Yes, Jesus Would Bake A Cake for a Gay Person

Red State ^ | February 21st, 2014 | Erick Erickson

[xzins]

Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person. He’d bake a cake for a straight person. He’d bake a cake for a girl, a boy, a person who isn’t 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 God’s 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 don’t 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. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re 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, God’s 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 customer’s eyes as if the vendors are passive participants.

That’s 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 don’t 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 preacher’s 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.

[xzins]

Thanks

[RansomOttawa]

It’s surprising how many questions ending with a question mark are blown off by the person being questioned, because they don’t know what a question mark is.

It's surprising how many people backpedal and claim their rhetorical questions aren't, because their assumptions about the other person are rebutted.

"So you think ______?" isn't a question. It's a statement of fact with a misplaced question mark. If you want information, ask: "So, do you think ______?"

[RansomOttawa]

The author said Jesus would NOT NOT NOT bake a cake for a gay wedding. And that because it would violate His beliefs. I agree with that.

But I also think that if a gay walked into Joseph’s carpenter shop that Jesus would not refuse to sell him a chair.

I agree with you as well. Of course what Jesus would do under the circumstances is moot: he lived in a society where two gays wanting to marry wouldn't be shopping for cakes. They'd be too busy being stoned to death for sodomy.

My feeling is simply that there are other ways to express one's disapproval without refusing outright to do business. The strength of my approach, I think, is that I make profit while they get cake; conversely, I get to tout my "heteronormativity" while they have no grounds to claim discrimination (since at no time did I refuse to deal with gays). I offer the same stationery to everyone; if they don't like the Bible verses and the picture of the man and woman kissing, that's their problem.

[BykrBayb]

“So you think?” is not the question I asked. Go back and read it again, or maybe for the first time. I asked a question. You are the one back pedaling. I’m no longer asking the question. You’ve answered it. Yes, you were saying exactly what you appeared to be saying. You just don’t have the courage to admit it, now that I’ve pointed out how stupid it was.

[RansomOttawa]

“So you think?” is not the question I asked.

You're right, there were plenty of other words after that which made a bunch of wrong assumptions about what I believed or stated.

Go back and read it again, or maybe for the first time.

I've already made my point. I have no interest in a pissing match with you over semantics. Sorry to disappoint you. Bye now.

[BykrBayb]

Oh yeah. You made yourself perfectly clear, in spite of yourself.

[John O]

I perceive that the modern championing of the sin was because Christians shrank back from the difficult and cross-laden task of leading these sinners back from their sins to a form of blessed life style. Might be virtuous singlehood. Might be faithful marriage. All they could do is think of what you have thought of — shame them out of society.

The first step towards bringing someone to repentence is making them aware of their sin. It is what Jesus did EVERY time He talked to someone.

How can we do anything less than what Jesus did?

And it really isn’t that hard. Offer one’s members to God (the Father to be exact) as weapons of righteousness. With prayer. Don’t take the negative attitude (”pray the gay away”) so much as the positive one (”pray the straight to yourself.”)

I do agree with this part. But until they admit they are a sinner they will not recognize that they need a Savior.

(please note that the rules for a fallen Christian are different. They are covered under 1 Cor 5:1-5)

John O->(I recognize that many thousands have left that lifestyle, but in all the hundreds that I've talked to over the years I've not found one that would repent.)

HTR->This is a confusing claim. You need only go as far as Exodus International to find a self help group that is in fact involved in the process of repenting!

My gist was that I personally did not know of any that had repented. The ones that I know are firmly and unrepentedly wrapped up in their sin. And they were at on time Christian. They know what the word says about it. But they gave in to their sin and claimed that and rejected Christ

And why were they able to do that? Because some well meaning people made them comfortable in their sin. Now they are lost and so far it doesn't look at all like they will ever come back. I do not know if they have reached the point of no return (Heb 6:4-6) but they should be treated as in 1 Cor 5:1-6. They must be shunned and let satan destroy the flesh so that perhaps the spirit can be saved.

And God is angry that it should need a special purpose self help group. Why not every church in every town!

I agree entirely. But first we need to stop making them comfortable in their sin.

Also, it sounds like you may be implicitly putting special requirements on them that you in fact would not on other kinds of sinners. And they are very expectedly caused to stumble by that.

Nope. Same requirements as on anyone else (including myself). There is no salvation with out repentence. There is no repentence without admitting the need to repent.

It is a long, arduous, cross-laden process. Not a finger snap.

I agree. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The journey to Salvation starts with admitting you're a sinner.

Would like you like to learn approaches that work better?

I'm always interested in learning. What do you have that's biblical?

