity is being marginalized more and more. Today we are arguing about whether Christian business owners have the right to deny service based on their convictions. Tomorrow we may be arguing as to whether Christians have the right to even own a business. Ultimately the King of Kings will return and righteousness will reign. But until then we can expect our enemy to continue his merciless attack on the Church. The good news is that light shines brighter in the darkness.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

KS_Presby said:


> There are many white and non-white members who probably don't appreciate having racial strife in and out of the church conflated with the issue of homosexuality.


Read me again. I said that racism in the church past was analogous to heterosexual sin in the church present in that both are glossed over. Never would I equate the fight for civil rights with the fight for homosexual recognition.

I'm weighing the rest of your response, but I wanted to point that out for my own sake. It's my fault for communicating unclearly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 6, 2013)

Ooops. I just posted a thread in the Pilgrim's Progress area concerning this topic. The blog I linked to was short, sweet, and a very good observation I thought. Jesus hung out with sinners | Jesus did not promote sin | worldly


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 6, 2013)

Thanks for posting that Randy. I found it helpful. I particularly liked his closing statement and I would have two followup questions.

"My simple statement: Jesus may have hung out with sinners, but he would not have participated in and encouraged a divorce party by turning water in to wine for the divorcees to celebrate."

1. BUT Christian Bakers do this all the time. And its not satisfactory to say that as long as we don't ask about details we aren't knowingly promoting sin. 
2. Jesus may have hung out with drunks, but he would not have participated in and encouraged a drinking party by turning water in to wine for the drunks to celebrate. - actual argument used by baptists all the time who would see Jesus endorsing alcoholism had the wine in that day actually had alcoholic properties.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> Perhaps I would settle at this. Most of evangelicalism seems to be caught up in obsession over homosexuality. An inordinate weight is placed upon that particular sin while equally heinous are glossed over. (not by members of this board, but evangelicalism at large) There have been other times in history in which a "distracting sin" allowed socially acceptable sins to be glossed over to the great detriment to the church's gospel witness. I can think of the slave-trade, prohibition, and others as easy examples.


Dredging up the slave trade, prohibition, adulterers who might order a birthday cake is setting up straw men AFAIC. We are talking about a Christian businessman who sacrificed his livelihood for the sake of his Christian conscience. There is a homosexual lobby with an agenda that is on the attack and they are winning. The media, sit-coms and such, portray Christians as negatively as possible, dupes and buffoons at best, or evil crazies at worst. The "gay" individual is characterized as charming and attractive with an 'alternative' lifestyle.

I think it is plain to see that there is a homosexual agenda to normalize this perversion in the public mind. Ten or twenty years ago this wouldn't even be a debate. Adulterers do not have a political lobby pushing for equal rights or for laws making 'discriminating' against them subject to civil or criminal prosecution (San Antonio) . For individual Christians, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers ...... or photographers to take a stand against the homosexual agenda is not unseemly AFAIC.

I think that much of the persecution we Christians will begin to suffer will be as a result of standing up to this particular attack on our core beliefs. The church as a body had better look to it and focus on it because it isn't going away.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 6, 2013)

littlepeople said:


> Polyamory is a marriage perversion of equal weight I would argue. For a man to divorce his wife unlawfully and take another wife is just as sinful. I don't think are consciences can be cleared on this simply by adopting a don't ask don't tell policy toward heterosexual bakery customers. It send the same message to the world.



Not to be a smart aleck, but it seems I am not the only concerned with what message is sent!

While agreeing with you that serial adultery is desperately wicked, there is one significant point that can't be overlooked. When a man and a woman get married, even if it's a remarriage for one or both of them, the _possibility_ exists of it being a good thing. There is no such possibility in the case of homosexual unions. A wedding cake topper with a bride and groom could be appropriate; a topper with two grooms or two brides could not.


----------



## Miss Marple (Sep 7, 2013)

I don't think eating cake is a sin. I think decorating a cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding is. I don't understand why you can't see the obvious difference.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Sep 7, 2013)

It seems that rhetoric and passion about homosexual marriage and a Christian's duty to God and society may be making it more difficult for the different sides of the original question to be seen.

