Would Christ Bake a Cake for a Same Sex “Wedding”?
Don Boys, Ph.D.
The Bible is the only source for knowing what Christ might do–not civil law, the ranting of preachers of permissiveness, piteous whining of evangelicals desperately looking for acceptance, or the hypocritical palaver of pious politicians. Governor Brewer might bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage” but I’m sure He would not. Regardless of the Nazareth Code for Carpenters, Christ would have also refused to build an elaborate and expensive altar to Baal or a statue of Diana. He would go to jail first. In fact, He did go to jail and to the Cross.
Critics ask if Christ would bake a cake for a homosexual “couple” but the premise is wrong: Christ is not a baker; he is the Savor of all who will repent and receive Him by faith. And He would not have honored the “couple” at a wedding as He did for a normal couple in Cana of Galilee; no, He did not bake cakes but He did turn water into “wine.” After all, He was, is, and always will be God!
We are told that Christians would show love and kindness by baking a cake, taking pictures, etc., for a same sex “wedding;” but while love and kindness are required of us, our basic decisions are based on truth: What does the Bible require of me? It requires obedience to truth. It does not admonish me to “show my love” by disobeying revealed truth–even if the law commands me to do so.
Likewise, I might bake homosexuals a cake but no “congratulations” or two “gay” men on top. I might also recommend them to a “gay-friendly” baker as I handed them some gospel literature, probably written by me. I would also refuse to bake a cake for a “divorce celebration.”
Perhaps a better question might be: would the firm of “Joseph, Jesus, and Brothers” in Nazareth qualify every customer for their religious orthodoxy before selling them furniture? No, of course not, but there is a difference in selling a piece of household furniture and selling an altar for worship of a pagan god. Why do unbelievers have such a difficult time understanding that?
Even if same sex marriages were legal in Arizona, it would make little difference in the morality of the issue. In Nevada where prostitution is legal, can a Christian photographer refuse to produce a brochure pitching the bliss of a brothel visit–maybe a “buy one, get one free” promotion?
It is interesting that a business owner can lawfully refuse service to a man legally licensed to carry a gun but not refuse to honor an abnormal lifestyle! I wonder if the hypocrites of the ACLU and the Homosexual Lobby would demand that a Jewish or black businessman serve a group of uniformed Nazis or KKK? Of course, the KKK clowns would not be wearing their sheets, only carrying them folded over their arms. Must a hotel rent space to Nazis, KKK, or other haters? Does a Jew or Muslim have the right to force a restaurant to serve them special meals? How far will the left push this warped, wrong, and wicked principle? All the way into leftfield, as always.
On the other hand, will the state force a homosexual baker to bake a cake, stating in red sugar across the top, “God Hates Fags!” for Westboro Baptist nuts? Or, how about forcing a black baker to bake a cake for the anniversary of the KKK? Can a Muslim baker refuse to bake a cake with a cross on it? How about a Jewish baker forced to bake a cake with a swastika for a Nazi rally? Or a Jew is forced to rent a hall for a Holocaust denier to promote his book, What Final Solution? Just wondering if the ACLU and the Homosexual Lobby will be consistent. It is American and Christian to serve a customer but it is unreasonable, unprincipled, and unchristian to promote an offensive, unbiblical message even if refusal means jail time or bankruptcy.
This issue is basically a big government problem: the ever-increasing push for more and more power by prissy, pampered, politicians. If a man uses his savings (or goes into debt) to fund a business, the government, at all levels, has no authority how that business is run. Government has no authority (power yes–since they have the firepower–but no authority) to tell a businessman whom he can hire, how many hours employees can work, when they can work, how much they will be paid, or require health insurance coverage. Now, the market place or a Christian conscience may determine some of that but not government. This is simply an arrogation of authority that is illegitimate, illegal, and insane.
Don’t be mistaken. The progressives will never be satisfied. Homosexuals want acceptance, even respect, and they preach (but don’t practice) tolerance. The fact is, they use intolerance to fight what they perceive as intolerance! They are the biggest haters in the world. They hate Christ and His church. That is their target. Fundamental and Evangelical pastors had better get ready for homosexual weddings. No matter what the law demands, principled preachers will not cave. Many have decided that they will comply since they can “still preach the gospel.”
Shakespeare’s Shylock, the ruthless Jewish usurer in The Merchant of Venice, got it right: “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.” To do so was considered a compromise of convictions and a corruption of doctrine. Shylock was right. So am I.
Christ would not bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding.”
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.