The last couple of weeks it seems like our national news has been dominated by a couple of things: Gay wedding cakes and religious freedom laws. As gay people are gaining the right to marry, many Christians feel like they are losing their religious rights and freedoms, while the media does nothing but point their cameras at this tension. As all this is going on our great country is becoming more and more divided. And right now it’s becoming divided all over cake…
In Acts 18:1-3, we read about the apostle Paul and learn what he did for a living. It says, “After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tent makers by trade.”
As Paul’s missionary journeys took him from Jerusalem to Ephesus, from Ephesus to Rome, from Rome to Spain. Several times he traveled from one end of the Mediterranean to the other, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and making disciples. Along the way Paul made and sold tents to support himself and his ministry.
At the time, there wasn’t a whole lot of Christians in the Roman empire. Actually, during this period of history a vast majority of the Roman empire was pagan. And Paul made and sold tents to the pagans.
If you go your whole life and never learn anything else about ancient Roman paganism then you need to know this: They worshiped idols and as part of their religious festivals they would often have drunken sex orgies, where people of the same sex would often engage in sexual acts on each other. More than likely Paul’s customers would set up their idols for worship in the tents that Paul made, and perform same sex sex acts on each other during their drunken orgies as apart of these religious festivals.
Paul was not ignorant of this. This was so engrained in the culture and it wasn’t hidden. These people did it openly, unashamed. And Paul sold tents to these people knowing what they would be doing inside of his tents.
Did Paul endorse idol worship? No.
Did Paul endorse drunkenness? Promiscuity? Fornication? Homosexuality? No. No. No. And no.
Paul did not support any of these things that the pagans did. However, Paul did allow the pagans to financially support him and his ministry as he traveled the Mediterranean, evangelizing, creating disciples, and starting churches.
But for Paul tentmaking wasn’t just his cash cow, it was a part of his ministry. He used tentmaking as a tool to get into the lives of the people in the community where he was planting a church. A great example of this is found in Acts 18 where Paul meets Priscilla and Aquila, who are fellow tentmakers and who are Jews (vs. 2-3). They weren’t Christians, yet. In verse 18, Priscilla and Aquila accompany him on a mission trip to Syria. And by the time we get to vs 26, we see Priscilla and Aquila discipling Apollos. Somewhere along the way, between verse 3 and verse 18, Paul converted them. He used tentmaking to get into their lives.
There’s no doubt that as Paul was traveling all across the Roman empire that some of these nasty, drunken, hot and horny pagans came to know Jesus Christ as followers and disciples just because Paul chose to do business with them!
In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul addresses idol worship. He tells us not to partake in it. But in verses 23 and 24, Paul says this:
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.”
There was absolutely no law against Paul making tents and selling them to pagans. And actually it was helpful! It funded his ministry so that he didn’t have to solicit money from the members of the churches that he was planting. It was also edifying. In other words he was building up the kingdom of God here on Earth by evangelizing to the pagans, Jews, and Greeks, discipling them, and then sending them out to evangelize, make disciples, and by sending them out!**
Contrary to popular belief, selling a gay couple a wedding cake won’t damn you to hell. It’s no different than Paul selling a tent to a pagan. But judging by how some Christians are acting you would think that’s the case!
Our problem is we don’t see the big picture. We’re too focused on ourselves. We’re not seeking the good of our neighbor. We’re only seeking our own good. We’re too busy fighting for our “religious rights” & fighting for our “faith & freedom,” instead of fighting for the souls of the sinners that are lost, dying, and on their way to hell.
In John 8:36, Jesus said, “So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free.” Christ has set us free! Yet, we’re not living free in Christ. We’re too busy trying to live free in religion. He who the Son sets free is free, indeed, but if you’re fighting for your “religious freedom,” then perhaps you’re not really free, indeed?
The Apostle Paul also wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:17, “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Quick question, Christian: If you’re busy fighting for your religious liberty, where is the Spirit of the Lord?
We are no longer slaves, but sons. We are fellow heirs with Christ. That means we are free. And if we are free, then freedom is something that we no longer have to fight for. We walk in it. Looking at the Christian world around me, here lately, I don’t see too many walking in it. They’re too busy fighting for that their in bondage to—Religion.
