Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Let’s make this simple. You, as our theoretical cake baker, what other sinners weddings would you avoid participating? What other sins are justification for lack of services?

There could be a huge litany of ones I would not do. The Mob, A Neo Nazi wedding, a KKK wedding, A satanic cult, etc.

 

[Starrsmother]

There could be a huge litany of ones I would not do. The Mob, A Neo Nazi wedding, a KKK wedding, A satanic cult, etc.

It would seem to me that the sign which hangs at the front door of most every restaurant/bakery/etc I’ve ever been in should cover a person’s right to decline to bake a cake for a gay wedding, host a black mass for a satanic cult, or most any other objectionable thing. Infact, I believe it could be used by a couple of lesbians who, say owned a pizza parlor and decided they didn’t want to deliver pizzas to a Right to Life demonstration in front of an abortion clinic.
That sign reads:

“WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!”

But then,of course if it were the 2 lesbians described above–Obama would be making a big speech defending their civil rights, and everyone in California, Mass., Washington and Oregon would be up in arms in their defense…

 

[skigirl1689]

Sorry it seems like I have abandoned my thread but it’s just been a crazy week. I should have said the argument with my friend was sparked by my belief that young children should not be taught about homosexuality in school and from that my “friend” deemed Christians hateful for not accepting the homosexual lifestyle.

The sexual revolution caused all this mess. The idea of “free love” and the social acceptance of recreational sex is the root of the problem.

The arguement is if straight people can fornicate, why can’t gay people? If straight people can live in mortal sin, why can’t gay people?

As Catholics, we need to teach parents and our young WHY we teach what we teach. People need to understand that these are God’s rules, not rules made up by “some old guys in Rome.”

God Bless.

I agree with you but when the person you’re debating with disregards all religious argument and feels anyone has the freedom to do what he or she wants, the argument is pointless. I am discouraged how secular people have become but it is just as St. Paul predicted in Romans 1.

My friend, I’m an older lady (62), married, with 5 grown kids–3 boys and 2 girls. About 10 years ago, my youngest–a girl—told me that she was lesbian. You can’t begin to grasp how both my heart and my husband’s heart broke–and the lengths we went to to try to help her find her way back into a chaste and heterosexual lifestyle. We’ve been through the gamut–there was a time when she didn’t speak to us, a time when every time she was with us she rubbed our noses in her “gayness” (probably like so many in the gay community seem to do–probably to elicit the expected response). I won’t say that nothing we tried could work–the truth is–she made it plain that she never wanted it to work from the beginning and unless someone wants to change, they won’t/can’t. And that’s the truth! Anyway, we finally settled into a quasi-comfortable arrangement where we were speaking but agreed that we’d not bring up the “subject” nor would she–and basically since a person’s sex life is only one facet of who they are as a person–and she is my daughter and a person I love very much-- I settled into praying for her, talking to her and not much more.

A few months ago, she announced to us that she is marrying some 19 year old chick that she’s living with (our daughter is 27). We told her–as Catholics–we’d not have any part of this “faux-marriage”–not attend, pay or participate in any way. And of course, she’s now unhappy with us again. It doesn’t matter–in that we aren’t going to change our attitude. I am so sick of listening to people talk about why the church should accept gay marriage—and if I can say that from my vantage point of being the mother of a gay person, I don’t see why others have such an issue with it. God made the rule of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman–the church simply reminds of us the rule. People like Obama may think they are a higher authority than God in such laws–but I’m not willing to bet my soul on it. If gay people want to live in sin, nobody can stop them–anymore than you can stop a heterosexual unmarried couple from living together–and I had a son who tried that path too-until his lady friend ran off and left him to raise their son. But PLEASE!! Don’t try to call it something it just isn’t–and it is not, can not and will not ever be a marriage–not between 2 people of the same sex!:

