A Story of Courage: a Grandmother Who May Lose Her Home and Business for Not Serving a Gay Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cycleman said:
Why not? It’s not an issue of racism vs. homophobia, it’s an issue of what power the government should have to demand equal treatment for a class of people.
Click to expand...
I somewhat respect the fact that you identify as an ex Catholic but it seems petty that you come here to rail against the faith. More power to you though. Glad you’re having fun.
 
Rau said:
The trouble is, that is exactly what the State has done!
Click to expand...
I’ve seen Catholics on these forums that have decided not to go to a child’s wedding, their child’s wedding, because it wasn’t being held in a church. That isn’t a choice I would have made but that isn’t my decision to make. It’s theirs until someone in the government decides they no longer have the right to choose what they will do.

If one of the couple was a minority should the government be able to compel the parent to go? If the couple was the same sex, should the government be able to compel the parent to go? Is this a bizarre example? Are the actual facts bizarre?

The first few hundred years of this country, the Church was willing and encouraging of government involvement when it served a common purpose. Here we are in the 21st century and the government has become an obnoxious enemy of liberty. They are heavy handed and the only opinion to have is one they endorse. The Church encouraged that heavy hand when it was a common benefit and now it has become an obtrusive beast. Be careful what you wish for?

I honestly believe that in most business dealings, the government should not be able to compel someone to do business with anyone else or be able to penalize them for doing it. There should be exceptions but not many. In most instances, the discriminating practices will solve themselves. Those that won’t, won’t.
 
Brandall said:
I’ve seen Catholics on these forums that have decided not to go to a child’s wedding, their child’s wedding, because it wasn’t being held in a church. That isn’t a choice I would have made but that isn’t my decision to make. It’s theirs until someone in the government decides they no longer have the right to choose what they will do.

If one of the couple was a minority should the government be able to compel the parent to go? If the couple was the same sex, should the government be able to compel the parent to go?
Click to expand...
Businesses are institutions conducting their business under a legal framework, with specific privileges and obligations, and so they unavoidably give up some limited “personal” freedoms. I don’t have to engage with certain persons in my personal life, but if running a business, I may have to behave differently.
 
Rau said:
Businesses are institutions conducting their business under a legal framework, with specific privileges and obligations, and so they unavoidably give up some limited “personal” freedoms. I don’t have to engage with certain persons in my personal life, but if running a business, I may have to behave differently.
Click to expand...
Right, so you would feel the same way if that phelps family came into a gay man’s bakery and forced him to make a cake for a “God hates Fags” party.

What about a white supremist group forcing a jewish man to fork over a some pastries dedicated to a cross burning party.

THese people would have no right to refuse these would they?

How about you… if you were forced to bake a cake for one of these despicable groups. would you do it and not blink an eye???

I always ask this question from people with your opinion on this subject but never seem to get a repnse in the affirmative. I would be generally surprised if you would agree that these people should have to do this or loose their place of business.
 
ProdigalSun said:
Right, so you would feel the same way if that phelps family came into a gay man’s bakery and forced him to make a cake for a “God hates Fags” party.

What about a white supremist group forcing a jewish man to fork over a some pastries dedicated to a cross burning party.

THese people would have no right to refuse these would they?

How about you… if you were forced to bake a cake for one of these despicable groups. would you do it and not blink an eye???

I always ask this question from people with your opinion on this subject but never seem to get a repnse in the affirmative. I would be generally surprised if you would agree that these people should have to do this or loose their place of business.
Click to expand...
Does US law require bakers to do what you say? I don’t believe so. Anti- discrimination provisions are specific and codified, not open-ended. So I would be free to make a decision based on my personal disdain for the events at hand.
 
Rau said:
They are not fuzzy on the question of same sex marriage and sexual relations.

But what of the supply of hire cars, flowers etc by a business at such an event.
Click to expand...
He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Luke 17:1-2

Jesus specifically acknowledges that people are going to sin anyway, yet He still clearly says that we are not to be part of it.

Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them Ephesians 5:11

Again, Paul doesn’t say, “take no large part”, or “no significant part”.

There are plenty of other examples, not to mention even more if you want to add the element of the obligation of fraternal correction.
 
Havard said:
He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. Luke 17:1-2

Jesus specifically acknowledges that people are going to sin anyway, yet He still clearly says that we are not to be part of it.

Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them Ephesians 5:11

Again, Paul doesn’t say, “take no large part”, or “no significant part”.

There are plenty of other examples, not to mention even more if you want to add the element of the obligation of fraternal correction.
Click to expand...
The Church, in its discussion of formal cooperation, material cooperation and the “remoteness” of cooperation appears to argue differently than your interpretations above.
 
