Skip to comments.Yes, Jesus Would Bake A Cake for a Gay Person
Posted on 02/24/2014 5:51:18 AM PST by xzins
Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person. Hed bake a cake for a straight person. Hed bake a cake for a girl, a boy, a person who isnt sure what they are, a black person, a white person Jesus would bake that cake if it, in some way large or small, drew that person closer to Him.
And Christians should too.
Christians should show love and compassion to gays, straights, and everyone else. Christians should show Gods love in hopes of drawing people to a relationship with Christ. 95% of that may just be relationship building, but it should still be done.
If a Christian owns a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner, a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person. It is against the tenets of 2000 years of orthodox Christian faith, no matter how poorly some Christians have practiced their faith over two millennia.
And honestly, I dont know that I know anyone who disagrees with any of this.
The disagreement comes on one issue only should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. Thats it. Were not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. Were not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. Were talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.
This slope is only slippery if you grease it with hypotheticals not in play.
There are Christians who have no problem providing goods and services for a gay marriage. Some of them are fine with gay marriage. Some of them think gay marriage is wrong, but they still have no problem providing goods and services.
Other Christians, including a significant number of Catholic and Protestant preachers, believe that a gay marriage is a sinful corruption of a relationship God himself ordained. Because they try to glorify God through their work, they believe they cannot participate in a wedding service. Yes, because they believe they are glorifying God in their work and view it as a ministry, they view providing goods and services as a way to advance, even in a small way, Gods kingdom.
Herein lies the dispute of the day. The latter group does not stand in the way of the former group providing cakes, flowers, and pictures for a gay wedding. Some of the former, however, believe the government should compel the latter group to violate their conscience. They only see the transaction through the customers eyes as if the vendors are passive participants.
Thats the problem.
We are not talking about race. We are not talking about restaurants. We are talking about a specific ceremony people of faith believe God himself created and ordained. Should the state force people to violate their conscience in that regard?
It is not staggering that there are aggrieved gay rights activists who think the state should be able to force people to recognize as normal that which most Christians view as sinful. What is staggering is the number of Christians who apparently think the State has the right to decide and enforce this issue.
You might think Jesus would bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think you are wrong. I do not think Jesus Christ would participate in the ratification of a sin and a marriage between two people of the same sex is a sin. Are you really going to tell the millions of Christians in the United States who think otherwise that not only are they wrong, but the state should be able to force your opinion of what Jesus would do on them? In your pride, you might think 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and the majority of practicing Christians in the world today are wrong but dont think among people of practicing Christian faith you are in the majority.
I understand if you are not a believer and define yourself based on your sexual preference that you think the government should legitimize you by forcing others to treat you in a particular way. But it boggles my mind to think any Christian should want the government to force their view of Christianity on another believer.
If you think the government should be able to force Christians to provide goods and services to a gay wedding or risk losing their business, why not command a preachers service? If a Christian baker cannot opt out, why should a preacher be able to opt out? And why not take from churches their tax exempt status if they fail to participate?
Christians should serve. But the government should not force them to.
And that, in a nutshell, is the "end game" the radical "activists" are working for.
Like the woman at the well Jesus might say go and sin no more.
I disagree with his opening premise. Jesus would not just bake a cake for a gay person. Jesus would offer that person the bread of life IF AND ONLY IF that person repented of practicing homosexual behavior.
Reference the woman at the well. Jesus called her out on her adultery/fornication and showed her how to get eternal life. There is no salvation (cake) without repentence.
I agree that the baker should bake the stupid cake and SELL it to the homo couple.
But, don’t invoke Jesus in this. Jesus would bake them a cake and then say, “Go and sin no more.”
We aren’t allowed to even tell men who lie with other men as if they were women that they are sinners anymore.
If the homos refuse to hear the truth, then Jesus would also tell us to kick the dust off our shoes and get out of there!
Also witness the rich man who chose to keep his riches and walked away from Jesus.
He fed the 5000...
Missed adding this.
Every citizen on these united States has the Constitutional right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, or for no reason at all. Our constitutional rights were stolen from us by the civil rights acts. We no longer have the first ammendment right of association and we need to get it back.
That's pretty much where the author comes down. Cake = fine. Wedding cake = not fine.
And what did he tell them before and after the meal? Did he not show them the way of salvation and what was expected of them to get it? He didn't just shovel the food out there.
Those 5000 were listening to Him.
The basic premise here is a false one. Had the baker simply been asked to bake a cake, I doubt they would have refused.
However, they were asked to make a wedding cake. In Christianity, marriage is a sacrament. Thus, the were asked to help make a mockery of a sacrament, thus committing sacrilege. And Jesus would not take part in sacrilege.
Equating salvation with a piece of cake is at the heart of the logical fallacy in your argument. Jesus fed loaves and fishes to a mass of people, some of whom were surely unsaved. I agree with the author, he would give them cake, just not gay “wedding” cake.
Bull. He said he came not to destroy the scriptures but to fulfill them and sodomy has been condemned again and again in the scriptures. By baking sodomites a cake, He would be endorsing their life style.
These freaks are nothing if not inventive with their propaganda.
Exactly. Jesus offers us more than just the world, but it is entirely on HIS terms. Either accept His terms and live, or refuse them and die.
Don't blame Jesus for not celebrating your sin. Doing so is just gay.
Why are gay people going to carpenters for baked goods? Do they always have to do everything different?
Again He fed them after and during PREACHING to them about what was required of them. He did not approve of their behavior, He came right out and called them on it. Repent and sin no more!
I have to disagree. Jesus had a rather forceful way with merchants who were corrupting His Father’s temple. How would He react to someone corrupting the symbol of His relationship to believers?
