“The Christian bakers who refused to bake the cake might have used their opportunity to tell the gay couple about the God who loves them more then they could ever love each other. That would have been a proper—and biblical—exercise of their faith and religious freedom under the First Amendment’s free speech clause.”
- About
- Forum
- Account
Discussion
NewIt's not all about opportnity
Christian duty can’t be reduced completely to how much opportunity our conduct creates. Though I personally lean toward toward the attitude that what people do with the cakes I make is not my problem (if I were a cake maker), a strong case can be made that selling a wedding cake in that situation lends validity to a non-marriage that is trying to be a marriage. And if we’re going to make results arguments, the results of legitimizing false, imaginative, and sentimental substitutes for society’s oldest institution…
The legal issue is another question entirely. Of course the government should not force people in business to legitimize conduct that their faith shows them to be wrong and self-destructive.
I’m really surprised to see Cal Thomas’ thinking so muddled on this topic. Surely he is aware that the First Amendment is not about the freedom of believers to evangelize. It’s about believers’ freedom from government coercion with respect to their faith.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewCal Thomas's thinking is
Cal Thomas’s thinking is frequently muddled and/or borrowed from others who articulate it better.
NewIf I were a baker
If I were a baker:
If I were a plumber: Just about the same! (adjust for plumbing)
––––- Why I am not a baker ––––—
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement