Can Christians bake homosexuals cake? Yes, of course. But can Christians bake homosexuals a gay-wedding cake?
Many Christian bakers have said no, and have been persecuted for their convictions. However, I thought this article was an interesting spin.
Jessica Kantrowitz writes “If anyone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.” ~ Matthew 5:41. Obviously, that isn’t what the Matthew 5:41 says. The real verse is, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”
Jessica writes, “Jesus said, not only should you follow the law of the land — the law which in America for the most part prohibits discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation — not only should you do the minimum you have to do, you should go the extra mile. (Yes, that’s where that expression comes from!) Do *twice* what the law requires.”
So, in Jessica’s mind, that means Christians should not only bake one gay wedding cake, but two.
Normally, I would laugh an article like this off, but after reading the comments, I realized that a lot of well-meaning Christians were buying into this. It is really frightening to see the scriptures so blatantly misrepresented and then see Christians cheering her on. So here is my response to Jessica Kantrowitz.
First, are we to bake cakes to celebrate all sin, or just homosexual sin? I mean, if I am a baker and a man comes in demanding a cake to celebrate his adulterous relationship, I am to bake him two cakes?
If a woman comes in and wants a cake to celebrate the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, I am to bake her two cakes? If a man wants a cake to celebrate the holocaust, do I offer to bake him a second cake for free?
Is this what Jesus would have Christians do?
Can Christians make Gay Wedding Cakes?
Jesus tells the Jews to submit to taxation and offer to carry Roman soldiers’ bags a second mile. Neither of these are sins in and of themselves.
However, when Nero and Diocletian passed laws ordering Christians to sacrifice to Roman gods, the Christians refused. Hundreds of thousands were martyred, because they understood that God’s laws are higher than man’s. So, when they were ordered to celebrate false gods, they knew that they couldn’t.
Christian bakers have the same conviction.
They would gladly carry a homosexual’s bag two miles, and pay taxes to a pro-homosexual government. They would even bake homosexuals cake.
What they can’t do, is bake them a gay-wedding cake. At that point they are participating in the celebration of something strictly forbidden by God’s law.
I don’t think Jessica would advocate that Christians bake all sin-cakes. If it was a nazis cake, or ISIS cake, or beastiality cake, or cake to a false god, or whatever, I don’t think she’d want us baking the cake.
So, what is the difference? Why a gay-cake, and not a Nazis cake?
Well, Jessica doesn’t actually believe that homosexuality is a sin. She admits so in the her article saying “If you believe gay marriage is immoral (I don’t, myself).” So she wouldn’t be compromising her beliefs to bake a gay-wedding cake. But that doesn’t stop her from encouraging others to compromise their convictions, and then claims that doing so is Biblical.
But I bet if we found a sin she was against, like racism, murder, beastialty, idol worship, she wouldn’t bake the cake either!
See, this debate isn’t about “submitting to the law of the land,” it’s about whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
The Bible says that it is, Jessica says it’s not, and that is telling. Obviously, her faith isn’t guided by what the Bible actually teaches. Maybe that is why she takes the liberty to rewrite Matthew 5:41. But for those Christians who do believe in the Bible, we have no business baking gay-wedding cakes.
Her final argument is that if Christians would be more loving and accepting, we’d win more Christians. I agree that if we’d just give up the unpopular Biblical truths we’d be more popular, but then, when was popularity the point of Christianity?
Don’t be fooled. This isn’t about gay-wedding cakes. If these Christians baked them a gay-wedding cake, but said, “I will bake the cake, but I don’t agree with the lifestyle,” there would be just as much outrage.
The bakers would be called hateful and judgemental. It doesn’t matter if Christians wrap their truth in sunshine and cupcakes, the opposition will find it just as “hateful.” It isn’t you, your tone, or approach, that they find hateful; it is your truth!
Jesus never said, “If anyone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.” but He did say, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” John 15:18-19.
So…. if someone wants a Christian employer to pay for their abortion, by her logic, they should smile and provide two abortions?
