Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
The point is that he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple.
A straight couple's wedding, as such, would not desecrate his religion's view of marriage.
What if the straight couple said they wanted a cake or some donuts made for the purpose of feeding the rats in their ally, or maybe to feed their beloved cat. They could be exactly the same donuts or cake in appearance and ingredients as those on the bakers pre-baked shelf, but they didn't want those ready in stock, rather they wanted some specially made up for the purpose. Would the baker not be allowed to refuse such a request?
If the straight couple said they wanted cakes or cookies to enliven their orgy that evening, not just to eat but to place them in erogenous orifices. Would the baker be allowed to refuse to sell his wares for such purposes?
Would the baker not be allowed to refuse his wares on the basis for which they were to be used? Given that the pre-made items in stock were not baked with the intention that they would be used in ways that his religion prohibited, it would not be his sin but the consumer's sin for the purpose in which they were used. But if the baker was asked, specifically, to bake goods for a purpose which his religion forbad, by baking explicitly for that purpose, he would be intentionally participating, and so be personally complicit in the sin.
Sexuality need not be the cause in any of the above examples.
He did not reject the design, he rejected making a cake for them. If he said, I will make a cake, but I ask for the right to decline certain phrases or designs, this would likely not been heard at the lower level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Again, he rejected, not on the grounds of sexuality, but on the basis of his religious beliefs. The scope of those beliefs would in some cases involve straight couples as well.
And if, as you say, the court would not likely have entertained the case if certain phrases or designs were requested, then that would be the "difference without a distinction." If the phrases or designs were intended to celebrate gay marriage, then the cake would be celebrating gay marriage, which the cake would do without the phrases and designs if it were intended to be used for a gay marriage. The purpose and use for which the cake is made, not its particular design, is what makes the baker intentionally complicit in a sacrilegious ceremony.
His pre-baked goods were not made with those intentions. If he is required to sell whatever he has made and displayed to all comers, he has no control of how his goods are used once they leave the store. But he does have the volition not to make those goods in the first place. But if he makes them with the intention that they be used for unholy purposes, then he is complicit in those purposes and shares the sin.
That may sound silly or "odd" to a non-believer, but to a devout faithful it is religious worship.