Nowhere in the New Testament are we ever commanded to fight for our rights. You can search and you can dig deep from the Book of Matthew to the Book of Revelation, and you’re not going to find it.
To put things in proper historical perspective, the entire New Testament was written during a time of intense religious persecution. It was written at a time when Christians were crucified on crosses like Christ was. Some were impaled on stakes and lined along the road. Some were burned alive. Others were brought into the Roman Colosseum and fed to the lions as a spectator sport. (This was done for entertainment!)
While Jesus walked the earth, the Roman government ruled Israel. Due to the intense religious persecution the Jews, people lived in constant fear that the Romans would put an end to their sacrifices at the Temple or would shut down their holy feast. There were uprisings where Jews were fighting against the Roman soldiers because they felt like they had to in order to protect their religious liberties to offer sacrifices and worship.
They were eager to escape the religious persecution that they were under. This is why in John 6:15, after Jesus feeds the 5,000, they were ready to make him king. This is also why in Acts 1:6, Jesus’ very own disciples asked him, after he rose from the dead, if now was the time that he was going to restore the Kingdom of Israel. They wanted Jesus to lead them against their religious persecutors: The Roman Government.
Here we are, today, 2015, and there some of us are looking to Jesus to lead us against our religious persecutor: The United States Government.
Please, keep all of this in mind the next time you open up Romans, chapter 13:1-7, where the apostle Paul encourages the church in Rome, not to fight for their rights as Christians, but instead to submit to the very Roman government that’s persecuting them.
Seriously, search the New Testament! Dig into church history. You’re not going to find one New Testament saint who ever fought for religious liberties or encouraged others to fight for their freedom of religion. They had more important things to do like fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be doing as well?
We’re supposed to be seeking his kingdom and his righteousness, first. But instead we’re too busy trying to protect our own little religious kingdoms. We’re too busy trying to protect our “freedom to practice our faith” instead of just having faith in the One who set us free.
Paul said in Ephesians 6:12 that we wrestle not with flesh and blood. It’s amazing that in this fight for our “rights” & “freedom” we do. And what we do in the process is push away the very ones who need the freedom and the kingdom that we’re supposed to represent.
But we don’t really represent the freedom or the kingdom of Christ. We don’t really represent Christ when we do that. We think we do, but we’re not. We’re only representing our own sick, twisted self-righteous selves when we act like that. That’s not Jesus!
Let me ask you a couple more questions as I bring this to a close: In your own personal quest for religious freedom how many sinners have you pushed away from Christ?
How many have you shoved in the direction of hell?
Because you’re certainly not saving anyone from the fires of hell by refusing to bake them a cake or refusing to make them a tent.
- An Advent Devotional: I Have No Gift to Bring - December 9, 2022
- To Tithe or Not to Tithe? That is the Question! - June 8, 2019
- A Hypothesis: The Mark of Cain or the Mark of the Beast? - May 5, 2018
I see a big difference between a tent which may or may not be used to house idols, or orgies, and a cake that is strictly designed to celebrate a sin, and a particularly repugnant sin to most people with normal heterosexual orientation. Your comparison is invalid.
But now that homosexuality is a protected status the normal and good exemption of “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” has become a hate crime. This will hold true soon for ministers who refuse to marry a homosexual couple.
I do agree that no ordinary service should be refused to anyone because of their particular habitual sin. We should all be able to eat cake together. But I should also have the right to refuse service to anyone.
You make some valid points but the demonized picture of President Barack Obama is offensive and feeds in to Tea-Publican dogma and racism.
Hey V!
Thank you for taking the time to read my article & for leaving sincere, honest feedback.
I apologize if you found the demonized pic of President Obama offensive. I certainly can see how you would think that it would feed into the Tea Party/Republican Party hoopla that they make. Believe me: That’s not my intention!
The reason why I chose that pic is because I wanted to use something that represents how most ultra-conservative Christians see our government: As the enemy!