Yes. That will probably be her next post!
This is a gross overexaggeration, we are talking about whether baking a cake for a gay couple or not is a sin. This is a disgusting slander to come with, whether its a joke or not. I suppose this is what Jesus would say as well?
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Luke 6:37
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” Matthew 7:1
Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (Matthew 9:10-13 NKJV).
Thank you for the Bible quotes. However, I’m not talking about judging anyone, or stoning them, but not participating a sinful celebration. Also, I never said that we can’t eat with sinners, but we are not allowed to join them in their sin. Homosexuality is a sin, and that is why Christian bakers can’t bake cakes to celebrate it.
If you can’t refrain from judging your customers, then don’t go into that business. It’s not the job of the caterer to say “I can’t make Swedish meatballs for you, because you’re too damn fat” or the job of the engraver to say “I can’t print your invitations because one of you has been divorced” or the job of the photographer to say “I can’t take your pictures because Catholics are going to hell.”
Bob Eckert, I think you missed the point.
I don’t think he had missed the point at all. When is discrimination okay? When a real-estate agent refuses to sell a house to a Muslim family? When a car salesman refuses to sell a car to a black man? A jeweler refuses to sell diamond earrings to a Christian (we’re not supposed to adorn ourselves with costly attire, after all)? Baking a cake is not joining the celebration, it is doing the work you are in business to do.
Lisa W. recently posted…Mother’s Day Gift Ideas for Grieving Moms
Lisa, the Constitution forbids discrimination against other religions, races, and genders. It does not forbid discrimination against sexual perversions, or gay-wedding.
Secondly, we have a right to practice our religion. Homosexuals are trying to force Christians to do something that goes against their religious convictions, and that is wrong. Just as I would not force homosexuals to bake an anti-gay cake, they should respect the bakers convictions.
Instead of hatefully destroying the bakery, they could just take their business elsewhere. But that isn’t how these activists operate. They have zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints; they have to ruin everyone that dares to dissent. They are malicious and hateful people. They don’t want a tolerant society; they want a totalitarian society where everyone is forced to celebrate their lifestyle choices.
My only comment because I truly can’t avoid it is who are you to judge who someone can or cannot love? Are we truly bound to ethical determinations made by persons living in vastly different cultures and times and whose understanding of the world and of God’s activity was shaped and limited by their own cultural viewpoints? The world is a vastly different place now with many more people and growing knowledge. What if I said I find it a sin for you to be with your husband? You love him don’t you? Was that love controllable for you? I don’t know how you think it’s possibly right to tell people who they’re allowed to love. As someone alluded to before “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” Matthew 7:1.
Brittany Lee, I don’t think anyone is saying that people aren’t allowed to love others. But being attracted to something or someone is not love; it is attraction. And not all attractions are good.
If I was attracted to a woman other than my wife, it would be loving for all parties not to act on that attraction.
And some attractions are perverted. For instance, a pedophile may be attracted to child, but no one would call this love. So, the mere fact that homosexuals have an attraction does not make it love.
You quoted Matthew 7:1. I am very aware of the verse, as people who want to justify their sin often use it as their defense. However, if you actually care about what the Bible really says, you might read the verse in context. In context, the Matthew is talking about hypocrital judges, men who condemn others for the very sins they themselves commit. For instance, if I was a homosexual condemning other homosexuals.
I also think it is ironic that you’d quote the Bible to tell me not to judge homosexuals, when Bible itself condemns homosexuality.
Finally, I think that you are missing the point. It is not hateful or judgemental to say someone’s behavior is bad. I am sure you correct your children on a daily basis; not because you hate them, but because you love them.
And at any rate, this post wasn’t about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. This post was about whether individuals should be forced to give up their religious rights to appease the intolerant homsexuals.
So, you could eat a slice of left-over wedding cake from your same sex neighbors when they have you over for a cookout, but you could not have baked the same cake? And I’m not trying to be petty.