Your “friend” needs to realize that it’s the gays who changed the rules and are trying to swim up stream against a current that has been around from the beginning–and clogging the water pathway for the rest of us with their whining and attempts at legal maneuvering. You cannot demand respect–you must earn it–and demanding that the Catholic church accept their sin and put a stamp of approval on it is no way to even gain respect for gays as people!!! They are NOT a minority in the legal sense–though I PRAY they are truly a minority in numbers–and will become even more so. We can and should love the sinner–and I do SO love my daughter. But we can still call an ace an ace, a sin a sin and recognize when something is real and when it’s not. If that makes gays feel bullied–give them the name of a good psychiatrist or self help group and tell them to get a life!shrug:

I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you’ve had with your daughter; I cannot even imagine and be assured of my prayers. I have a couple of cousins who are gay, but it is rarely talked about. However, some relatives say “Well, as long as they’re happy, what does it matter?” Those saying this seem to be devout and it makes me frustrated they do not see it as a sin. Yes, it is not a worse sin than other sins, but it is still a sin to engage in such behaviors.

Yet more proof you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Christianity and Catholicism are present and growing in China.

There are difficulties between Chinese Authorities and the Vatican, but that is a mile away from your claim a communist government **doesn’t allow **Christianity.

And you still haven’t provided any official government policies.

Umm, I personally know Chinese missionaries and they cannot disclose the real reason they’re in China because they could be jailed. It is a real threat and they are in danger. Please don’t say we don’t know what we’re talking about.

 

[skigirl1689]

But you may want to ask your friend if she/he feels the same about Islam, or if Christians have the dubious honor of these largely unfounded, ridiculous generalizations.

Personally, I find a lot of people who support so-called “gay marriage” aren’t interested in stirring the pot with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or even Churches with substantial % of minorities because in the end, the movement is to serve the whims of big government politicians, but that’s another topic.

Funny you say this because he also thinks Christians are making up the stories being persecuted for our beliefs and Islam, Judaism, etc. suffer more hate and persecution than we ever have, so that line of argument would get me nowhere, but like you said no line of argument would likely be successful.

 

[RedFox0456]

Funny you say this because he also thinks Christians are making up the stories being persecuted for our beliefs and Islam, Judaism, etc. suffer more hate and persecution than we ever have, so that line of argument would get me nowhere, but like you said no line of argument would likely be successful.

You can’t force people to have an open heart to the Truth. We can pray for it, though! Also, I love your signature. Life of Christ is an amazing work.

 

[RedFox0456]

Umm, I personally know Chinese missionaries and they cannot disclose the real reason they’re in China because they could be jailed. It is a real threat and they are in danger. Please don’t say we don’t know what we’re talking about.

I had a couple friends who went over after they had finished their undergraduate degree. They also had to get a cover story for why they were going.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It would seem to me that the sign which hangs at the front door of most every restaurant/bakery/etc I’ve ever been in should cover a person’s right to decline to bake a cake for a gay wedding, host a black mass for a satanic cult, or most any other objectionable thing. Infact, I believe it could be used by a couple of lesbians who, say owned a pizza parlor and decided they didn’t want to deliver pizzas to a Right to Life demonstration in front of an abortion clinic.
That sign reads:

“WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!”

No, not really. legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

 

[atheistgirl]

Umm, I personally know Chinese missionaries and they cannot disclose the real reason they’re in China because they **could be **jailed. It is a real threat and they are in danger. Please don’t say we don’t know what we’re talking about.

Could be.

I asked for official government policy documents.

I also linked to the Chinese government statements on religious freedom and the an assessment of the reality on the ground.

I acknowledged there were problems.

My post was in direct answer to a particular poster who very clearly did not know what they were talking about.

They claimed China sentenced Christians to death **for no other reason **other than they were a Christian.

They also made silly claims about IMF funding requirements which I refuted.

I also had to demonstrate their claim that all priests were deported or killed in Cuba and all churches were destroyed was also completely false.

If you’re going to jump in and pull me on something, at least be clear about what I said and who I was addressing.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

There could be a huge litany of ones I would not do. The Mob, A Neo Nazi wedding, a KKK wedding, A satanic cult, etc.