Jesus was not a baker. I do not believe he would participate in a homosexual ceremony or in the celebration of such. I believe he would have anger issues in the church buildings where such things are allowed and where other evil is allowed. He demonstrated his anger in the temple.
He didn’t take believers-only ID cards, either.
The food testified to Him, His message testified to Him, but He would not have engaged in any hearer’s sin.
They got the bread, but they didn’t get the endorsement. That’s the direction taken in this article.
Right of free association.
There is no “right” to be liked by other people. Regardless of what their reasons are for not liking you. Logical or illogical.
The Wedding at Cana had a wedding cake baked but it was a REAL WEDDING” coz Jesus and everyone for thousands of years knew that there is no such thing as a “gay wedding.”
So much for that stupoid cake argument.
Yes, the author says Jesus would not bake a gay wedding cake.
I’m afraid to ask what military chaplains are being forced to do already.
God not only destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, He destroyed their lands also. Even plants and animals do not live there today. What we are doing today endangers everyone, not just the sinner involved.
Romans 1:32 explains, after listing a pretty complete listing of sins, if you condone these certain activities, you are just as guilty as the sinner performing the sins. If you condone abortion, which is murder, and sodomy, you are a participant in said sin, according to God. Why wouldn't he destroy you and your neighbors if He judges THE LAND as guilty. It involves more than just a sinner repenting for stealing or lying. A homosexual can repent for his sin, but the land also MUST repent, or be judged.
Agh. I did not want to get into a quarrel. But I get annoyed with folks who, given more than one way to read something, will read it so as to level the maximum criticism. Such people need to look at their agape love life in the mirror of 1 Cor 13. Until your agape love life is good, you won’t be in a position to advise any homosexuals, let alone those who might come in your bake shop door asking for a cake. The speck and the beam, that kind of thing.
It does not tell us to treat them like a 30's German Jew, or cannabis user.
Then again, why would you want someone to fix food for you that Obviously does not want to?
At the same time Apostle Paul said this: 1 Co 5: 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
At the same time Apostle Paul said this: 1 Co 5: 9
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother
but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler.
With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Love is what He is about, not sin nor giving in to temptation nor encouraging others to do so. That's the stuff His enemy works with.
The two signs of the end are the great apostasy and the great rebellion and gay marriage is another example of holding both signs high in the air and waving them back and forth for all to see.
Oh. This wasn’t the thread on which a certain O. commented. I didn’t see any sense in wallowing in that kind of quarrel. Fair enough.
At WORST, at very WORST, this author’s article needs to be read through before getting the context. A Christian would sell cakes all day to homosexuals, but not one purposed for a faux wedding, and that’s where the author is clearly coming from once context is taken into consideration. Some folks knee jerk from the start, and it’s to their shame as the Proverbs point out.
This is the home of the brave and the land of the free, or it is not. If I have a business and refuse to serve a customer, for whatever reason, that is my business. Forget all the other BS and tell government to take a walk.
Is this a John Semmons semi-satire or am I again missing the point?!
I couldn’t get past the first sentence about Jesus baking cakes. Now he’s Martha Stewart? Better question: would be build a bed for a gay couple to snuggle in? I doubt it!
I can’t imagine Jesus baking a cake. No.
The article says Jesus would NOT bake a gay wedding cake.
I disagree that Jesus would bake the sodomites a cake but he would let them wash his feet.....and in doing so, they would cease being sodomites.
Would Jesus carry a gun? It doesn’t matter, the fourth amendment isn’t about what Jesus would do. Would Jesus publish a newspaper blistering congress and the president? It doesn’t matter, the first amendment isn’t about what Jesus would do.
This has nothing to do with what Jesus what do. Nothing at all. This is about the government forcing a private business to violate their second amendment rights.
Jesus didn’t bake! This is such a dumb opinion piece.
Me either. What a silly premise.
“With such a man do not eat.”
This is, I humbly submit, in an explicit Christian fellowship context. It has nothing to do with ministry to frank unbelievers. Christ showed what that looked like, and got called a glutton and a drunkard for His trouble.
Some people get so irritated with the notorious and difficult problem of homosexuality that they will drag out any verse that seems to damn them, to keep from looking like they are cheering that sin on. That’s going along with Satan’s temptation, however. Did Christ die for those sinners too? The bible answer is yes, but Satan is busy screaming in Christendom’s ears, NO NO NO.
Assuming he learned carpentry — a possibility — would he sell a chair he made to a gay person?
“Equating salvation with a piece of cake is at the heart of the logical fallacy in your argument. Jesus fed loaves and fishes to a mass of people, some of whom were surely unsaved. I agree with the author, he would give them cake, just not gay wedding cake.”
Excellent point worth repeating.
of course, you should temper your expectations of any cake baked by a carpenter
Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a homosexual person.
Indeed Jesus would. Then Jesus would tell them to go and SIN NO MORE...
This is where this article falls short. Because our Government would not allow us to do that. So we can not act as Jesus would. Not without facing charges of hate from the Government and still being sued by the homosexual. Yes Jesus is about love but no where does the Bible say that Jesus wants you to sin........
Well, to try to put a heart into it.
We don’t see anything explicitly recorded in the gospel, but it’s difficult for me to see how this Carpenter could have passed up the opportunity to use His own trade as an illustration of His greater ministry. As I wrote in a certain Christian song I am trying to get some interest in,
“Then a Carpenter was My trade,
With a hammer I was good,
With quality in all I made
Out of every kind of wood —
And now I’ve come to rebuild your soul
If you’ll give the job to Me —
There’s nobody else can make you whole
Or to set your spirit free!”
(The reference in the book of Amos to a plumb line is also of interest.)