As a contractor your ‘reasoning’ seems to be telling me it would be quite ok if a put on an addition plus deck to a same sex couple who I thought were gay, just treat them like any other couple (we all sin, etc.) but if they told me they wanted the work done by next spring because they hoped to have some part of their wedding on the deck, then I shouldn’t do the work because that would be somehow joining in their celebration of their marriage?
Part of me wants to say it would just be neater and easier to figure out (it’s only a cake stupid!) to just treat everyone with God’s love and Crist’s openness, but I know that in my years of doing business there were many times I didn’t go after certain jobs because for some reason the people didn’t seem to be a right fit with me. And I know that’s different from a store front.
In that case it seems like a simple sign posted clearly that says something to the effect that all special orders are considered but now necessarily fulfilled due to a variety of factors.
I saw her article, but never bothered reading it because it seemed off to me. Excellent response! Christianity isn’t a popularity contest. Can’t remember the exact passage, but The road to hell is wide and many travel it, while the path to heaven is narrow and very few find it. Following Jesus isn’t easy, but we can’t compromise on the truths in the Bible. Either the whole Book is true or it’s not. You can’t pick and choose what to believe.
Good post- thanks for sharing! Really solid logic; I saw that article you referenced earlier this week and have been thinking about t. This has been on my mind quite a bit lately because I’ve been questioning the consistency of this stance. Are bakers refusing to bake cakes for people cohabitating before marriage, a Christian marrying an unbeliever etc.? (I’m totally assuming here that you and I would agree that these also qualify as sins since the Bible spells these out- sorry if we don’t agree! Just using these points as an example!) I totally get not wanting to support sin with baking cakes for gay marriage, but where is the line on this and are we drawing this line on sin where it should be? I think it is interesting that these other behaviors don’t draw the same action (or inaction as the case may be) that gay marriage does. I’ve been looking at this theologically and still haven’t come to a great conclusion. Would honestly love to hear your thoughts! Thanks so much for a great response to that article!
-Sara
S.L. Payne recently posted…Thoughtful Reads: ESV Translation
Hi S.L. Payne,
Great questions. And I agree it is hard to know where to draw the line and I don’t know that there is a perfect answer, but here are my thoughts.
First, I don’t think that bakers are required to interrogate every customer. I mean they could, but I don’t know that scripture requires it. So, if a heterosexual couple comes in and buys a wedding cake, the baker isn’t required to ask before checkout whether they are unequally yoked, or pregnant, or cohabiting, etc. Also, I don’t think a cohabiting couple getting married is a sin. Just the opposite is true. They were living in sin (cohabitation), and now they are correcting their lifestyle by getting married – that is a good thing.
Without grilling his customers, it is not likely that he would ever know whether two people were being unequally yoked. But if he did know, and he made them a cake, it would be a normal wedding cake celebrating marriage, not the “unequal yoking,” so he might be okay.
And actually, I believe several of the Christians bakers offered to make wedding cakes for the gay marriages. The issue arose, when the gay couple wanted gay decorations on the cake, like a statue of two women. That is where the bakers took issue.
Back to the unequally yoked scenario, if the couple asked the Christian baker to make a cake decorated to celebrate the “unequally-yoked” aspect of the marriage (for instance, a cake with a Jesus-hugging-Satan topper), then the baker would need to refuse the job because his cake is now advocating “unequally-yoked” unions.
As far as the other sins drawing more attention than homosexual marriage, I have two thoughts. First, I do believe that homosexuality is a greater sin than the others. In the Old Testament, the penalty for premarital sex was a fine and forced marriage. There was no penalty for being unequally yoked (that I know of). While, the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and deserving of capital punishment. Unlike the other marital sins (being unequally yoked, or cohabiting before marraige), homosexuality, along with beastialty, and incest (incest was defined as between a father and daughter, or mother and son), take God’s idea of marriage and stand it on its head in the most vile and defiant ways. So, that might be one reason that Christians have a stronger stance against homosexuality, than let’s say, cohabitation.
