W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page     Volume  What is New

BULLETIN ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR

THE CASE OF THE BAKER, USA

AND RELIGIOUS COMPUNCTION, CONVICTION AND LIBERTY

Remember ?

There once was a baker and while he was, as he said, willing to provide for people of any faith, he was not willing to make special provision of a cake for just ANY event. What about a shoot out, with this for supper ? The case is perfectly clear in essence.

The short answer to this cake case in the USA, where a man's religious  convictions make it obviously contrary to faith, to help onward celebrations of what is deemed damning sin (that is sin which without repentance, excludes from the kingdom of heaven - as in I Corinthians 5 and 6, twice), is this: it is not  in itself a  demeaning offence to those refused such service. Often the data concerning the use of the case could, rationally at least,  in any case, readily  be avoided. A basic point is this:  that there appears a move that is not peaceable, to require of an artist (in this case a baker) co-operative action to forward what to him is a religiously unacceptable event. If it were murder, the case would be more obvious to those not of the Christian, biblical  faith, or for many, if it were adultery. What of knowingly contributing to an event in such fields, and all the more when  there are others who bake! It is close to a religious assault  to ask it when others can supply with what is required with no qualms.

If again the stated event in view for the cake's use were a terrorist action, duly announced (as this marital intent is), no one would be surprised if it were declined for faith's sake. It is not demeaning to learn that some other people do not think, evaluate, prioritise, have morals identical with your  own,  and that some regard your 'good' as evil, and some your 'evil' as good. That is just informed thought. If you  want others to be forced to acknowledge that this is not so,  or doesn't matter, or to breach conscience in so acting, it amounts to mere dictatorship, only on  a mini-scale. It is, in terms of justice alone, just as possible  to offend a biblical  Christian by seeking to involve in touting or advancing what is held immoral,  as for a homosexual (or adulterous, or terrorist) person by declining involvement. It is a case of not valuing or wishing  to take any part in ANY SUCH ANNOUNCED INTENT! LET ALONE FOR AN SPECIALISED EVENT WITH THIS INTENT.

That is the extreme case in the wedding issue, and a cake specifically announced for it. Yet if you do not announce the event (you simply express desire for a cake, can the baker supply ?), what is lost ? But if it is part of your intention to have some item in, on or concerning the cake reflecting approval of homosexuality, such as for wedding  celebrations specifically stated to require it, then it is a clear breach of religious liberty to levy labour to forward this, adorn it or transmit approval of it. As the baker put it, "I just don't make cakes for every event that is presented to me."

When the matter thus is resolved to what is necessary and unnecessary in approach, the principle remains well put by Justice Kennedy in 2015.With a stern word  about the importance of religious freedom, he  declared (red),

“It must be emphasised that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” Kennedy wrote.

Condoning it is precisely the baker's base, the temper of the situation and the base of the cry for liberty. Contributing an artistic product, cake or other,  to an event concerned with the supply of terrorist weaponry would, to take another domain equally abhorrent to many, be similar; for people DO differ and religions do also. Using legal brutality to overturn the religious zeal to follow what is in view, is just that. Acting in a moral universe (as some religious proponents would deem it, not without reason), means acting in full accord with one's sincere convictions (force apart, since this can remove those who differ, from the earth). Differing does not constitute demeaning, but individuality and personal responsibility. It also can avoid hypocrisy. Remove that and you are in effect contributing to the moral downfall of a State, putting relativism beyond absolutism.