I can understand the position of those who ask if there isn't a better way than to refuse service to homosexuals (short of the wedding cake). And the lack of distinction between homosexual sin and heterosexual sin, such as adultery, fornication and the like. I too, know some who profess Christ (and some who don't) who simply hate homosexuals, or Blacks or Arabs or _________ (fill in the blank.) This behavior is not a good testimony and gives the homosexual activists fuel for their fire.

I think they raise a valid point, but discussion here has shown that in the examples of photographing the wedding or making the wedding cake for a homosexual would be a violation of God's law and of Christian conscience. So in these particular instances, knowingly granting service to homosexuals would be wrong.

But the issue below the surface goes beyond the homosexual agenda (which I absolutely agree is working to undermine the church.) It is that _some_ who name Christ are not behaving in Christlike ways toward homosexuals or other groups of people who they may simply dislike. Some of these same folks turn a blind eye toward other sexual sin, such a fornication and p0rnography. I believe this discrepancy is a valid issue that the church should be prepared to deal with. We have become so deadened to some of these other sinful things that collectively as a church, we have failed to shine light into these dark corners. 



Edward said:


> Originally Posted by johnnycanuck
> No one yet has addressed my question. If a same-sex marriage is sinful as it is a mockery of the mystery and symbolism found in Eph 5, then why isn't a marriage of a couple who were living common-law for x amount of years and then decides to get married. They do not attend church and the groom will not love his wife as Christ loves the church. So,why then is it ok for those who have no regard for Christ and His Church, to get married, just because they are heterosexual. I do not see the difference in the magnitude of the sin.
> 
> Are you brainwashed or a troll?



I read Dan's question as an honest inquiry. It seems he is questioning the _reason_ for the sinfulness of homosexual marriage and saying that if the logic that proves it sinful is the text in Eph. 5, that by that same logic, any marriage between unbelieving heterosexuals would also make a mockery of that text because as unbelievers they could not hope to live up to it.

To me, the quick answer would be that marriage is ordained of God. A valid marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is sin. Two men or two women can not *ever* have a valid marriage before God. However, an unbelieving man and woman may have a valid marriage before God, though he could not hope to love her as Christ loved the church. In Eph. 5:31, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24. My understanding is that Genesis 2:24 applied to all of mankind - God's people, or not. I'm not a theologian and I'm sure this could be explained better by others. But I hope this is a good starting point for _why_ homosexual marriage is sinful.


----------



## Mushroom (Sep 7, 2013)

So, in the interest of Christian love, should a baker design a cake in the shape of a pentagram for a Satanic worship service? Or a phallus for a party of perverts? Is there ANY line at which a Christian should refuse? Where is it and why?


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2013)

CuriousNdenver said:


> I read Dan's question as an honest inquiry.


I did too, initially. 45 posts in, I changed my mind. I can be as hard headed as anyone, but at some point, if it's an honest question, you have to start paying some attention to the answers.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 7, 2013)

Edward said:


> CuriousNdenver said:
> 
> 
> > I read Dan's question as an honest inquiry.
> ...



I might add that anyone who has brought racial prejudice/bigotry into the discussion is unwittingly using one of the strategies of the homosexual proponents. While some people are racists and bigots to presuppose anyone who opposes same sex marriage is a bigot is simply erroneous and clouds the discussion. For Christians Colossians 3: 11 applies; 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.


----------



## kappazei (Sep 7, 2013)

I understand that as a baker, you have a vested interest in this topic, esp if you own your own bakery. You're being asked to put your livelihood on the line over scripture. In the end, no one can tell you what to do here, but the Lord Jesus.

"But you must resist the devil and stay strong in your faith. You know that all over the world the Lord’s followers are suffering just as you are." 1 Peter 5:9

6Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, 7casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you" 1 Peter 5:6 & 7

Praying that if you're confronted with the same situation from a homosexual couple, that the Lord will give you Grace to be tactful, respectful and that He will guard your testimony and livelihood.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 7, 2013)

A Christian catering a gay wedding (cake, photographer, florist, hall, food, etc.) would seem to be analogous to a pastor officiating at a gay wedding. 