However, I think the second reason, is that many Christians have given up the fight against those other sins. The secularists won those fights in the 60’s, and Christians have become tolerant of much sin, even in our own Churches. And I am guessing that within one or two generations, Christians won’t blink an eye over homosexual marriage, in the same way they don’t blink an eye over pornography, or adultery, or divorce, etc.That doesn’t mean homosexuality won’t be wrong, it will just mean that our opposition will have subdued us.
There is a lot more to say about the topics you’ve raised, but I hope this is a good start, and hopefully was helpful. If you have any other questions, let me know. I will do my best to answer them.
As an ordained minister, I find your comparison of homosexuality and nazism absolutely outrageous.
The Nazis were responsible for the rape, pillaging and murder of millions of people. They treated them with more contempt and less care than a farmer treats his cattle. Parents were shot in front of their children. Wives were raped in front of their husbands.
How dare you use Nazism as a comparison to homosexuality?
Some Christians have marginalized an entire demographic with this whole debate, which like it or not, Jesus NEVER did. He may not have been a fan of homosexuality, but He spent half of His ministry trying to get us to love people despite their issues. You and your ilk cannot see the sinner through the supposed sin, and one day you will realize that the conservative fundamentalists with Fox News and Pat Robertson at the helm were again on the wrong side of history.
Steve, way to twist my words. I never said homosexuals were like the Nazis. I used the example of Nazism because it is a sin that even the secular world can agree on.
To say that Jesus was not a fan of homosexuality is the understatement of the century. And what do you mean by “supposed sin?” As an “ordained minister” you should know better than to call it a “supposed sin,” because the Bible is very clear that it is an “actual sin.”
And I think that you must be confusing Jesus of the Bible, with Mahatma Gandhi. Jesus’ mission was not to “get us to love people despite their issues.” Jesus came to call a lost world to repent and be saved, so that they might be saved from God’s judgement.
Yes, Jesus calls us to love one another, and love requires us to speak the truth. And if you are such a “kind and loving person,” why are you calling me and others like me, “ilk.” If our actions make us sinners shouldn’t you “love” us anyway.
Of course, if you would just admit the truth, I’m guessing you don’t actually believe homosexuality is a sin, do you? I think that you have taken the world’s “truth” and put it above God’s. That is really sad, since your are an “ordained” minister.
I think it’s very telling that Nazism was the first sin that came to mind to draw comparison. Psychologically speaking, that’s incredibly significant, or at the very least is an extremely irresponsible choice of words on your part. I think it’s probably the former, not the latter.
“To say that Jesus was not a fan of homosexuality is the understatement of the century.”
Please let me know how many times Jesus condemned homosexuality during His ministry, and then count how many times He ragged on believers for not loving others, or for being too focused on material wealth. If we play the numbers game (which exegetical scholars LOVE to do) we can safely say that Jesus was less of a fan of unloving religious people than He was of homosexuals.
It’s not a leap to say that if Jesus were to step down to America today, closer to the top of His naughty list would be Christians driving escalades, not gays getting married.
“As an “ordained minister” you should know better than to call it a “supposed sin,” because the Bible is very clear that it is an “actual sin.” ”
Nice for you to put “ordained minister” in quotes like that. I do have my ordination, as well as an MDiv after 5 years of study at one of the larger theological seminaries out there, but I’m not here to prove myself. I used “supposed sin” as an exaggeration to draw attention to the fact that the sin itself has been magnified beyond any other. Christians aren’t gay, because gay is a BAD sin! But we can stuff our faces while children in our neighborhoods starve, we can buy new cars and bigger houses while others lay their heads on the street. We cry about those handful who perish overseas in war, while the government we endorse kills hundreds of thousands of non-combatants and innocents. And yet anti-gayness is our cause celebre, our rallying point?
“Jesus came to call a lost world to repent and be saved, so that they might be saved from God’s judgement.”