[Just mythoughts]

Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody said that baking cakes is more sacred than the Passion of Christ. This only applies Jesus’ teachings to an issue we are faced with today. The left refuse to understand that Christians are forbidden to participate in ceremonies celebrating homosexual behavior. They also refuse to understand that Christians are forbidden to judge those afflicted by sin as being more deplorable than the sin itself. Seeking to follow in Jesus’ footprints is not an insult to Jesus. It is an insult to Satan.

What is ridiculous is Christians watering down Jesus to be still that babe in the manger. Christ said 'Feed my sheep', and he was not talking about baking cakes for perverts. Who holds the responsibility of 'feeding the sheep' His Word, and consequences that come Judgment Day? (That is a question.) Well, Peter says the priest/preacher class goes first for judgment. Some will fare well and others are going to come up short.

Quite frankly, I am repulsed by the notion that the small percentage of perverts are now in charge dictating how normal people should act. And then this guy (the author) acts as if he has a clue what Jesus would do. Christ already paid the price that none other can. Satan is never insulted, he is a dead entity seeking to take as many with him as he can possibly attract. Satan is after 'souls/spirit intellect' and he will use whatever means at his disposal to attract a crowd for his going out party.

I happen to know who has blessed this nation and why. I also know that Paul wrote ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. We are hip deep in all the ugly that has ever gone before.

This is the cake that Christ baked. Matthew 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

I am not going to type the whole chapter of Matthew 10, but Christ leavened His cake with this admonition ... verse 28 And fear not them which kill the body, (that would be flesh) but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him Which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

I have no Christian obligation to bake any one a cake if I am not of a mind to do so. I can make up my own mind IF I am being coerced/bullied/intimidated against my Christian nature by a pervert for a pervert's purposes. I sure am not going to ask, but, if I am told that I must accept this supposed lifestyle, I have the obligation to tell the pervert to 'get behind me Satan'.

I feel the same way about liars, thieves, murderers etc., IF their sole purpose for being is to accomplish these acts.

[BykrBayb]

All people are sinners. You’re no exception. If you choose to go through eternity believing that Jesus hates all sinners except you, that’s your right, but it isn’t true.

When Jesus fed the masses, He didn’t skip all the sinners. That doesn’t mean He baked cakes in celebration of homosexuality. He didn’t throw stones at fallen women either.

It’s not that uncommon for Christians to engage in commerce with sinners, without participating in the sin. When is the last time you saw a sign on a Christian book store saying “sinners not welcome?” They don’t sell pornographic materials, but they don’t refuse to sell their merchandise to anyone who walks through the door.

I can understand not wanting to do business with homosexuals, but let’s not pretend that is the behavior Jesus wants from us. That’s certainly not the behavior He wanted from the Pharisees.

[Just mythoughts]

All people are sinners. You’re no exception. If you choose to go through eternity believing that Jesus hates all sinners except you, that’s your right, but it isn’t true.

There is not going to be sin through eternity. I have never hinted that I am NOT a sinner. I see no difference in the sin of a pervert and the sin of Lot's wife. I do not participate in either sins. Do my sins entitle me a cake as well? Just being Christian these days marks one as unacceptable. It is pretty twisted when the perverts get to decide who is Christian and who is not, most especially when they could care less about what He did do and say.

When Jesus fed the masses, He didn’t skip all the sinners. That doesn’t mean He baked cakes in celebration of homosexuality. He didn’t throw stones at fallen women either.

Christ provided the 'food' but the disciples served the food in an orderly fashion. Christ was specific in regards to homosexuality. He did not mince words and whitewash over the specific sin.

It’s not that uncommon for Christians to engage in commerce with sinners, without participating in the sin. When is the last time you saw a sign on a Christian book store saying “sinners not welcome?” They don’t sell pornographic materials, but they don’t refuse to sell their merchandise to anyone who walks through the door.

The notion put forth was 'Yes, Jesus Would Bake a Cake for a 'Gay' (which there is nothing 'gay' about these people) Person. The implication is that because of the 'gayness' Christ would bake a cake. That is flat out ridiculous. And the bigger problem for this notion is that Christ read the minds of those that tempted Him and so it could never be that Christ would be ignorant of the 'gayness' of any individual. And we are not suppose to tempt God and or Christ.

I can understand not wanting to do business with homosexuals, but let’s not pretend that is the behavior Jesus wants from us. That’s certainly not the behavior He wanted from the Pharisees.

I already said I would not ask, so how would I know if the person asking for a cake was 'gay'? There is as much responsibility on all individuals as is on any one individual. And this so called gayville has push their abominations now into demanding acceptance.

[BykrBayb]

The notion put forth was 'Yes, Jesus Would Bake a Cake for a 'Gay' (which there is nothing 'gay' about these people) Person. The implication is that because of the 'gayness' Christ would bake a cake. That is flat out ridiculous.

Beyond ridiculous, it's a flat out lie. Maybe you should try reading The article. It says the exact opposite of what you claim it says.