Again, it isn't that the cake was refused to be made on the grounds that the person was homosexual, but rather a type of cake was refused to be made -- one with a message that supported something the baker strongly disagreed with. There was no real discrimination of person, but rather of the message which pricked the baker's conscience.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, I do believe such is harmful, and my heart goes out to those trying to normalise that which naturally isn't possible, they're harming themselves. It also shows a break down in society who is more and more turning away from God. It to me, shows how captive many are by sin. God's laws, which the
telos of nature itself bears witness to, are above that of human social law.
Again, no one should ever feel forced to take part in that which they have a strong conscience against. Being gay may not be a crime, though it once was and still is even in many parts of the world. Karo-kari isn't a crime either I believe in Pakistan. If I were asked to bake a cake with a message supporting this practice of honour killings, I'd not do so. Though, I'd make the Muslim Pakistani who believes in such any other cake.
We might suspect one has ulterior motivations, perhaps they are being bigoted and even white supremacist-like only to homosexuals. I'd agree here such is disgusting, but you get those people in the world. Whether such should be prosecuted for their beliefs, I'd say only if they acted upon them to directly harm another.
Nonetheless there are real cases of one's conscience being pricked, and when such happens, people need to be free to not participate in such. Anything else, is repression, is discrimination, is, in my opinion, bigoted ("intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices") and actually forcing a person to do something clearly against their conscience which would cause them much distress, pain and anguish.
Now to you Neo-X, and I'm sure D220, someone who acts out homosexually is no different to being left handed.
Many do not see such that way, including myself. My strong belief that such is wrong isn't only born witness to in the
telos of man and woman to be united together and raise a family, but as Christians we see more clearly God's intentions in the words of Christ and those we call Apostles. Indeed, "marriage" itself is a religious practice. It is no place of any government to regulate such, in fact, they can regulate civil unions. But, the
telos of marriage, two being united together as one, only finds meaning if there is an intended design to such. Our physiology bears witness to this intention. Indeed, male+male or female+female can never be truly united as one as biology doesn't allow such. So then, marital fulfillment, even if legally sanctions, will never be fulfilled -- though civil unions are something entirely different.
Now to speak as one Christian to another, the witness of our natural teleology seen in biology is supported by Christ who is reported as saying, "
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Matt 19:5) It is supported by Paul who only ever talks of husband and wife in marriage, how the two should treat each other, and indeed even Romans 1:24-27 we have because people deny God:
- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I cannot support such in clear conscience, even if I were paid the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver in modern times. You might think me backward, out of touch with society or the like, but I think you two know me better than that. I feel I've presented what I feel are also good arguments above from both Natural Design and Christianity.
Again, I'll be clear, if someone wasn't served based upon their beliefs, then such is unChristian. But, if someone refuses to make something that would infringe upon their moral conscience, that is an entirely different issue.
