Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.
If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.
|
I said the dog marriage was not real in a biblical or political sense--those senses which define and make it socially valid, or real. The dog marriage is a "real" marriage in the eyes of the dog owners. But real under what terms and conditions other than some form of play acting for some fun purpose, I can't rationally imagine. Maybe there is some dog cult thing? Not sure if the dogs were concerned about the reality of the funny motions and noises which they might or might not have been paying attention to during the ceremony. Which by itself would not have made the "marriage" valid or worthy of any respect as such. I doubt if a pastor of the baker's church would have performed a dog marriage. Maybe under some make-believe fun scenario. But asking the pastor to do so under the solemn rites of his church with the intention of doing so as an act of worship and practice of his religion would probably have been turned down. At any rate, any "reality" attributed to a dog marriage would be limited to personal perspectives, not part of any universally or majoritarian view, certainly not sanctioned as a legal entity by a Christian or government code. So, as a peculiar notion which is not accepted as anything more than an eccentricity and did not affect, as he saw it, his religious beliefs, he might have gone along with the play and made a really nice dog "marriage" cake.
As far as the gay marriage being a fantasy . . . no. It was intended as a government sanctioned relation defined legally as a marriage, and even, if they were married in a church that allowed gay marriage, a union of holy matrimony. As pointed out by Jim in Ct, such a marriage would be a sin in the baker's faith. It would be a sanction of a type of sodomy which the baker considered was contrary to his religious belief. Further, I have heard further reports that the gays wanted a cake expressive of their union. They did get a cake from another baker. It was decorated in rainbow colors to express their relationship. The baker also said that he doesn't make usual cakes, but artistically expressive cakes. Which may be why the gays went to him first. But the baker felt that the cake they wanted would express something he didn't want to say, or be recognized as saying. That forcing him to bake such a cake would also be violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.