A baker insists that baking a cake for a gay couple's wedding violates his principles. How can baking a cake be a violation of his principles? He bakes cakes every day. It doesn't matter who he bakes them for. The baker claims that it means he is participating in the couple's wedding, of which he disapproves. How can he make that claim? He is not at the wedding (in fact, the cake is not likely to be at the wedding itself either). He is not overseeing the vows, he did not participate in the couple's decision to marry, he is not issuing the license. He is baking a cake. Its purpose is to be eaten. By whom does not matter. Same with the florist, or the lunch counter worker who is serving a meal. Their services are simply that - services.
Some will argue that this line of reasoning could be used against the companies that manufacture drugs that wind up being used for the death penalty. There is a distinct difference. The baker bakes a cake, and the purpose of that cake is to be eaten. The cake is (hopefully) not a potentially lethal item that could cause great harm if misused. The drug manufacturer makes a drug whose purpose is NOT the taking of a life, but that drug is misused to kill. While the baker can't argue that the purpose of his cake is not to be eaten by gays, but only by straight people, the drug company can legitimately state that they will not sell their drugs for the purpose of being misused. While the wedding can happen with or without a cake, i.e., the cake does not cause the wedding, the death penalty cannot be brought about (at least not by lethal injection) without the lethal products to inject, and the drug causes the death. Thus, the baker of the cake is not a participant in bringing about the wedding, but the drug manufacture is a participant in bringing about the death. This is where not selling a drug to prisons is a matter of principle, where baking a cake is not a principle.
Baking a cake is not a religious principle
No comments:
Post a Comment