Rau said:
The Church, in its discussion of formal cooperation, material cooperation and the “remoteness” of cooperation appears to argue differently than your interpretations above.
Click to expand...
Okay, so could you be more specific in how you believe said Church teaching negates anything that I said?

(Edit: Also, I’m not aware that the florist is Catholic.)
 
Havard said:
Okay, so could you be more specific in how you believe said Church teaching negates anything that I said?
Click to expand...
To eschew any facilitation at all of the sinful acts of others would present insurmountable difficulties. Should the check-out girl work for a supermarket where she must take customers’ money in return for condoms, or work for a pharmacy that dispenses contraceptives? Should a taxi driver deliver a woman to a place where an abortion is likely to take place?

The Church has sought to draw the line between what one may, and may not do, having regard to the degree of connectedness with the wrong acts of others. Quite different to the more strict interpretation you gave to the scriptural quotes.
 
Sunbreak said:
I think there’s some sort of protection needed so that discrimination doesn’t refer to things such as this. In other words, there needs to be a distinction in the law between refusing to do any business with gay people as opposed to refusing to participate in gay weddings. In this woman’s case, she did not discriminate against the person based on him being gay as he was a long time customer, but only didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding which was against her beliefs.
Click to expand...
Not an unreasonable approach. Though it needs to be an exception based on (substantive) religious grounds (as would arguably be the case here).

As I said earlier, the State created a bind for itself when it decided to endorse same sex marriage, when it decided that opposition to same sex marriage was akin to racial discrimination, that is, an act counter to “civil rights”, (even human rights according to some), an act of bigotry. Given the path the State chose to tread (which was a failure to recognise and adhere to reality), how could it explain a decision to protect an interracial couple from discrimination but not a same sex couple? Protected rights on religious grounds is a reasonable provision of the law, but I think there needs to be religious fact in evidence. That is the only way the State can be seen to be consistent, given the path it has taken.
 
Rau said:
To eschew any facilitation at all of the sinful acts of others would present insurmountable difficulties. Should the check-out girl work for a supermarket where she must take customers’ money in return for condoms, or work for a pharmacy that dispenses contraceptives? Should a taxi driver deliver a woman to a place where an abortion is likely to take place?

The Church has sought to draw the line between what one may, and may not do, having regard to the degree of connectedness with the wrong acts of others. Quite different to the more strict interpretation you gave to the scriptural quotes.
Click to expand...
To quote Catholic Answers’ apologist, Jimmy Akin:
There are places in Church documents which mention different forms of cooperation, such as in Pre-16′s text on supporting abortion and going to Communion. However, if you look in the Catechism or other official documents for an authoritative taxonomy of these terms and what they mean and what they do and don’t apply to, you won’t find one.
Click to expand...
jimmyakin.com/2005/08/selling_bad_stu.html
Click to expand...
He does go into great detail in analyzing your condom example, though:
It thus seems to me that–given the gravity of what may happen to a person who loses his job over this and the chances of him getting a new, entry-level job that doesn’t pose this kind of dilemma–and given that there are no alternatives other than getting fired then it seems to me that a reason may well exist that is proportionate to what is needed to justify performing selling actions that are themselves justified and sufficiently remote from the evil act that the customer is likely to perform afterwards.
Click to expand...
(Sorry if that’s grammatically hard to process, but I’m writing at the end of a long day.)
Click to expand...
Now, if you change any of those conditions, the moral evaluation is likely to change as well:
Click to expand...
  1. If the person is well off and doesn’t need the job then he might ought to quit.
  2. If the person has available to him another, equally good job that doesn’t involve this dilemma (like moving to the butcher’s department or the janitorial staff) then he might ought to take it.
  3. If the person has an alternative, such as a storeowner who could say with relative ease “Y’know, we’re just not going to sell those things here,” then he ought to pursue it.
Click to expand...
Although Jimmy Akin’s opinion lacks Magisterial weight ;), I agree with his analysis. The florist in the case at hand is a store owner.

But as I also pointed out, we don’t even know if she’s Catholic, so this whole discussion about Catholic theology doesn’t even necessarily apply to her.
 
cycleman said:
Would you have been one of those in the 50’s and 60’s that said restaurant owners should be able to refuse service to blacks? After all, they could go elsewhere too.
Click to expand...
Read some Thomas Sowell. He thinks it acceptable–presuming the absence of government involvement (that ties into my comment below).
cycleman said:
Those restaurant owners ended up being coerced by government to go against their beliefs just as much the bakers and florists of today.
Click to expand...
Go back and re-read the history. It was actually the government that coerced businesses into denying blacks access. I presume you’ve heard of Jim Crow?
 
Havard said:
To quote Catholic Answers’ apologist, Jimmy Akin:
Click to expand...
The fact that Jimmy (for whom I have a lot of time…) goes through this reasoning process underpins the very point I am making that there is a line to be drawn, and it is not necessarily at the position your interpretation of the scriptural verses concludes.