The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:12 that we wrestle not with flesh & blood, but yet as I scroll through Facebook & Twitter; as I listen to certain preachers & teachers talk; as I turn on Christian talk radio; as I have personal conversations with some of my brothers & sisters in Christ this is exactly what I see & here them doing: They’re wrestling with our government. They’re wrestling with our President. Not only are they going against Ephesian 6:12, but they’re also going against Romans 13!
That was the point that I was trying to make if you looked at that picture & look at it in context of what I was writing. They see the government as our enemy. They see Obama as Satan/Anti-Christ & he’s not!
The point of the pic wasn’t to feed into the racist, demonizing ultra-conservative Tea Party/Republican party point of view. It was meant in context with the article to expose them as greatly missing the mark. That’s how they see our government. That’s how they see our President. I was just trying to illustrate that. That’s not how I see our government or President. Actually, I voted for Obama the first time he ran for President! 😉
I, like you, V, am fighting against the hate & bigotry that I’m seeing in this world around me. Sadly, a lot of it comes from our pews & pulpits. That’s what this article is attempting to address.
Once again, I apologize for that pic offending you. It has been removed from the article so that anyone else who reads it won’t be offended.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to read & comment! Have a blessed day! 🙂
i guess my confusion is the significance of any of this. or the topic of homosexuality itself. im sure the cake place makes cakes for heterosexual couples that got married in a church, but then divorced later. or where it turns out the husband cheats on his wife, or maybe abuses her. a heterosexual couple that does drugs or alcoholics living lifestyles we dont agree with, or that we can assume paul wouldnt. because i think claiming ‘paul would not approve’ is speculation because we only have our interpretations of his writings. why is homosexuality THE end all sin. why is it being compared to hitler and the kkk and isis? those are extreme levels to compare it to. and yes there is no hierarchy of sin, in my opinion so all those would be the same but i tend to doubt that thats the thinking behind it. if your child tells a lie about eating the last cookie to you compare them to isis or hitler? when you feel such anger in your stomach for the person that cut you off or stole your parking spot do you compare yourself to john wayne gacy? but homosexuality seems a sin that its okay to do that with.
and yes you have daniel and paul and silas and ‘rack, shack, and benny’ who followed Gods law over mans, but we have to remember too that each of them weren’t exempt from the fallout of the mans law that they broke. what’s ceasars is still ceasars. so if we follow what we feel to be Gods law over earthly law…we can still expect an earthly fallout.
but the question i have is ‘what if’ paul made a tent specific for homosexual sex. a tent made specifically to house people who wanted to engage in that. hypothetically im saying. does that change the Truth he preached? does that negate all the miracles he did and people he’s reached? make his words untrue and unholy? our whole lives he spoke to us in what we read in the words spoken by God through him…does that change if he made a party tent for a couple of gay people? if we found out that Jesus’ best friend was gay and Jesus never sat him down to tell him that he ‘loves the sin but hates the sinner’ – that he just loved him purely for who he was, and treated him as such. does that negate anything Jesus did? anything He said? is our faith so frail that it all shatters if we found out something like this?
i think there other scriptures it might be better for us to focus on, ones about cleansing the sins from our own lives first. about loving people fully as if they were ourselves. about praying for people we dont agree with or that offend us. because they all line up with the need for us to harshly judge ourselves first and clean up our act before looking at anyone else. and to me that is important. the most important. who cares what the cake says or who wrote it, lets not get offended or up in arms about it.
lets just all eat the cake together.
Joshua,
The references to kkk, Hitler, isis etc. are all forms of an argumentation called reductio ad absurdem or reducing an argument to absurdity. The argumentation seeks to demonstrate that the logic being used is absurd when applied to extreme cases and therefore it is untenable in not so extreme cases. In this case, saying bakers cannot object to making certain cakes means they also cannot object to making extreme cakes. The folly in this principle becomes more evident when extreme examples are put forth.
No one said homosexuality was the end all sin but it is the most prominent sin that is demanding the legal system force the public to promote it.
The message to the homosexual is no different than to any other sinner… Turn from your sin and believe on Jesus Christ for forgiveness.
As to the cake… I’ll pass.
“The message to the homosexual is no different than to any other sinner… Turn from your sin and believe on Jesus Christ for forgiveness.”
