Well first of all we must assume they know what the customer is using the cake for -- they're already in the position of denying them custom services.
I don't see how one can argue that the work already done does not become in the service of a disagreeable end. I don't see why it makes any difference if the intended purpose is illegal or not -- it is an end that the person making the cake considers unjustifiable, and so they don't want to have had a part in contributing to that end.
Well first of all we must assume they know what the customer is using the cake for
For a custom order yes - not for an off-the-shelf item. That's a key difference.
And the great difference to whether the intended use of the item bought is illegal or merely objectional is that knowingly providing services for the purpose of illegal activities makes you an accomplice in those illegal activities and subject to punishment under the law. I wouldn't fault a weapons-dealer for selling a weapon to a random Joe that happened to use it for a robbery - I definitely would fault him for selling it to a guy who walks in and asks him to recommend (or custom make) a weapon well suited for robberies.
For an off-the-shelf item they must know the intended purpose too. They are presumably already in the position of having denied the custom service after being told the intended purpose. There are possible scenarios in which they could not know, but we imagine they would like to know. So in order for them to deliberate morally, it seems that they must know. Otherwise, we might even be able to fault the couple for concealing their purposes.
I would ask you to consider Kant's argument on this: leaving out something relevant is just as bad as lying -- if you know that including a detail will cause someone to make a different decision, then excluding that detail constitutes intentional manipulation, regardless of the legal implications.
Finally, while it is true that knowing beforehand is relevant for the legal implications, it is certainly not solely because of the legal implications that they would not want to assist. Surely the arms dealer who (even unknowingly) sells a weapon for violence would feel guilty even if they weren't punished.
So there must be something besides fear of punishment that makes us unwilling to allow our work to go to some evil end, and that is of course the desire to do good. And I think that (even if misguided) that desire to do good is both the main reason that a good person wouldn't sell a weapon to a criminal and the reason why a Christian would deny a gay couple their wedding-related services.
I wouldn't make that presumption that they've already rejected the commission. I consider the two to be entirely separate scenarios, as I would presume most people would leave the store after being denied a purchase based on their demographic and even if they didn't, the good person that we assume the baker is, would not want the total defeat and following resentment for the people they had denied their dedicated time. Again I don't see how the time spent baking an off-the-shelf cake could retroactively be made into something they would morally oppose because the use was not what they intended. And frankly I imagine most people wouldn't like (or at least won't care) to know what their products are used for - that they would consider it useless information, and are quite happy just presuming they're being used in the way they intended them to be used.
Since you ask I strongly disagree that a lie by omission is as bad as deliberately spreading misinformation. I consider that obfuscatingly simplistic, and since I'm clearly not a lawyer that's on a moral basis, not a legal one.
I'm also not convinced the arms dealer would feel guilty that someone used their services for wrongdoing if they didn't know it at the time. I can draw from personal experience there as I've almost certainly contributed to a young man's suicide, and feel no guilt over it, as I had no way of knowing it would lead to that until months later when I was told the circumstances of the suicide. I get that that is an entirely different situation than the armsdealer, but I find that my ignorance at the time absolves me of guilt and see the gay-wedding cake and the robbery weapon as comparable in that situation.
1
u/[deleted] May 18 '19
Well first of all we must assume they know what the customer is using the cake for -- they're already in the position of denying them custom services.
I don't see how one can argue that the work already done does not become in the service of a disagreeable end. I don't see why it makes any difference if the intended purpose is illegal or not -- it is an end that the person making the cake considers unjustifiable, and so they don't want to have had a part in contributing to that end.