Bake for Them Two?

Bake for Them Two?

Bake for Them Two?

2386 Posts

23 views

0



Brett Kunkle responds to the claim: “If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.”

#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity

——————————– CONNECT ——————————–

Website: https://www.str.org/​​​​​​
STR University: https://training.str.org/​​​​​
STR App: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets​​​​​​
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/

Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.

———————————- GIVE ———————————-

Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate​​​​​​

source

17 thoughts on “Bake for Them Two?

  1. Jean-Luc Thomas

    I think the analogies are kinda far fetched here.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  2. Jean-Luc Thomas

    But it's just a cake…

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  3. MrFrigginAwsome

    Okay lets stop with "they were forced to make a cake" bit. They were not forced, they were ordered specific performance. This is what that means: the couple ordered a cake and the baker initially agreed to make it and engaged in a transaction with them. This is a legal contract. Later the couple comes to pick it up, come to find that the baker has refused service. They take him to court and the judge orders specific performance which ONLY means that the baker musy uphold his end of the bargain as initially agreed to which, in this case, was to bake the cake. That is a just decision. If the baker refused service BEFORE agreeing to the contract of service then there would be no legal claim to be made on the part of the couple. However this isnt the case. If it had been the case and the baker was still ordered to make the cake then that would be unjust and i would be on your side.

    Read up on a case before weighing in on it. Also keep in mind your religion has absolutely no effect on our judicial system nor its decisions.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  4. Mark Buse

    As Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery: "Neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin." That is the proper Christian response toward sodomites who are demanding a pagan cake with pagan messages and pagan images depicting what the Lord calls AN ABOMINATION. How dare any supposed Christian facilitate an abomination in any way whatsoever.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  5. Mark Buse

    Bad teaching in "Bake them for two" to say the least.

    Sodomite pagan ceremonies are more like the demand that all Roman citizens worship the emperor, or that everyone bow down to the golden statue of Nebecudnezzar, or that we deny our Lord because a murderous islamist or secularist conqueror demands it. 

    NO. NO. NO!!!!!! A million times NO!!!!

    Jesus NEVER instructed us to take part in pagan ceremonies on command. NEVER. To the contrary, we are to stand against such blasphemies, even at the cost of our lives.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  6. MI Wright

    Alright… I agree. People shouldn't be forced to provide services for activities that they are not comfortable with. I just hope that the number of gay weddings would be significant enough so as to provide an advantage to businesses that don't mind supporting them.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  7. Paul Graves

    While I originally agreed with your video response, I am not sure where I stand on the topic now. I can see your view, Brett, but I can also see the view of others in the comments. I'd like to request a follow-up video to this. I do not think that the baking of the cake was a valid comparison to making a pornographic movie. Let me know what you think! Love the videos by the way; I would just like a little more detail in this specific video. Thanks!

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  8. livetotell

    Discrimination means to not cater to one person because of their beliefs/heritage/moral-disposition etc. You really need to read this and reassess what the Christian 'high-road' is. Discrimination doesn't strike us as the high road. As a business, it's your job to serve any/all who ask. Would Jesus have said, "No, we don't make Gentile idols here at the shop? Yes, but that's not what's going on here. Your serving up a cake with some icing on it that is NOT your words but the clients, or your sending flowers to a wedding that you didn't sanction – not relevant to commerce. Stop for a moment, please – read this post of ours and reassess. Thanks. 

    https://flagrantregard.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/on-baking-gay-cakes/

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  9. Yesica1993

    Of course comments were closed on that particular entry. I tried leaving this comment on the follow up post. I don't know if it will make it through moderation:

    Carrying a piece of clothing for someone is a benign act. It has no moral quality, in and of itself. As a professing follower of Christ, I'm sure you would agree that sexual behavior is in a different category. 

    Therefore, can you explain to me how and why you are comparing the two in this way?

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  10. Daniel Huinda

    1. Brett responds by questioning if someone "forces you to steal, then will you steal two?" and "If someone asks you to make a pornographic movie, then would you make two?" Or if you are asked as a carpenter to "make an idol, then would you make two?"

    My response: Being forced to steal is both illegal and immoral. Making a pornographic movie is immoral and might be illegal. Both of these examples, therefore, are irrelevant and falicious arguments. The act of baking a cake is neither illegal nor immoral, unlike stealing and making a pornographic film. 

    Carving an idol….this one is a bit more complicated as the Scriptures have much to say about idolatry, with nearly all passages warning us to not make idols for ourselves to worship. However, the New Testament speaks of the foolishness of idols and their lack of real meaning.
     
    Additionally, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 this:

    "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

    This passage warns against associating with those who claim to be believers but are immoral, idolaters, etc. Paul himself says that he did not "at all" mean "the people of this world who are immoral…or idolaters" when he wrote to avoid associating with "sexually immoral people."
     
    This passage, then, actually bolsters my argument that we as Christians can hang out with those whom we deem "immoral," but not hang out with those who claim to follow Christ yet live as hypocrites. So, I throw out the idol example as irrelevant too, but it does open up some interesting tangents.
     
    2. Brett says that in Matthew 5, "the act of carrying soldiers equipment is amoral,"  implying that baking a cake is immoral and therefore different than carrying soldiers' equipment.
     
    My response: I just flat out disagree with his logic here. Baking a cake is amoral too. The Jews were being severely persecuted by the Romans, who were pagans. The act of carrying the weapons of persecution for the "evil ones" is amoral, but would have been perceived as immoral by the Jews (aiding and abetting the evil enemy who has taken over their land). Jesus in this exact passage/context says "Do not resist the evil ones" (Matthew 5:38).  Therefore, we too should not "resist" and can bake a cake, which is an amoral action, which does not mean we necessarily agree with what they are doing.
     