My response as a business owner would be: “I will certainly [bake a cake, take your wedding pictures, dry clean your KKK hood], but you should be made aware that any profits I make from your business, as well as a significant portion of my salary, will be donated to [The National Organization for Marriage, Texas Right to Life, the NAACP] after we complete our service to you. Are you still willing to seek our services?”

 

[PRmerger]

Is it hateful to point out that triangles can never be rectangles? Is that discriminatory against rectangles? The fact of the matter is that a rectangular triangle is an impossibility, as is same sex marriage.

Marriage is a union of man and woman capable of having marital relations. That’s why the reproductive systems of man and woman are complementary. It’s a basic fact of anatomy and biology. The difference makes conjugal relations possible. Conjugal relations are not possible to same sex couples, nor is marriage. It’s just an impossibility.

 

[JimG]

No, not really. legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

It’s true that non-discrimination statues have helped in some respects; but they have also adversely affected rights to freedom of association. I suspect that there will be continuing attempts to expand the meaning of ‘sexual orientation,’ with respect to non-discrimination statutes.

I was prevented from entering a restaurant in Honolulu once because I wasn’t wearing a tie. I suppose that would be prohibited under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

 

[Starrsmother]

 

[marymary1975]

Throw TWO darts at Syria!!!

Nooo how do you say that, don’t you know the Syrians issued a report about how peaceful they are and how no one has ever done anything there

 

[marymary1975]

Or…Because he realizes it’s none of his business.

The Amish have a good sense of their own space in the world. They realize that they have chosen to live a certain way because of religious beliefs. They also realize not everyone shares those beliefs. They live the way they choose to live and the world will turn it’s own way.

I don’t see them refusing to sell a playground set because little Johnny has two Dads.

Are you suggesting that Catholic business owners are morally obligated to not offer services to those that perceive immoral? Do you have a list of acceptable sins and unacceptable sins? Since we are all sinners we’re all guilty of something so it would be helpful to know where the line in the sand is. Or… is just gay weddings. But that would be, I think it’s called, oh yeah…discrimination.

Roscoe you are missing the main issue here. The issue of these Catholic business and the reason why it is so upsetting is because this is not really a discrimination problem,.this is a contract problem. The US runs on a free market economy and under the free market economy anyone can freely enter into contract with whoever they want and for whatever they want. Along the same line, anyone has the right to reject to enter into a contract for whatever reason they want. In order to be able to have a contract you need the consent of both parties _ offer and acceptance. If one party does not accept the offer, and they can refuse for whatever reason they want, no one can force the rejecting party to enter into a contract. If I tell you right now, roscoe come and paint my house this minute and I will pay you ten thousand dollars and your answer is no, I cannot force you to come to paint my house or take you to court because this is a free market economy and the contract law gives you the right to.say no. Second, you have here involved a contract for services not for goods which lets say have more relaxed rules than contracts for goods. (Your example for selling pies has nothing to.do because you are talking about sale of goods and merchants which brings UCC and another completely different ballgame, so you can’take that comparison).

Basically, yes catholic business can cater their services if they want to morally acceptable activities to them, because it is a free market economy and no one can force them to provide services to anyone and from an objective legal point no one can sanction any service provider for refusing to enter into a contract. Right here is where the outrage comes, because despite the fact that there is multiple laws addressing this, in this case just becausethese people are ccatholic the Court is bypassing all contract rules and sanctioning these people when if these people would have never mentioned that they are catholic, they wouldn’t have been sanctioned.

Now I have to.say, I haven’t read the case. My understanding is that the women contacted the provided made an offer and provider refused which is what I am talking about. If the case was that the women contacted the provider, the provider said yes, and after the fact the provider refused to do it because they were lesbians, then that is another story, but to what I have read that wasn’t the case.

