Business Ethics Related to Homosexual Unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

patricius79

Guest
As I understand it, it is illegal–at least in some places-- for bakers to not make wedding cakes for homosexual marriages.

Is there anything wrong with a baker making a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage?

Also, as I understand it, it is illegal to disciminate based on “sexual orientation”, and or course we want everyone to be treated well.

People on another forum say that if one is serving the public in a business, then they can’t discriminate in any way against homosexuals.

Let’s say someone is a Catholic and they are running a motel, would they have no right to refuse a room to an unmarried couple or to a homosexual couple?

Or, on the other hand, would it be morally wrong to rent them a room?

I don’t know what is right here and need some intellectual guidance in order to understand these issues better.
 
There is a distinction between the laws of man and the laws of God (sometimes called natural law). Material cooperation with wrongdoing is a sin. Admittedly, compulsion could mitigate responsibility for that sin, but objectively someone who cooperates with homosexual unions is sinning by doing so
 
It is not a good way forward to start picking over your customers’ morals in order to decide if they are worthy of your work. On the other hand, it is not a good way forward for the government to start telling private businesses who they can and cannot serve.

My preferred way in this is to see people do business with who they want. And for people who do not feel welcome to simply take their money to someone who is not sitting on such a high horse.

Those who don’t want to sell out principles for money can be closed for business when that kind of cash is flowing. And those who don’t want to shop at those businesses will create a market for businesses to jump in that aren’t as picky. Simple.
 
patricius79 said:
As I understand it, it is illegal–at least in some places-- for bakers to not make wedding cakes for homosexual marriages.

Is there anything wrong with a baker making a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage?

Also, as I understand it, it is illegal to disciminate based on “sexual orientation”, and or course we want everyone to be treated well.

People on another forum say that if one is serving the public in a business, then they can’t discriminate in any way against homosexuals.

Let’s say someone is a Catholic and they are running a motel, would they have no right to refuse a room to an unmarried couple or to a homosexual couple?

Or, on the other hand, would it be morally wrong to rent them a room?

I don’t know what is right here and need some intellectual guidance in order to understand these issues better.
Click to expand...
One thing that makes the wedding cake example different from the.hotel example is that the cake is for sure accompanying something sinful. You have no idea (unless the couple is flagrantly violating norms of public behavior) what two unmarried people are doing in a room or why they want one. I wouldn’t be the proprietor of a place that rents rooms by the hour, but I think your culpability would be minimal. You’re providing a place to stay and you don’t have knowledge of the relationship.
 
patricius79 said:
As I understand it, it is illegal–at least in some places-- for bakers to not make wedding cakes for homosexual marriages.

Is there anything wrong with a baker making a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage?

Also, as I understand it, it is illegal to disciminate based on “sexual orientation”, and or course we want everyone to be treated well.

People on another forum say that if one is serving the public in a business, then they can’t discriminate in any way against homosexuals.

Let’s say someone is a Catholic and they are running a motel, would they have no right to refuse a room to an unmarried couple or to a homosexual couple?

Or, on the other hand, would it be morally wrong to rent them a room?

I don’t know what is right here and need some intellectual guidance in order to understand these issues better.
Click to expand...
It depends on the circumstances. You are making here a very general blanket statement and.is.not.like that because in reality it depends on many circumstances.

If your question is as to the case of the bakers in which someone.entered the shop.and requested them.to bake a cake you need to understand the different circumstances.

If I own.a store that is open to the public and I sell cakes, and I have this.beautiful wedding cake at DISPLAY IN THE STORE ( and I am just using capital because I can’t highlight, I just want to highlight that it is at DISPLAY at the store) and a person walks in into my store, and I happen.to know that person is homosexual, and that person grabs that wedding cake at display and brings it to the register to buy it, and I say no, I am not selling that cake to you, that specifically under those circumstances, is illegal and no you can’t refuse.

But here is a set of.circumstances very different which takes a different treatment. If I am a baker, and someone comes to me and offers me that they want me to bake a cake for their wedding and here: there is no cake on display, the person is not walking into the store to purchase something into the store, and it is just a request to perform a service in the future, yes the baker can refuse and say no, I am not baking that cake and that is perfectly legal.

