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.
jimg said:
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.
Click to expand...
View attachment 21520
 
JimG said:
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.
Click to expand...
The state AG didn’t have to redefine the First Amendment. The courts have long held that there can be restrictions on the exercise of religion.
*“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)” is called the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. The free-exercise clause pertains to the right to freely exercise one’s religion. It states that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...
Although the text is absolute, the courts place some limits on the exercise of religion. For example, courts would not hold that the First Amendment protects human sacrifice even if some religion required it. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause so that the freedom to believe is absolute, but the ability to act on those beliefs is not.*
Click to expand...
firstamendmentcenter.org/free-exercise-clause
 
WillyAL said:
The state AG didn’t have to redefine the First Amendment. The courts have long held that there can be restrictions on the exercise of religion.

firstamendmentcenter.org/free-exercise-clause
Click to expand...
I presume the “exercise of religion” refers to what we ordinarily understand as the practice of religion, eg. Participation in celebrations and rituals, the building of churches for those purposes, the teaching of the principles of those religions, and so on.

It is evident that the State cannot possibly allow any kind of behaviour simply because it is in accordance with the beliefs, exhortations or such of a “religion”. It follows then that there are competing rights, and the issue is all about balancing them.

How are matters of conscientious objection handled in US law? Under what provision can a person declare their beliefs forbid them from participating in the military or war? Presumably this is a case where the law requiring conscription (if/when there was such a thing) is offset by one’s conscientiously held beliefs.
 
Rau said:
I presume the “exercise of religion” refers to what we ordinarily understand as the practice of religion, eg. Participation in celebrations and rituals, the building of churches for those purposes, the teaching of the principles of those religions, and so on.

It is evident that the State cannot possibly allow any kind of behaviour simply because it is in accordance with the beliefs, exhortations or such of a “religion”. It follows then that there are competing rights, and the issue is all about balancing them.

How are matters of conscientious objection handled in US law? Under what provision can a person declare their beliefs forbid them from participating in the military or war? Presumably this is a case where the law requiring conscription (if/when there was such a thing) is offset by one’s conscientiously held beliefs.
Click to expand...
I believe in the Hobby Lobby case, the Government can not enforce policies against religious conscience if there is a reasonable alternative that is less intrusive.

For example, in the Hobby Lobby case they decided, since it was easy to get contraceptives elsewhere and they offer contraceptives that also do the job, it was overly intrusive for the government to mandate those certain contraceptives.

I would argue here that there are many other florists, and therefore is a reasonable alternative that doesn’t require the level of intrusiveness shown here.

That’s my interpretation. Any lawyer around is welcome to correct me though.
 
In the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, the free exercise of religion involves following Christ’s command to be of service to others, especially the poor. But because they don’t employ and serve only Catholics, but serve everyone, HHS deems them not to be a “religious” organization eligible for exemption from the mandate. It’s ridiculous.

And the florist was perfectly able to exercise her discretion as to which weddings she wished to serve up until a few months ago. Now, suddenly, she is no longer free.

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson, who was not particularly religious would have thought it just if a florist neighbor were forced to participate in a same sex marriage. His writing about the matter might have been interesting.
 
Brandall said:
If she believes it does, it does. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
So people are allowed to define the tenants of their own religion now??:eek:

Maybe I should start a religion that says I don’t have to pay taxes… :rolleyes:
 
jtauke said:
So people are allowed to define the tenants of their own religion now??:eek:

Maybe I should start a religion that says I don’t have to pay taxes… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Tenets. Cooperation with sin is not a new concept in Christianity, she sure didn’t invent it.
 
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...
What about a DJ? That person is more directly involved in the event than a florist or baker. I would imagine that a DJ who was against same-sex marriage were forced to work the reception, it would be difficult for him to do a good job – since a DJ at a wedding reception does more than play music but also acts as emcee for it.
 
Rau said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have a right to decline business towards religious events based on nothing more than personal disdain? The KKK is a religious group, right? Aren’t religions protected? Shouldn’t the old lady be able to decline her business based on something more substantial than personal disdain, that is, scandalous behaviour forbidden by her religion? Why should you be able to decline to provide flowers for a religious event based on racist beliefs but she can’t decline to provide flowers for a secular event called abominable by her religion? Consider the ongoing battle with the secular pagan state saying homosexual behavior is good and natural, and Christians answering, no, it is evil. Christians were martyred in Rome for declining to throw “just a few grains” towards Caesar’s image. Now they are loosing business for declining to “only provide the flowers” towards the celebration of abominable events that manifest this false creed. The modern version of an idolatrous pagan religious event. Celebrating values she rejects. Especially considering that the creed being forced by the state is that gay sex and marriage are good and holy things, I don’t see how the old lady’s position is different from the old Martyrs. She is saying “Gay marriage is a sin” that is all. She doesn’t accept the pagan creed. Her faith. The old martyrs were saying “The belief in Caesar’s divinity is wrong”. By throwing the few grains, they would not be worshiping Caesar as they did not believe it to be more than throwing grains towards an image. But they knew it would mean publicly endorsing a false belief. Only difference this time around is that we have Christians apparently standing on Rome’s side of the battle.
 