Ask yourself this - is your interpretation of the scriptural verses entirely in accord with Jimmy’s conclusion?
 
Suudy said:
Read some Thomas Sowell. He thinks it acceptable–presuming the absence of government involvement (that ties into my comment below).

Go back and re-read the history. It was actually the government that coerced businesses into denying blacks access. I presume you’ve heard of Jim Crow?
Click to expand...
Thomas Sowell is one of the most consistently brilliant people I’ve had the pleasure of reading.
 
Rau said:
The fact that Jimmy (for whom I have a lot of time…) goes through this reasoning process underpins the very point I am making that there is a line to be drawn, and it is not necessarily at the position your interpretation of the scriptural verses concludes.

Ask yourself this - is your interpretation of the scriptural verses entirely in accord with Jimmy’s conclusion?
Click to expand...
I just want to back up a second. There is the general Christian objection based on the passages I cited, as well as others, and then there is this Catholic theology you brought up. I am happy to talk about Catholic theology, however there are many Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian faiths. Conscience objections don’t hinge on nuances of Catholic theology.
 
Bell(name removed by moderator) said:
But is it really? Surely thats an important part of the discussion. Does her religion forbid her from this activity?
Click to expand...
I think it is actually very easy to see why she feels it does.

I don’t know how the florist looks at it, but this is how I look at it:

Marriage is central to Christian morality. It is the only valid relationship in which sexual activity is endorsed, because of its role in procreation and maintaining a stable family.

There is a commandment, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

They want this woman to help celebrate publicly a presumably sexual union between two same-sex partners and publicly endorse it as if it was a marriage.

You really don’t see how she interprets that as going against her religion? Different strokes I guess. It is very clear to me, and I agree with her.

The real question is: Is it really right to legally punish people like this florist?

The only rationale would be that homosexuality and heterosexuality have to be treated exactly the same, even though they are not the same thing.

Gay marriage laws are unjust because they seek to force people to pretend something that is simply and obviously not true. 2 men are not the same as husband and wife, and nobody should be forced by law to pretend that they are.

Why conservative lawyers don’t seem bright enough to make this argument in court and win? … I don’t know. I am amazed that something so obvious can be so invisible to so many people.
 
WilliamOK said:
I think it is actually very easy to see why she feels it does.

I don’t know how the florist looks at it, but this is how I look at it:

Marriage is central to Christian morality. It is the only valid relationship in which sexual activity is endorsed, because of its role in procreation and maintaining a stable family.

There is a commandment, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

They want this woman to help celebrate publicly a presumably sexual union between two same-sex partners and publicly endorse it as if it was a marriage.

You really don’t see how she interprets that as going against her religion? Different strokes I guess. It is very clear to me, and I agree with her.

The real question is: Is it really right to legally punish people like this florist?

The only rationale would be that homosexuality and heterosexuality have to be treated exactly the same, even though they are not the same thing.

Gay marriage laws are unjust because they seek to force people to pretend something that is simply and obviously not true. 2 men are not the same as husband and wife, and nobody should be forced by law to pretend that they are.

Why conservative lawyers don’t seem bright enough to make this argument in court and win? … I don’t know. I am amazed that something so obvious can be so invisible to so many people.
Click to expand...
I’m going to borrow that line.

“Two men (or two women) are not the same as husband and wife, and nobody should be forced by law to pretend they are.”

There is a lot of clarity in that line and your argument.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Baronelle Stutzman appeared on the Kelly File:

foxnews.com/shows/the-kelly-file.html

Found via

Transcript:

foxnews.com/transcript/2015/02/24/exclusive-florist-who-refuses-to-do-gay-wedding-speaks-out/

Maybe one of the few positive things that may come from cases like this being brought to the spotlight is that a lot of people who may be uninterested / not paying to attention to what is going on in regards to marriage, will wake up and start to defend marriage between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw part of that - it was last night. That is exactly what I thought. The more publicity about what happened to this woman the better. I loved her line “my freedom is not for sale.” It is amazing how much courage and integrity some people have.
 
It sounds as though the state Attorney General has redefined the first amendment to protect only religious beliefs, but not actions based on religious beliefs. You can believe what you want as long as you don’t actually put your religion into practice.

This is somewhat similar to the position taken by the HHS in imposing its mandate on employers requiring them to provide contraception including abortifacient drugs and sterilization. (Not only that, it attempts to define who is religious enough to qualify for an exemption. A local parish is, the Little Sisters of the Poor are not.)

The A.G. in this case would have accepted a small fine, but only provided that the florist agreed to provide services to same sex weddings in the future. In other words, surrender her religious liberty.

Religious liberty—overturned by same sex marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top