Is denying service spreading the message of Christ?

[johnnycanuck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

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]

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]

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"

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

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!

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.

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.

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?

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]

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