Do you who are offended by the baker refusing to cater a gay wedding have the same conviction and insist that it is the pastor's "duty" to officiate at gay weddings?

I know pastors who refuse to differentiate at ALL (e.g., multiple divorces and remarriages after adultery, a Christian to a non-Christian, Christian to Buddhist, two atheists, etc.) for the same logic that it would send a "negative" and "ungracious" message to do otherwise.


----------



## THE W (Sep 7, 2013)

what did the lesbian couple want the cake for?


----------



## ZackF (Sep 7, 2013)

I did want to contend more directly to one point about the inconsistency of selling cakes for multiple heterosexual weddings while refusing homosexual weddings. The difference is the simple application of the hermeneutic of charity in one's dealings with others. It is possible to mess up and sell a cake to celebrate the marriage of a couple of straight louts who are immoral in every possible way when one doesn't know about the situation behind the wedding. That is reasonable in a world of finite beings with finite knowledge. Such an oversight is impossible in the case of homosexuals if the baker knows it is a cake for a same sex wedding. Big difference.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 8, 2013)

Thank you M.Rice! You have understood me! Never once was I promoting a homosexual agenda nor was I condoning homosexual marrige. I was merely looking at the act of denying service not being gracious or gospel. I have been married for 22 years and it is obvious that I have missed the mark countless times when it comes to the model of Eph 5. What I want to stir up, if anything, is to find a better solution to reach out to a people who are just as blind in their sin as any other sin. It is obvious to see when someone wants a cake with same sex figures on it. But as many have noted, the baker may have baked a cake for countless people who are in equally as grievous sin. What I was getting at is if the baker is going to deny someone a cake for disagreeing with homosexual marrige, then the baker should also seek to find out whether he or she is baking cakes for couples who may also be undeserving of said cake.

So please forgive me if i can't wrap my head around this. I am just trying to find a way that would magnify Christ. I am not saying that I would as a baker, sell them the cake. Apparantly, I have beat this horse dead, so I guess I stop.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 8, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> What I was getting at is if the baker is going to deny someone a cake for disagreeing with homosexual marrige, then the baker should also seek to find out whether he or she is baking cakes for couples who may also be undeserving of said cake



I think your point was clear enough from the start. The difference between your two scenarios is that in the case of the cake with two brides or two grooms, no behind-the-scenes investigation is necessary. The thing speaks for itself and is plainly wrong.

That objective recognition does not create a duty to also snoop out the sins of other customers.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 8, 2013)

You are right Victor Bravo. That would be an intrusion on others pivacy.


----------



## Andres (Sep 8, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> It is *obvious* to see when someone wants a cake with same sex figures on it. But as many have noted, the baker *may have *baked a cake for countless people who are in equally as grievous sin.



I think you answered your own question. (Bold, my emphasis, of course)


----------



## Elizabeth (Sep 8, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> What I was getting at is if the baker is going to deny someone a cake for disagreeing with homosexual marrige, then the baker should also seek to find out whether he or she is baking cakes for couples who may also be undeserving of said cake.



Well, Don: most male-female couples who come in and order a cake aren't going to give the baker a run-down of their particular sins. When a homosex couple comes in, the sin is very evident. Are you suggesting that, in order to 'make things fair', the baker should pre-approve all couples who come in for a cake, maybe with a questionaire? A kind of 'leveling' of the field, so to speak?


----------



## Elizabeth (Sep 8, 2013)

"I am just trying to find a way that would magnify Christ"

Well, celebrate male-female marriages, then. Even those with a bad start(living together previous to, prior marriages in some instances) can be redeemed by our Lord. Homosex marriages are not redeemable. They mock God's very good creation, male and female in marriage. Just my 2cents.


