CASE #1: WEDDING CAKE

Meryday P. Neo

A gay couple from Massachusetts, David Mullin and Charlie Craig, and, a lesbian
couple from Colorado, Jenita Belliot and Sarah Matherne were refused by two different
bakeshops from two different instances to have their wedding cake baked. They were
denied service because it is against their religious belief as Catholics to serve gay and
lesbian couples in their bakeshop. They say that it is like condoning something that
compromised their deeply held convictions.

QUESTION: Were the decisions of the bakeshop owners morally justifiable? Why
or why not? Apply moral/ ethical principles that would support your stand.

A. The parties involved:

Bakeshop owners
Have the right to practice strictly what they strongly believed in
Have the responsibility to serve every client whatever their marital status or
sexual preferences
Have the duty to obey the law against discrimination
Gay and Lesbian couples
o Have the responsibility to respect the deeply held faith as well as the
autonomy of the bakeshop owners
o Have the right to be treated fairly and enjoy the rights provided by law
o Have the right to enjoy the lifestyle they chose and to also do lawful activities
that will make them happy
o Have the right to sue the bakeshop owners for violating their rights against
discrimination
B. Salient issues:
Same sex marriage the state or condition of being married to another person of
 the same gender is viewed as immoral by Catholics
Discrimination the unjust or prejudicial treatment to another person especially
on the grounds of age, sex or marital status
This was committed by the two bakeshop owners who denied service to the
gay and lesbian couples despite the law in their country against
discrimination
C. Social Constraints
- The deeply held convictions of the bakeshop owners as Catholic
adherents that same sex marriage is immoral, thus, providing service
to the gay or lesbian couple is like tolerating such immoral act
- They chose to follow their belief as Catholic than to earn money
D. Course of action:
The LGBT couples must not be denied of the services they deserve as citizens
The bakeshop owners should follow their duty as businessmen to provide every
individual of the services they offer
Pros
FOR THE BAKSHOP OWNERS:
The business owner will earn money from the gay and lesbian couples
They will earn good impression from the LGBT community, hence there is
a possibility that they will be recommended by the gay and lesbian couples
to their fellows which means more clients in the future. Consequently, they
will have more income.
They will not violate the law, therefore they will not be sued.
FOR THE GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES
They will be able to have their dream wedding cake baked
They will be happy since they will feel that they have not been discriminated
based on their sexual preferences
They will enjoy the feeling that they are accepted by the people in their
respective country
Cons non-conformation of the bakeshop owners to their deeply faith

Rights
the rights recognized by a society are protected and given the
highest priority.
Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large
population endorses them

ANSWER:

