Bake For Them Two?

I read an article the other day titled, “Bake for Them Two.” The author, Jessica Kantrowitz, was responding to the bakers who were refusing to bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages. Kantrowitz’ argument was that a truly Christian response by the bakers would be to bake not one but two cakes for the gay wedding. She based her suggestion on the passage in Matthew where Jesus told His listeners that if they were compelled to carry a soldier’s load one mile, they should “go the extra mile” and carry it two. I believe this is a misapplication of the Scripture for at least four reasons.

First, the context of the “extra mile” passage is about not seeking revenge. Turning the other cheek is Jesus’ first response to the eye-for-eye harshness of Jewish law. The paragraph closes with the command to give to anyone who asks. Perhaps Kantrowitz is right that the bakers should offer to bake any number of cakes for gay couples at no charge. That action might be seen as a Christian response. It might be disastrous financially if all the gays in town decided to ask for free cake. But none of this has to do with refraining from seeking revenge which is the original context. True, the extra mile paragraph is followed by the famous command to love one’s enemies, so one might see the extra cake as a display of selfless love. However, I don’t think any of the bakers who are being sued would call homosexuals their enemy; they just don’t want to support the gay lifestyle, so again, the context doesn’t support Kantrowitz’ argument.

Second, Roman law was vastly different from US law. In first century Palestine, as Rome called it, Caesar was the only law. Whatever the emperor said became the law of the empire. That law required all people in Roman controlled territories to carry the pack of any soldier who asked for one mile. Jesus’ command was to not fight against the Roman oppressors’ regulations, not to seek revenge on an individual soldier, but to do more than was required: go the extra mile.

Despite Kantrowitz’ attempt to create an equivalency, there is none. Law in the United States is based on the Constitution. There is no constitutional requirement that a citizen must bake a cake for anyone. That would violate the Fourth Amendment grant of security in one’s possessions. These bakers believe that same-sex marriages are wrong because the Bible says so. They see baking a cake as tacit approval of the wedding it is baked for. To force them to bake a cake for a gay wedding would infringe on their right to live out their beliefs. There is no imperial mandate to bake cakes, so Kantrowitz’ argument fails.

Third, the bakers are claiming that their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion is the major sticking point. The bakers believe the First Amendment gives them the right to refuse to do anything that would violate their faith. It is illegal to force someone to violate a sacred belief even if someone tries to use Jesus’ command to love one another. If a woman tried to seduce a married man by saying that loving like Jesus compels him to sleep with her as a demonstration of Jesus’ love, he could refuse on solid grounds. The prohibition against adultery trumps the call to love everyone. In the same way, the belief that same-sex unions are unbiblical trumps Kantrowitz’ love-in-the-name-of-Christ argument.

Fourth, many supporters of the gay right to force the baking of cakes claim that the First Amendment rights of the gay couple are being infringed. This is patently false. There is no infringement of gay rights because there is no constitutional right to have a wedding cake. Besides that, the gay couple could easily procure a cake from another baker who has no problem with same-sex marriages. As I understand it, the courts would have to prove harm was done to the gay couple by the baker’s refusal to bake them a cake. I can’t imagine what harm could be found.

I believe the entire issue of the wedding cakes is just another ploy by the LGBTQ+ movement to establish their victimhood in the eyes of the greater population. As I wrote years ago in “The Uncomfortable Subject,” it is shocking that a very small minority of Americans has been able to sway public opinion in their favor. I don’t believe that there ever was a need for special gay rights because their rights were already guaranteed by constitutional prohibitions against discrimination. It has become clear to me that the real agenda was never to ensure rights but rather to establish a platform from which to lobby for acceptance of the gay lifestyle and, more importantly, to force society to promote that lifestyle.

The ploy certainly worked. LGBTQ+ issues are now being preached and protected in every forum and institution in America including many churches. The promotion and forced acceptance of transgender persons has reached such a ridiculous point that even the President of liberal, lusty France has expressed dismay at how far we have taken it. I have to wonder how long it will be before parents of young girls rebel against the thought of boys in their daughters’ shower room. I wonder how many women will have to be disgusted by the men in their rest rooms to reverse the idiocy. (For more on this see “Truth Dysphoria”)

As Christians, we are bound to obey the law of the land. (See “Romans 13 Applied”) But we are also called to spread the Kingdom of light into the darkness. We can do this by exercising our God-given freedom in America with political activity and by voting for candidates who support traditional values. (See “Bringing the Kingdom”) American society is at a tipping point. I believe traditional, conservative moral values are still important to a majority of Americans. We have to stand up and make our voices heard. We will not be victims; we are more than conquerors spiritually through Christ and we can be conquerors politically through the American democratic system of government.

Related posts: America Held Captive; I Pray for America