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> That would be an intrusion on others pivacy.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 8, 2013)

Elizabeth said:


> Well, celebrate male-female marriages, then. Even those with a bad start(living together previous to, prior marriages in some instances) can be redeemed by our Lord. Homosex marriages are not redeemable. They mock God's very good creation, male and female in marriage. Just my 2cents.



Elizabeth, I do not celebrate same-sex marriage, I do not condone same-sex marriage, but what I do want to do is to find a way to reach out to any sinner other than just flat out denying them service. Most everyone here has some how construed that my simply trying finding a better way to reach out to this specific group of sinners has me agreeing with their behaviour. Maybe it is my Canadian accent showing through?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 8, 2013)

It's a "no brainer" that a Christian baker should not supply wedding cake to a homosexual couple. The same would be the case if a bigamist or polygamist wanted a cake or if it was made plain to the baker that the couple getting married were adulterers who had just left their respective spouses to get married, although this is not always apparent in the same way as the case of the homosexual couple is.

Birthday cake is quite different. It's not immoral for homosexuals or adulterers to celebrate their birthdays, but it is immoral for them to traduce marriage.

As for reaching out to them, the Christian baker, as well as making clear that Scripture is against their sin by not baking a cake, can share the Gospel with them verbally or in written form.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bethel (Sep 8, 2013)

johnnycanuck said:


> Maybe it is my Canadian accent showing through?



It's not your Canadian accent as much as your proclivity toward the social gospel. You've given no scriptural proof that it is unbiblical for a Christian business owner to deny service to a homosexual "couple"--especially when that service would celebrate a union in direct violation to God's word. It's your preference that we "find a better way". What did you expect the owner to do? Make the cake and then pass out tracts at the wedding? Tell the "couple" that it's wrong, but go ahead and make the cake anyway, implying that the "marriage" really isn't that bad, or even worse, that business profit is more important? Christians are in the world, but not of the world. We need to stand for God's word, especially when it is being directly challenged.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 8, 2013)

Johnnycanuck,

Am I to take it that you WOULD sell a "wedding" cake to help celebrate two homosexuals' partnership, and believe it was a better way to spread the gospel than simply and conscientiously refusing to participate in such an event? 

If not, then why the problem with this baker's actions?


----------



## kodos (Sep 8, 2013)

I am glad that Josh quoted the Larger Catechism's teaching on the 7th Commandment, because that's where my mind went as well!

Look, I make video games, and I have turned down job opportunities for making games that glorified violence, and sexuality. Why is this any different?

Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. And if the homosexual act is an abomination, then certainly The only redemption in a homosexual "marriage" is to _dissolve it_. However, a marriage between a man and a woman can be redeemed.

My wife and I were not believers when we were married. However, by the grace of God He redeemed our marriage by converting both of us.

In contrast, a "marriage" between two homosexuals is not valid. If either of the two were to be redeemed by Christ their relationship would have to end.

I also would be outraged by the fact that they call such a thing "marriage". God gets to decide what marriage is or is not. It is no different than me calling a rose bush a human being. It is nonsensical. It is wrong and it makes zero sense. And if a homosexual act is an abomination, then rebranding marriage and applying it to such wickedness is even worse in my eyes.

As such, it isn't even proper to call it a marriage, and I believe it does our Lord great dishonor to call it as such. Our Lord has ownership of that word, and the concept. I would not dare attempt to legitimize the defacing of the Creation Ordinance of marriage with applying it to something that cannot be considered a marriage.

Nor would I bake a cake with a golden calf on it, even if the person ordering it tried to assuage my conscience by saying "but we want to worship the Lord with a golden calf". Folks, I've read that one before - and it didn't go so well 

So, consider my denying the baking of the cake a gracious thing to the sinners involved - my hope would be that this would acquaint them with the *first use* of the law.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 9, 2013)