Among the fifty states of America, Massachusetts is known to have the highest
number of Catholic believers comprising 44.9% of the religious people while in Colorado,
only 38.93% of its population have religious affiliation and 16.83 % are members of
Catholic faith according to 2010 U.S. Religious Census: Religious Congregations &
Membership Study (RCMS). The bakeshop owners choice to follow their religious belief
is therefore understandable as it is the deeply held faith and norms of the majority in their
respective country. From a Catholics point of view, their decisions are morally acceptable
as these are supported by the Natural Law proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas which is
also known as Thomism. It states that a certain law or action is right if it is in harmony
with its natural purpose or the laws of nature. According to this theory, marriage is
naturally for men and women only because of their natural purpose to produce offspring
Also, it is stated in the Bible such as in Leviticus, that same sex relationship is an immoral
act. The theological voluntarism may also be used to justify the moral aspect of the
bakeshop owners actions for it asserts that it is ones obligation to obey Gods
commandment above all else.
However, Bryan Ness, in his review of Chris Meyers book entitled the Moral
Defense of Homosexuality, cited Meyers arguments about the basis of morality. Meyer
argued that for an action to be morally wrong, it must have some elements of wrong-
doing. Thus, an action is not morally right, when there is something about the act that
makes it immoral such as instigating harm or violating a persons autonomy or individual
rights. Hence, looking from this perspective, being a gay or a lesbian or opting to same
sex marriage neither inhibit anyones freedom nor cause injury on the bakeshop owner
or to any person, therefore not immoral.
Further, legally speaking, the bakeshop owners violated the law in Massachusetts
and Colorado which unequivocally outlaws any form of discrimination on gender identity,
sexual preferences and HIV status. Moreover, Massachusetts and Colorado are states of
America which advocates freedom and liberty giving both the bakeshop owners the
autonomy to practice what they strongly believed in as well as the LGBT couples, as
citizens of their respective countries, the freedom to live the life they chose and to do
lawful things for their happiness.
In addition, based on the deontological class of ethical theories, it maintains that
people should stick to their duties and responsibilities when involved in making decisions
especially when ethical aspects are needed to be taken into consideration. This means
that a person will conform to his or her obligations to another individual or society because
upholding ones duty is what is deemed ethically true or acceptable. Since decisions are
anchored on the individuals set of duties, consistency in decision-making is a
characteristic of a deontological theory - adherent person. From this standpoint, preparing
a cake is a bakeshop owners duty to everyone including the LGBT couples, thus, will not
violate any religious belief or moral ethics.
It is also supported by rights theory which asserts that the rights of every individual
mandated by the government must be prioritized above all else, therefore, the bakeshop
owner should not have denied the gay and lesbian couples of the service they deserve.
As for me, I can neither denounce the conviction of the bakeshop owners nor
criticize the LGBT couples for getting married, because even God gave us the free will.
Nevertheless, if I were the bakeshop owner, I would not deprive the gay and lesbian
couples of their rights to avail my services. As a practicing Catholic, it is not our task to
condemn or to judge whether an action is morally right or wrong because as it is said, we
can only have a glimpse of the absolute truth about what morality really is. As Catholic
adherents, our role is to be like the salt and the light for the non-believers. Our duty is just
to warn them and to spread the word of God to them. Whether they accept it or not is
none of our business anymore. There is nothing wrong with being faithful to what we
believe in as Catholics. The man-made laws do not forbid us from doing so. However,
discriminating someone based on marital status and sexual preference, I think, would not
make us more holy or religious. We must remember that we cannot simply enforce our
beliefs on others. Besides, it is not the only way by which we can show our faithfulness
to Catholic church. Loving others as God have loved us, to love unconditionally,
regardless of their preferences is Gods portrayal of who He was, is, and will always be.
Being a good Samaritan particularly to the non-Catholics is the best way by which we can
introduce to them our God. The law against discrimination does not hinder us on our
religious beliefs because our faith does not oblige us to run a business such as a
bakeshop. It only demands us to modify our business policies.
To end, we only need to learn to respect each others choices and preferences
because as I have said earlier, we are not here to condemn for in the end, the final
judgment still belongs to GOD. Man-made laws are always grounded on morality and
religion and these two, according to US former President George Washington are the
Great Pillars of human Happiness and that both experience and reason prevent us to
presume that national morality can reign in rejection of religious principle. Thus, in our
pursuit of true happiness, morality and religion should not be disregarded.

References:
Ness, Bryan (2016). A Review of Chris Meyers' "The Moral Defense of
Homosexuality"
http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/02/11/review-chris-meyers-moral-
defense-homosexuality
Hadfield Derek S. (2014). Same-Sex Marriage and Dr. S. Koepke (2014).
Philosophy of Ethics
http://www.academia.edu/8668231/The_Ethics_of_Same-Sex_Marriage
https://www.glad.org/
http://www.hrc.org/local-issues/massachusetts
http://www.hrc.org/local-issues/colorado
http://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/religion-and-morality-the-
same-sex-marriage-debate
http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/gay_marriage.htm#part2
http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/state/colorado
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195147790.001.0001/acprof-
9780195147797-chapter-3
https://adventuresinphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/natural-law-theory-
and-gay-marriage/