Amen, bro! I agree 100%!!
The significance is exactly what Jeremy stated in his reply to you: It is the most prominent sin that is demanding the legal system force the public to promote it. The very fact that the media has made it a hot-button issue has forced the Church to make it a hot button issue. That’s the only reason why we seem to be talking more about homosexuality than fornication, drunkenness, gossiping, etc.
And I’m in agreement with you – Lets just all eat the cake together!
Thank you for taking the time to read & to voice your opinion. You made some GREAT points!
I’m wondering if the author would write an article called “Apostle Paul: The next great racist cake baker.” A recent court ruling forced an African american baker in Georgia to bake a cake for the KKK. (cf http://www.washingtonweeklynews.com/unintended-consequences-black-bakery-owner-loses-lawsuit-forced-to-bake-racist-kkk-cake/#)
I think where this post misses the point is that the objection is not to making cakes for unbelievers but making cakes that support them and their cause. I highly doubt the Apostle Paul would have made a tent that was specially design to promote homosexuality. This is the issue and conflating that with just selling a cake to an unbeliever is a huge misunderstanding.
Further, I think there is Biblical precedent for standing against government authority when that authority tries to force God’s people to do the ungodly. In Acts Paul and Silas were ordered, to stop preaching the Gospel. Their response? “Shall we obey God or men?”
Thus sets a general principal that God’s Law is higher than man’s. When man’s law conflicts with God’s law we obey God rather than men.
Based on that New Testament principle alone every Christian ought to rightly refuse to make any product that promotes or supports evil.
I would think the easiest solution is to offer a general product which the couple is then welcome to do with as they please.
Ooops.
Quick correction. It was Peter and company, not Paul and Silas. Still, the principle is the same,
Acts 5:28-29 NKJV
saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
I was unaware of the KKK/Black baker story! WOW!! That’s crazy!!
My issue with the story is that it neither states what specifically her religious beliefs & what his was, since both are siting their religious beliefs. Also, I would like to know what he wanted on the cake!
And thanks for the challenge on the article! But I’ll pass! LOL! 😉
As far as Acts 5:28-29 goes, that’s not even close in comparison to this! It’s two totally different things!
1.) Peter & company weren’t being ordered silent by the Roman government. They were being ordered silent by the high priest. This is the equivalent of TD Jakes telling you to hush. It doesn’t carry the same weight as when Uncle Sam does it.
2.) The High Priest wasn’t commanding them not to violate any of God’s laws. He was telling them to stop preaching the Gospel, which they were commissioned to do.
3.) The High Priest is not the mouth piece of the Roman government, therefor this wasn’t a government law that they was opposing. They was opposing a High Priest who was no longer their High Priest. Their High Priest commissioned them to preach the gospel. Which High Priest are you going to obey?
4.) If this passage had took place with Pilate instead of the High Priest, I would say that you have a valid argument: When man’s law conflicts with God’s law we obey God rather than men. But this conversation didn’t take place with Pilate. It took place with the High Priest of the Temple. And it had absolutely nothing to do with government law. Peter & Co. wasn’t opposing Roman law. They was opposing someone who was acting as if he was their High Priest.
5.) Can you interpret your statement, “When man’s law conflicts with God’s law we obey God rather than men.” again in light of Romans 13? Like I stated in my article Paul wrote that to the church of Rome who was smack dab in the middle of the capital city of the colossal Pagan Roman empire which was crucifying Christians, impaling them on sticks & lining the roadways with them, lighting them on fire, & feeding them to the lions.
6.) You said, “Based on that New Testament principle alone every Christian ought to rightly refuse to make any product that promotes or supports evil.” I feel like I’ve already shown how you’ve taken Acts 5:28-29 out of context & created a “New Testament principle” that simply isn’t there. If that principle is the foundation for this principle, then this principle doesn’t stand either.
Like I stated in a response to an earlier comment, I Corinthians 6:9-11 list drunkards along side of homosexuals as a part of the list of those who will not enter the kingdom of God. Yet, in John 2:1-11 we read that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine for a bunch of people who were already drunk! Should Jesus have “ought to rightly refuse to make any product (in this case wine) that promotes or supports evil (drunkness)?”