The difference between those two sets of circumstances is that in the second someone.is.coming to me with an offer to perform a service for.them. No one has any obligation to accept an offer for a service. Imagine if I come right now to you and say," I want you to come.and paint my house today". That is an offer.from.me.to.you to perform a service to me and you can perfectly reject that offer and say no, because it is only and offer for a.service and nowhere is mandated that offers have to be accepted. If I come to a baker and say I want you to bake me a cake, that is an offer to the baker to perform.a service and the baker has the liberty to say yes or no, due to the free market. So under this set of circumstances a.baker can refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.

The prohibition against discrimination is usually against establishmens (depending.on what the state says) saying no to.sell certain products or not.to allow certain people to walk in, but again even with this you have to look at each State under different circumstances.
 
The principles of cooperation with evil, in Catholic teaching, include the following:
  1. explicit cooperation – when you share the sinful intention of the other person. This type of cooperation is always immoral due to a bad intention.
  2. formal cooperation – when your act, by its very nature, is ordered toward helping another person accomplish an intrinsically evil act. Formal cooperation is always immoral.
  3. material cooperation – when your act is related to the sin of the other person by the circumstances of the act. Material cooperation is usually immoral when it is proximate, and moral when it is remote. Proximate cooperation occurs when your act is closely related to the sinful act of the other person. Remote cooperation occurs when your act is distant from the sin of the other person. Material cooperation is moral when the reasonably anticipated good consequences equal or outweigh the bad.
Baking a cake for a gay wedding is not intrinsically evil; it is not ordered toward any sin by the nature of the act. So it is not formal cooperation. And if you oppose gay marriage, you do not share in the sinful intention of the union; so it is not explicit cooperation.

I would say that baking a cake for a gay wedding is remote material cooperation, and may be moral, especially when the law compels the act. No one expects the baker of a cake to withhold his services from a heterosexual couple who are divorced and remarrying, nor from a couple who should not marry for some other reason.

A similar analysis applies to the motel owner. He may not legally refuse a room, which implies weighty bad consequences if he refuses a room to them. His act of renting a room is remote from any sins that occur therein. So a Catholic business owner may rent rooms to gay couples or unmarried couples.
 
Catechism:

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
  • by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  • by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  • by protecting evil-doers.
Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II
 
Bookcat said:
Catholic Answers: catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/conscience-and-the-right-to-refuse-service
Click to expand...
I think that would have been the wrong way forward anyway. I mean I don’t think people should have a right to refuse under ‘religious reasons’. I think they should have a right to refuse on principle. For personal reasons. I mean who cares what the reasons are? Refusal to serve comes with its own risks of backlash. So whatever the reasons the person should be able to stand on that hill. And block all comers. That’s the only fair way to do this.
 
Trident_H said:
I think that would have been the wrong way forward anyway. I mean I don’t think people should have a right to refuse under ‘religious reasons’. I think they should have a right to refuse on principle. For personal reasons. I mean who cares what the reasons are? Refusal to serve comes with its own risks of backlash. So whatever the reasons the person should be able to stand on that hill. And block all comers. That’s the only fair way to do this.
Click to expand...
Not providing the cake or what not for Religious reasons -would be for the* highest* reasons (among other reasons).

One ought not be forced to approve something that is contrary to ones conscience.
 
Bookcat said:
Not providing the cake or what not for Religious reasons -would be for the* highest* reasons (among other reasons).

One ought not be forced to approve something that is contrary to ones conscience.
Click to expand...
Nah. Don’t misunderstand me. Don’t get the wrong angle on this. But religion’s the wrong way in defending this. I mean what we’re sort of saying is only people with religion have a conscience? Well that sticks us in a bit of a tug-a-war with other people. And think about where that leaves us when the Muslims come galloping into town claiming to do this or not do that due to religion.

Make it instead because of personal convictions. That’s a much harder frame to pull down. Because then some yahoo doing something really strange in the name of his ‘religion’ won’t really be tarring everyone else who belongs to that group with the same brush. Let’s stand tall in this. And take personal responsibility. Let’s just honestly say I don’t agree with this or that. Let’s not hide behind any excuse or other reason. That’ll save us from meeting a guy who claims God told him to bar you from his cab. That’ll save us from having religion getting used as a personal weapon. From having someone raise God up as a club.

Fight me with your own fists. Prove you’ve taken the message personally. No hiding behind the congregation here.

I’m cool with that.

Peace Bookcat.