Rubia said:
You have a right to decline business towards religious events based on nothing more than personal disdain? The KKK is a religious group, right? Aren’t religions protected? Shouldn’t the old lady be able to decline her business based on something more substantial than personal disdain, that is, scandalous behaviour forbidden by her religion? Why should you be able to decline to provide flowers for a religious event based on racist beliefs but she can’t decline to provide flowers for a secular event called abominable by her religion? Consider the ongoing battle with the secular pagan state saying homosexual behavior is good and natural, and Christians answering, no, it is evil. Christians were martyred in Rome for declining to throw “just a few grains” towards Caesar’s image. Now they are loosing business for declining to “only provide the flowers” towards the celebration of abominable events that manifest this false creed. The modern version of an idolatrous pagan religious event. Celebrating values she rejects. Especially considering that the creed being forced by the state is that gay sex and marriage are good and holy things, I don’t see how the old lady’s position is different from the old Martyrs. She is saying “Gay marriage is a sin” that is all. She doesn’t accept the pagan creed. Her faith. The old martyrs were saying “The belief in Caesar’s divinity is wrong”. By throwing the few grains, they would not be worshiping Caesar as they did not believe it to be more than throwing grains towards an image. But they knew it would mean publicly endorsing a false belief. Only difference this time around is that we have Christians apparently standing on Rome’s side of the battle.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just Like St. Thomas More refusing to sign the document acknowledging Henry VIII. At some point, one must stand fast.
 
Pulvis said:
Exactly. Just Like St. Thomas More refusing to sign the document acknowledging Henry VIII. At some point, one must stand fast.
Click to expand...
If you stand fast, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. In the case of St. Thomas More, the consequence of his stand was beheading.
 
adowcday said:
If you stand fast, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. In the case of St. Thomas More, the consequence of his stand was beheading.
Click to expand...
By today’s standards he was a fanatic, no? Out there with Burke.
 
adowcday said:
If you stand fast, you have to be willing to accept the consequences. In the case of St. Thomas More, the consequence of his stand was beheading.
Click to expand...
Yes. Just like the 21 Coptic Egyptians. Our Lord told us this would happen. St. Stephen was the first to die for Christ, and many more will as well. I pray for the Faithfulness to stand fast In the face of persecution.
 
Is the Catholic Church in the U.S. involving itself in the conflicts with legal authority in which bakers and florists and the like are finding themselves?? Is it challenging Attorneys General who assert that the law in fact requires businesses to service same sex marriage functions when asked to do so?
 
Rau said:
Is the Catholic Church in the U.S. involving itself in the conflicts with legal authority in which bakers and florists and the like are finding themselves?? Is it challenging Attorneys General who assert that the law in fact requires businesses to service same sex marriage functions when asked to do so?
Click to expand...
The Church is not a law firm. Many Catholic organizations and other religious organizations have been and are involved in legal action against laws which try to force them to act against their conscience:

See some of the cases being handled by the Becket Fund here.
 
JimG said:
The Church is not a law firm. Many Catholic organizations and other religious organizations have been and are involved in legal action against laws which try to force them to act against their conscience:

See some of the cases being handled by the Becket Fund here.
Click to expand...
Of course the Church is not a law firm, but it is able to initiate legal proceeding, or join existing proceedings, and that would seem a reasonable course when civil authority pursues legal actions contrary to the whole of its membership, and contrary to a course of action she advocates for her membership.
 
Rau said:
Of course the Church is not a law firm, but it is able to initiate legal proceeding, or join existing proceedings, and that would seem a reasonable course when civil authority pursues legal actions contrary to the whole of its membership, and contrary to a course of action she advocates for her membership.
Click to expand...
Of course, and various dioceses and Catholic organizations are involved in such proceedings. Just looking through the list of Becket Fund cases, I note EWTN, Belmont College, and Little Sisters of the Poor–all Catholic organizations. There are also Baptist organizations, Islamic and Jewish organizations, and private businesses, all of whom are suing to prevent being forced to choose between obeying an unjust law and obeying their religion. There were some 30 cases involving just the HHS mandate. Free exercise of religion cases are in the ascendant right now, because free exercise of religion is increasingly threatened.
 
JimG said:
Of course, and various dioceses and Catholic organizations are involved in such proceedings. Just looking through the list of Becket Fund cases, I note EWTN, Belmont College, and Little Sisters of the Poor–all Catholic organizations. There are also Baptist organizations, Islamic and Jewish organizations, and private businesses, all of whom are suing to prevent being forced to choose between obeying an unjust law and obeying their religion. There were some 30 cases involving just the HHS mandate. Free exercise of religion cases are in the ascendant right now, because free exercise of religion is increasingly threatened.
Click to expand...
Yes - lawsuits cost a lot of money and it is commendable that so many Catholic organizations are brave enough to take them on, even though we are rapidly running out of other options.

But I think we still have an invisibility problem in the cultural consciousness on the issue of religious liberty. Many Catholics and other Christians really don’t think it’s anything to worry about. We who are interested in the issue follow the stories, but I think it is important to try to mention it to people we know or somehow educate people at church, because even people at church most of them only know the lead stories on the news, and they don’t know how much religious freedom on the marriage and homosexuality issue is being threatened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top