I’ll let you tell Jesus he’s wrong. Not me! 😉
Thanks for taking the time to read & respond! 🙂
I think you misunderstand the relationship of the high priest to the civil authorities. The high priest was for all intents and purposes a government official rubber stamped by Rome. The way Rome governed was by leaving a certain level of freedom of self governance to those areas they took over.
For example, Israel condemned Jesus to death as a civil/religious matter but Rome did not give them the right to execute the death penalty. That’s the only reason Pilate was involved.
We see a similar example with Paul in acts. First he is taken to local religious/civil authority which was the high priest. Later, higher Roman authorities are brought in.
Regardless, the principle set forth is not role specific, its “man” specific. Any man who creates a law in violation of Gods law is not to be obeyed.
In terms of Rom 13, I think the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate where someone broke the law of God in order to submit to civil authority.
You wont find any examples of that because God’s law trumps man’s.
I just wrote a helpful post here on ThM called “To Submit or Subvert” where I lay this out in more detail.
As to Jesus making wine, He didn’t make anyone drunk nor is making wine sinful. Again, your conflating simple provision of a product to potentially sinful people with actually making a product that is sinful.
If Jesus was making a toast to their drunkenness… Then you’d have a correct comparison. There’s nothing wrong with selling a cake to a homosexual… There is something wrong with making a cake that overtly supports the homosexual. Those are two different issues.
I’m not trying to get into anything really here cause everyone makes good points. and to me i still dont get how making a cake for homosexuals or that promotes homosexuality is anything controversial. I’m no authority on this matter or any matter. i think that we can’t always hide behind God’s law as a get out of jail free card though because if we make a stand we have expect fall out. so we shouldn’t be up in arms about it or feel persecuted fully because that’s the rules of the game. there are still earthly consequences. i heard a story once of a pastor that was so opposed to the vietnam war that he figured out how many of his taxes went to support the war for religious reasoning and so he didnt pay that portion of the taxes. but that didnt stop him from having to deal with fallout from that. if a cake maker is going to make a stand about who they will serve then of course they will offend people and it will turn into a thing. people used to use the bible and scripture to support them putting signs that said ‘whites only. no coloreds’ and that was accepted by the country and supported by it until people made a stand. i for one am excited for the day in which there is another great breakthrough for homosexuals or transgendered. i admit i am far more focused on the people involved other than the fact that its a sin. if i focused on peoples sin or sinful lifestyle id have no friends and a deep deep hatred for myself.
but my main question here is about Jesus’ water to wine. arent we only inferring that he was just making tasty drinks for everyone and had no intention of getting anyone drunk. doesnt the same passage go on to talking about how people usually put out the best wine first and then when people are too drunk to care/tell the host puts out cheap wine? but it was a big deal that even later into the wedding they had delicious wine better than the ‘good stuff’ at the start? i know we tend to get uncomfortable when we read things like that because we dont want to associate our perfect Jesus in that environment and when we read he hung out with the scum of the earth we want to think they are overstating and they werent really that bad. but what if since Jesus is perfect he just understands the reality of what is a sin and what isnt. far more than we do. so we might look at actions and go ‘nooooo he wouldnt do that, cause that would be a sin’ and Jesus is basically like ‘no its not. trust me i literally wrote the book on this topic’
i understand we want to put our foot down and be unwavering in our convictions of things but i know personally i get uncomfortable when we put words in Jesus’ mouth or Paul’s mouth or anyone, of course we all have our takes on things but assigning absolute authority to them…i think maybe we miss the point of things when we do that. no?
Good article to make us all think. Just wanted to add, if ISIS wanted to make a cake saying, “Death to Israel!” would that work?
If ISIS walked into a Jewish bakery & requested to have “Death to Israel” put on a cake, I would say, yes. The Jewish baker would take that as a personal threat.
But the idea of a member of ISIS going into a Jewish bakery to order a cake is far fetched. We both know that they would just blow it up. 🙁
LOL!!
This right here is good, good stuff. Thanks.