How many times do I have to say, I do not condone same sex marriage, that would obviously imply that if I were a baker, I would not sell the couple the cake. But apparently the act denying these heathens a cake will get me a reward at The Bema Seat. Have any of you actually shared the gospel with any homosexuals? I have, they were my co-workers, and I it was only after several months working with them. I am convinced that they should see evidence of christian virtues evident in our lives. Then I shared my views on homosexuality and what the bible teaches. I am not aware if they repented but that is up to God. I planted the seed. Many years ago I when I was in bible college in Mass. I would spend my weekends in NYC passing out tracts and sharing the gospel to prostitutes, male and female, the homeless and I would sit with and talk to them about their sin and that Christ could forgive and cleanse. Being in the Candian Military I am faced with many who challlenge me on my stance. But you know what? I don't just spew out that homoswxuality is an abomination, I calmly and graciously give my biblical stance. I even go so far to tell them that there is no scientific proof that you are born this way. If this is the social gospel, I am guilty.


----------



## Athaleyah (Sep 10, 2013)

johnnycanuck,

No one here has said there are special rewards for treating homosexuals differently than other sinners. But this is a hot-button issue in much of the world right now. No one is going to come into a photographer's studio and say, "My son just stole his first car and I want you to come photograph it!" then sue the photographer for refusing on moral grounds. But Christian business owners are getting sued for refusing to violate their beliefs. This is an issue right now, and these Christian professionals didn't go out looking to make a statement. But many times, that is exactly what the homosexual celebrants are doing.

In the New Mexico case, the photographers refused to photograph a homosexual "wedding" and gave them a list of other photographers in the area. For most people without an agenda, that would have been enough. But there is an agenda, a direct assault on Christians' ability to live the peaceful lives according to their deeply help beliefs. Christians are not the ones who decided to make this an issue.

And you are accusing others here of making homosexuality a special sin, yet you seem to be making homosexual evangelism a special type of holiness that must be accomplished before someone can have a reasonable opinion on issues pertaining to homosexuality. The question shouldn't be: have you shared the gospel with <X-type of person>. The question is: have you shared the gospel with the people you know where you are? Do you try to love all people, regardless of whatever sin they've committed? Do you try to live a life following your Scripture-enlightened conscience? Do you pray for those caught in sin of whatever type? Homosexuality isn't a special sin; its just the one being advocated right now, the one people are being forced to deal with whether they want to or not.

I have a great amount of compassion for homosexuals as people. I grieve that their desires that can feel like the core of their identity are so twisted, wrong, and damaging to them. I feel compassion that they want families and to love, even if what they are feeling isn't really love. And I think almost everyone here feels that way.

But as a Christian professional, you don't have a relationship with the person. You have two options: provide the service or do not. So as gracefully as kindly as you can, you need to follow your conscience while respectfully refusing to do whatever act you cannot. You can gently and lovingly refuse to do something someone else desperately wants. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do is say "no."

It is not specific to homosexuality in any way. It has always been the same, whatever the sin you are being challenged by at the time. My friend's husband lost his job because he refused to fudge accounting records. Another friend's son-in-law lost his job because he said he would not willingly lie to customers. Sin is sin and we should respond the same way whether it is the "topic of the day" or not. We do not glorify God by going against conscience to "reach" people. We glorify God by loving them, praying for their good, and refusing to participate in their sins.


----------



## johnnycanuck (Sep 10, 2013)

I only spoke about my evangelising homosexuals because it was particular to the topic. I pray for and share my faith to all sinners. I just read about the New Mexico photographers who lost their case against the supreme court to refuse to photograph a wedding on religious grounds. It is obvious that because we are in the tribulation between the time that Satan has been bound and up until he is loosed to gather an international army to war against God at that great battle; we christians will be lose more and more for living as believers of Jesus. Just as the Revelation, and those living during the writing of the letter, we will lose jobs, homes, family and even our lives for not "taking the mark". I now realise that the homosexual agenda is so incidious, militant and anti-God that even the they will go out of their way to destroy christian businesses. I guess it an uncomfortable reality to know that this world is going to become more hostile to christianity, to the point of persecution, even death. I have suffered loss in my career for my witness as a christian in the military, so I know first hand; and this was because of a homosexual commanding officer.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 10, 2013)

It's dead. Killing it.


----------