Oh He called for repentance all right. He was sent because for thousands of years, the Jews had been doing it wrong, favoring legalism over love. Sound familiar? It does to me. Jesus told you to love your neighbor, yet you turn him away at the door in the name of “religious freedom”. It’s the woman at the well all over again, and guess whose side you’re on (hint: not Jesus’)
“Of course, if you would just admit the truth, I’m guessing you don’t actually believe homosexuality is a sin, do you? I think that you have taken the world’s “truth” and put it above God’s. That is really sad, since your are an “ordained” minister.”
That haughty, judgmental tone again…it literally could not be more pharisaical if you were trying. I believe homosexuality is a sin, as I believe that greed and lust and gluttony and being unloving are sins. I see more single occurrences of sin in the Christian church on a Sunday morning than I do at a gay wedding, and that is why I speak as I do. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus how to get in to heaven, he wasn’t told to stop gay marriage. If you’re living in the United States and have a job you are literally in the top few percent of the planet. I would consider spending more time helping the poor, the sick, the needy, as Jesus commanded.
Part of being a follower of Christ is helping those in need, and I agree that the Church doesn’t do enough. But part of being a Christians is speaking out against sin, yet you condemn me for it. If I spoke out against murder, pedophilia, gluttony, or hate, I’m guessing that you would not have said a word against me. So, why is homosexuality a special sin; one that can’t be spoken out against?
While you have all the love and tolerance for sinners, you seem full of contempt for other Christians who are not being Christian enough! Not every Christian has the same understanding and maturity as you. Why won’t you offer them some grace, too?
At any rate, I actually have a post coming out later this week pointing out how little the Church does to help those in need. Maybe you will enjoy that post more. Thanks for being passionate.
WOW the invisible sky wizard says FREE CAKE Thanks mythical sky wizard!!!!
A question I’ve always wanted to ask the Christian Patriarchy types:
Jesus called to his disciples to leave their families behind and essentially become wandering mendicants like himself. While he never explicitly mentions homosexuality, he does ask his followers to give up everything they own — he assures them they in fact they must become poor to enter the kingdom of heaven (although scholars actually have no idea what he meant by “kingdom of heaven” — do you know? If so, how?). This “giving-up”demonstrably included their families. This is in fact one of the reasons for a celibate priesthood in Catholicism. Because it’s right there in the Bible — to fully grow in your faith, you must give up everything else. How do you justify your position as pro-family (nevermind anti-homosexuality — I fail to see how you can in good conscience focus such attention on an issue that affects less than 10% of the population (and presumably has no bearing on your own life) while disregarding the *actual* example of Jesus?
Hi Olive,
Great questions! To start, Jesus did ask a few of his disciples to quit the family business and basically work in His ministry. I don’t see how that is means all Christians are to “give up” or deny their families. Actually the Bible teaches the opposite.
Catholic priests remain celibate because they understand that getting married and raising a family is itself a full-time calling/ministry. So in order to focus their entire attention on their congregations, they choose not to marry. But this is not required of all Catholics, just those in the priesthood. And many other Christian churches do not require this of their ministers.
To grow in our faith Christians are not called to “give everything up.” We are simply called to put God ahead of those things. In other words, Christians can have a family, but it cannot come before God. Or Christians can have wealth, but not value it above God. And all things, wealth, family, time, must honor God. That means using our money wisely and ethically, raising our children in the Lord, and honoring God by how we spend our time.
As far as Jesus never mentioning homosexuality, that isn’t true. Jesus condemns sexual immorality, and homosexuality is a kind of sexual immorality. There is no record of Him specifically addressing homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t. The Bible does not record everything Jesus ever said, just some highlights. Also, Jesus would not have to specifically address homosexuality as the Jews of that time already understood it to a sexual immorality. So, when Jesus condemned lust, they would understand that homosexuality is included in that.
Even if Jesus didn’t specifically address homosexuality, that doesn’t mean He endorsed it. Jesus never specifically condemned beastialty, torture, rape, pedophilia, etc; yet, I don’t heard anyone saying that means He endorsed those sins. When Jesus condemned sin, it was a general condemnation of all those sins. And His audience, mostly the Jews, would have know what sin was as defined by God’s law in the Old Testament.