Finally, you seem to forget that every state has something called “religious exemption” which is an exemption that gives you the capacity to practically “get away” with complying the law because of religious reasons. This religious exemption has allowed many to get away with worst things (and yes others have gotten away with discrimination thanks to this…have you ever wonder why the kkk is legal?). This religion exemption that covers the kkk apparently doesn’t cover the Catholic church now. So why other religions are covered by it but not Catholics?

So this case is not about discrimination, this case is about accommodating existing laws to the benefit of two lesbians.

 

[marymary1975]

It would seem to me that the sign which hangs at the front door of most every restaurant/bakery/etc I’ve ever been in should cover a person’s right to decline to bake a cake for a gay wedding, host a black mass for a satanic cult, or most any other objectionable thing. Infact, I believe it could be used by a couple of lesbians who, say owned a pizza parlor and decided they didn’t want to deliver pizzas to a Right to Life demonstration in front of an abortion clinic.
That sign reads:

“WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!”

But then,of course if it were the 2 lesbians described above–Obama would be making a big speech defending their civil rights, and everyone in California, Mass., Washington and Oregon would be up in arms in their defense…

You are right, and the reason why those signs are legal is because of what I explained. Restaurants provide services therefore those are contract for services, we are in a free market economy.

With regard to.Roscoe`s link…do you realize it says “member of a Federally Protected Class”. Roscoe do you know what that means?

 

[marymary1975]

Could be.

I asked for official government policy documents.

I also linked to the Chinese government statements on religious freedom and the an assessment of the reality on the ground.

I acknowledged there were problems.

My post was in direct answer to a particular poster who very clearly did not know what they were talking about.

They claimed China sentenced Christians to death **for no other reason **other than they were a Christian.

They also made silly claims about IMF funding requirements which I refuted.

I also had to demonstrate their claim that all priests were deported or killed in Cuba and all churches were destroyed was also completely false.

If you’re going to jump in and pull me on something, at least be clear about what I said and who I was addressing.

Sarah x

She was very clear on.what she is.pulling on you: that your claims about China are incorrect and that your statement that I.don’t know what I am talking is also incorrect because anyone with logical knowledge knows that Christianity is forbidden in China. You didn’t acknowledge any.problem.you said the Vatican didn’t get along with China excuse me. Again you keep on claiming you demonstrated something when you are making baseless.claim
And until you answer my.questions about your baseless claims you haven’t demonstrated.anything. obviously you can’t answer because you don’t.know.the answer.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Roscoe you are missing the main issue here.

No, I’m not. Privately held bigotry isn’t a valid reason to deny service. It’s illegal.

 

[Newbie2]

I am not sure how to handle a friend of mine who points out anytime I support traditional values or that Christians are being persecuted for their faith in society, he argues that we are hateful because we don’t support same-sex marriage. He argues because of this, gays are hated and persecuted “en masse” and we need to let them have the right to get married. He says when we don’t treat people equally, it gives people the perceived right to bully people (he is always referring to gays when he is arguing these points).

I argue we as Christians have the religious freedom to oppose same-sex marriage and we are, generally, not hateful towards people who are gay. But he keeps assuming we’re homophobic, hateful, persecutors of homosexuals, and we as Christians would be better off just to give up our opposition to same-sex marriage.

How can I counter this? I am a little sick of being assumed to be hateful because I believe in traditional values. Oh, and this person tells me he is a Christian but he doesn’t respect my faith that tells me I cannot, in good conscience, support same-sex marriage.

Help please, where am I going wrong?!?

Ask him if he is supportive of Mother-Daughter or Father-Son (of legal age) “marriages”.

Get used to being called a hater; Jesus never said it would be easy.

 

[marymary1975]

No, I’m not. Privately held bigotry isn’t a valid reason to deny service. It’s illegal.

It is not illegal to refuse to enter into.a.contract which is what happened here. You can refuse to enter into a.service contract because you are too fat if you want. That is perfectly legal. Free-market economy.

 

[BellsMom]

Totally off topic…

I think your keyboard may be broken Mary. There are lots of random “.” everywhere.