Thank you, Jill! I appreciate you taking the time to read. I especially appreciate you taking the time to leave feedback!
Please share this article with others if you haven’t already! 🙂
Be blessed!
I agree with parts of this – I think the author makes some good points. However, my understanding is that the bakery was asked to make a cake with a political slogan they found offensive. Their name and brand would then be linked to a political campaign. That’s a little different than say, providing a tent for someone. The reality is, if Paul had been asked to make a custom-made tent specifically for idol worship, then he may also have turned it down.
So to me, there’s two parts to this. Should we be able to refuse custom to people whose lifestyles we don’t agree with? I would say no. If you have a business, you probably need to serve everyone equally. However, if as a business, you are asked to use your skill and expertise to create a product for a political campaign that you find offensive, then shouldn’t you have the right to say no? If someone had asked them to make a Hitler cake, or a cake to support a political campaign they found offensive, then everyone would have supported them in that, right? So why is this any different?
Hey Grace!
Thank you for taking the time to read & reply!!
There’s been several instances here in the news over the last couple of years where Christian businesses have refused services tied to same-sex weddings. Photographers, bakers, even florist. If you want to read about the cake instances you can go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gay-wedding-cakes/
As far as being asked to put a political slogan on a cake, I haven’t heard of any such incident! I can see grounds for refusing service if a KKK member came into an Jewish bakery & asked to have a slogan that was point blank racist & antisemitic on the cake. The baker could perceive that as a threat or an attack.
However, this isn’t the same thing. It’s far from it!
Someone coming into a bakery & asking to have “Congratulations Steve & Larry on your engagement!” is not in any way, shape, or form a threat or personal attack on the baker of the cake.
Likewise, in the case of the baker, this isn’t a free speech issue. When I pay the baker to decorate the cake, I choose the design & I choose the wording that’s to be put on the cake. Even though the baker is doing the work, the cake, itself, is an expression of free speech. Not theirs! The baker is being paid to put my thoughts on the cake. It’s no different if I was hiring someone to make a sign for me. They’re just being paid for providing a service that allows me to express myself. That’s all.
Hey bro, just thought I’d add some clarity. Paul was a “tent maker”. Scholars have agreed for ages that Paul was a typical tent maker who made tents for Romans soldiers. The tents Paul made were single person tents that were used by soldiers travelin far off who needed to sleep on ground for the night. They were very small and could only hold one person. They were not used for orgies or religious rituals. Furthermore, homosexuality was illegal in Rome and especially amongst the military. A soldier caught having homosexual sex, in his tent (while on duty) would be arrested and possibly even killed. This article doesn’t appear to take any of this into account but rather seeks to call Christians operating under conviction as being wrong and unbiblical when in fact the Apostle Paul as a Jew and later Christian would not in any sense have supported Christians making cakes with words of supporting homosexual marriage enscribed on them.
Hey Kyle,
Thanks for taking the time to read my article.
Please point out these scholars to me? So far in my studies I have yet to come across any thing anywhere that suggested that Paul, as a tent maker, had an exclusive contract with the Roman military.
As far as Paul, as a Jew & later Christian, goes: Which writing of Paul’s do you use to support that assumption? It’s clear that his listed homosexuality as a sin (Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-11). But nowhere in the entire NT is it suggested that we shouldn’t do business with sinners of any sort.
As a matter of fact, in I Corinthians 6:9-11 it list thieves along side of homosexuals as those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Suppose you own a restaurant. A young homeless man comes in sits down at a table & orders some food. He has dined & dashed on you once before. As a Christian business owner are you going to ask him to leave? Refuse him service? If so, what Biblical grounds would you have for doing so?
As a matter of fact I Corinthians 6:9-11 also list drunkards along side of homosexuals as a part of the elite list of those who will not entire the kingdom of God. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Jesus turn water into wine for a group of people who were already drunk? And He didn’t even charge them for that! It was a gift! A freebee!!
Would Jesus or Paul officiate a gay wedding? Heck to the no! But I don’t think either one would have had any problems baking a cake for a same sex wedding. I believe that each one would have used it as an evangelistic opportunity to try to get in these people’s lives.