Also, Jesus’ disciples did specifically condemn homosexuality. They were the ones who wrote the New Testament and served closest to Jesus. So from the fact that they condemned homosexuality specifically, we can assume that it was inline with Jesus’ teachings.
Plus, there are several places in the Old Testament that condemn homosexuality. Although some of the covenant laws are specifically addressed and disregarded (as we are under a new covenant) in the New Testament, none of the moral laws were. Meaning, what was considered sinful in the Old Testament is still considered sinful in the New Testament.
Finally, 10% of the population (though that number is false; it is more like 1%) is still worth loving and trying to save. If we take your number 10%, that is 750,000,000 people. That is a ton of people being led astray. How can you say they don’t matter and we should just ignore them?
I hope these answers offer some clarity. I know that there is a lot of confusion over this issue, even in the Christian churches.
Very Very well done Britton! I couldn’t agree more! Thank you for your insight into how to explain this crazy way people have of distorting the TRUTH! It is so difficult and you nailed it! Several times at that! It is totally how we interpret the Word of God that truly matters! I appreciate your diligence and how well you have answered the negative comments. Praying that those people can see THE TRUTH for themselves because of your response. May God richly bless you and yours!
Thank you Cyndee! The progressives have mastered the art of twisting Biblical truth and sadly tons of sincere Christians have taken the bait. So glad to hear that this post offers some clarity.
Hi Britton. Very interesting article. I am still trying to figure out what I believe about this issue and I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t really understand though why baking a gay wedding cake is different from what was being done in Matthew 5:41. In both cases, the person (the baker or the walker) is doing an action that supports people committing a sin, whether it be homosexuals and the sin of homosexuality or the Roman government and the sin of persecuting the Israelites. In both instances, the action, as you said, isn’t a sin (baking a cake or carrying a bag), but it helps (or as you said “celebrates”) others to commit a sin. In the Romans verse, they aren’t just carrying a bag for a person, but carrying equipment to persecute Israelites. Therefore, I feel like both situations are similar because both involve actions that are part of a sin.
Second, I don’t really agree with your parallel with Christians sacrificing to Roman gods. In that instance, it’s more than baking a cake or carrying a bag, but it’s straight out worshiping someone other than God. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not worshiping another God just as carrying equipment to kill Christians is not worshiping another God. I believe the baking and the bag-carrying are meant to be ways where we treat others equally as we would want to be treated and love everyone, including our enemies. The example of worshiping another God does not have anything to do with this and is, I believe, not a valid comparison.
I hope these ideas make sense.
Ryan, I appreciate that you are so carefully considering this issue. As America turns from God, I think Christians are going to be faced a lot more with these tough decisions.
I do think that my comparisons are valid, but let me expound a little. A Jew carrying a bag for a Roman is not in and of itself a sin, or supporting sin. Roman soldiers stationed in Israel acted as policemen. The wars and occupation had already occurred, and Jerusalem was now under Roman rule. So, at the time of Jesus the soldiers were serving in Jerusalem essentially as policemen and peacekeepers.
Remember when the Jews tried to stone Paul, it was the Roman soldiers who rescued him. So, I really don’t agree that caring for Roman soldiers was helping others commit sins. Much of what the Roman soldiers did was not sinful. Now if they said, “Carry my bag because we are on our way to murder innocent women and children,” I don’t see Jesus encouraging us to participate. But often, the Jews were pressed to carry luggage of soldiers coming into Jerusalem or heading back home to Rome. So they were not on their way to commit atrocities. They were merely traveling. And I don’t think it would be a sin to carry a homosexual’s luggage either.
Also, I am not against baking cakes for homosexuals, even knowing that they might misuse them in a gay wedding. The objection comes with the decorations. Christians bakers should not be putting gay toppers on wedding cakes because in that sense they are actively creating art that celebrates the homosexual lifestyle, a lifestyle that God strictly forbids.
I hope these clarifications help. If you still think my points are invalid, let me know why, and I will try answer another way.