    3. Brett then concludes his argument that the blogger says we should bake cakes "for everyone who asks." So, then, would you bake a cake for a brother & sister for an incestuous wedding? Or a “group wedding” (polygamy)? Or if a white supremacist comes and asks you to “write anti-black comments on the cake?”

    My response: The blogger did not imply that we should bake cakes for everyone who asks. And even if she said that/meant it, she could rightfully disagree with these examples without being inconsistent in her argument because of these reasons:
    Brett again uses fallacious analogies. Incestuous weddings are illegal. Despite this, one could still bake a cake since, as previously argued, the action of baking the cake is amoral even if others perceive it as immoral since we are aiding and abetting the enemy. Same deal for the polygamy example.

    However, the white supremacist example is different. Here, the baker is being asked to do something immoral, sinful, and illegal (much like the porno movie example). A Christian baker should refuse to participate in writing hate messages on cakes because the baker should not be doing anything that would truly oppress others.
     
    4. Brett wraps up by stating that “Jesus’ teaching does not apply to this situation” because we would be “encouraging their sinful behavior” and therefore “we are not required to bake two cakes.”

    My response: On the contrary. Jesus’ teaching completely relates to this situation. Other Jews at the time of the Sermon on the Mount would have viewed the Jew who willingly and generously goes the extra mile for the evil persecutor of the Jews as someone who is “encouraging sinful behavior.” That Jew would have been carrying the soldiers’ weapons of oppression and gear. He would have been seen as someone who sides with the enemy, who helps that horrible, sinful behavior, and as someone who hangs out—perhaps even befriends—the pagans and immoral.
     
    As a result, I don’t agree with a single argument Brett makes and I still stand with the original article that argues that if a gay couple asks us to bake a cake, we should bake for them two.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  11. HumanitysAdvocate

    Brett makes a good point, but as Christians we should walk in the spirit, not in the world.
    First, abide by the law, the "authority God has put in place" [Romans 13].
    I think working with others is a chance to shine your light for the Lord – as Paul saw the opportunity when chained to a Roman solider 😉
    If you can refuse business and not have to give a reason, then do so if you feel so inclined …and don't need the business, repeat business and the word-of-mouth business 😉
    If the state forces you do do something, then in affect "give unto caesar what is caesar's" and don't sweat it – God's will be done. 

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  12. 349mikval

    This goes way beyond a bakery and a wedding, The point was missed here i agree he wasn't very direct about his response or his stance on this issue. But lets put it in perspective if a business is obligated by law to render services to anyone who wishes for them to provide said service now we have the real issue. Have you ever seen the sign behind the counter that reads ( we have the right to refuse service to anyone ) ? That owner is not required to list each and every offense they feel is grounds for refusing service. Now in walks someone who is very rude and disrespectful of the owners business do you realize the owner according to this law could not ask this person to leave ? They would have to serve them whether they liked it or not. This person was born this way he is just rude and disrespectful to everyone he meets. Now is it the owners fault this person is like this ? of course not this person chose to be this way. OK why should his other customers have listen to this disrespectful person and possibly with small children even present. Okay you will say they can get up and leave if they do not like what they are hearing and you would be right. But this would mean the owner would lose valuable business and possibly have to shut down and all because this rude person couldn't stand rejection and wanted their rights enforced. Now let your mind run wild with that and i believe you will see the big picture or should i say the big problem this country is inviting. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it needs to be done quick.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  13. JohnDubya

    Actually, isn't the best response to this blog post more like this: you have completely misinterpreted the passage from Matthew 5! In that passage, Jesus is instructing them to not use the eye-for-an-eye concept in their personal lives. Instead of responding in-kind when someone does something unjust or wrong to you, don't respond with evil. He was saying that in common situations where you are being treated unjustly, "go the extra mile." Isn't it also interesting that playing along with the author's logic, she said when a same-sex couple asks the Christian to bake them a cake, the Christian should bake them two. But in Jesus' example, you are only instructed to go above and beyond if you are being treated unjustly. So is the same-sex couple treating the Christian unjustly?

    The Matthew 5 passage was the proof text for the blog post, so once this verse is properly understood, the foundation of the author's argument falls apart. She was simply going to the Bible with her own ideas, like so many do today.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  14. Nick Schoenmann

    Great response.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  15. AAAAssdfs

    While I disagree with the original blogger's take on SSM and the refusal to bake a cake being a form of discrimination, I think the suggestion of baking two cakes is not a distortion of the text's (Matt. 5) meaning. I tend to think that one is free here to act according to one's conscious, and both responses (not baking or baking two) are perfectly acceptable. 
    The comparison of making two idols or two XXX movies is not an apples to apples comparison. Baking a cake is not the same as giving approval to its intended use. Just like a gunmaker isn't responsible for how people use guns or the person who goes two miles with the soldier isn't approving Roman domination.
    One must also be careful here to distinguish whether one is arguing against baking two cakes as the "only true correct response" (which I agree would be going too far) while allowing for its potential validity in some cases, or outright decrying the "bake two" response as wrong in every case (which in my mind is also too heavy handed).
    I really appreciate your work, both here and on the website, but this video seems to not live up to the usual thoroughness. In any case, keep up the good work, and perhaps we'll see a second video on this matter…

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  16. Rose S

    Thank you for your response to the blogger you make perfect logical points and it sticks to scripture not a interpretation of scripture or an application scripture but context of it.

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply
  17. Arthur

    I actually agree with the pseudo-Christian blogger, at least in part. Bake two absolutely plain wedding style cakes – no names written in icing, no mention of wedding, no bride & groom figurines on the top. Bake the extra cake for free. <><

    November 15, 2021 at 10:11 am Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.