-Trident
 
Trident_H said:
I think that would have been the wrong way forward anyway. I mean I don’t think people should have a right to refuse under ‘religious reasons’. I think they should have a right to refuse on principle. For personal reasons. I mean who cares what the reasons are? Refusal to serve comes with its own risks of backlash. So whatever the reasons the person should be able to stand on that hill. And block all comers. That’s the only fair way to do this.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that decades ago people used this type of thinking to unjustly discriminate against people based on something over which the people had no control: the color of their skin. So this is no longer a basis on which to justify a decision in the US because it was misused.
 
Trident_H said:
Nah. Don’t misunderstand me. Don’t get the wrong angle on this. But religion’s the wrong way in defending this.
Click to expand...
Not providing the cake or what not for Religious reasons -would be for the highest reasons (among other reasons).

One ought not be forced to approve something that is contrary to ones conscience.

Are there other reasons? Yes of course.

And in “defending” the right - such is part of the whole approach. First amendment and all…
 
St_Francis said:
The problem with this is that decades ago people used this type of thinking to unjustly discriminate against people based on something over which the people had no control: the color of their skin. So this is no longer a basis on which to justify a decision in the US because it was misused.
Click to expand...
I’m not really seeing how using religion as an excuse would avoid that sort of problem. I mean that’s exactly what I was shooting at. Because people were lining up one type of discrimination with another. And making that parallel already. And that’s not going to go away. So I figure open things up a bit. Make it all personal choice. That’s freer. Let people root their convictions where they want.

If they want to make it a racial thing that’s their problem. Because word gets around. And so does money.

I mean public and financial institutions would have to follow different rules. But private businesses? If they want to turn down money that should be their choice. And their problem.

But then that’s just my opinion. I mean I’ve never been turned away from a place. So I don’t know what it’s like to get that kind of shock.

Peace St. Francis. Keep up the good work. 👍

-Trident
 
Bookcat said:
Not providing the cake or what not for Religious reasons -would be for the highest reasons (among other reasons).

One ought not be forced to approve something that is contrary to ones conscience.

Are there other reasons? Yes of course.

And in “defending” the right - such is part of the whole approach. First amendment and all…
Click to expand...
See here’s the thing. And I’m not trying to change your mind here (well I am, but I’m sort of keeping that to myself…shhh). Well here’s the thing.

If a guy marches down the street and says that he’s not letting gays into his donut shop because he’s Catholic we then have to put up with the Muslim saying he won’t let Christians into his butcher shop. Because they don’t have a long enough beard. (Look just go with me here. I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about this yet.)

So now we’ve got two guys using their religions as a shield against anything we can throw at them. Well so far so good. Maybe we agree with them. I mean who’d want to go all halal if they didn’t have to right?

But now let’s say the Catholic goes a bit further and says he won’t serve women who’ve had an abortion. Well that’s fun. Brings that issue front and center. I mean it’s no less a sin than homosexual unions right? But now we’ve all got a bit of a red face dealing with this. I mean the other Catholic businesses are either going to have to agree to do the same thing or not. It’ll be up to them. But the thing is that we’ve all been suddenly lassoed into something we weren’t even thinking about at breakfast.

So now the Catholic bars girls with tattoos. Citing some passage in the Old Testament as proof positive that this is a sin. Then he blocks witches. And guys who aren’t Catholic. Then guys who aren’t Catholic enough.

See the trouble this guy’s causing other people? The rest who don’t agree with him now have to explain that yes, he might have a point based on his religion, but the rest of us don’t feel that way.

So what I’m saying is that I don’t like guys picking a fight on my behalf. I don’t like getting branded that way. Because if one guy wants to use Christianity to block person X, Y, or Z let them do that. But do that on your own time guy. Do it with your own credentials. Your own pull from your religious zeal. Or whatever.

Don’t drag me into it. Don’t make me come down there. And open up a rival Catholic shop just to prove we’re not all the same. It spins me a bit in a circle. That’s all.

Peace.

-Trident
 
Trident_H said:
See here’s the thing.
Click to expand...
Mixing apples and mice.

It is *not *about not serving those who are committing mortal sin…or not serving those who have committed mortal sin in the past…or venial sin …or imperfections …or who are not Christians etc.

One of the bakers who got sued for not helping the persons celebrate a “homosexual wedding” - counted them as their friends as I recall…and served them all the time with other baked goods for normal consumption.

It is about not being forced to help them commit a mortal sin. To help them celebrate mortal sin - to celebrate that which is contrary to ones Faith and ones God. Not being forced to do something that is showing approval of a mortal sin. Not being forced to act contrary to one conscience …to act contrary to oneself …to act contrary to God.
 
Bookcat said:
Mixing apples and mice.

It is *not *about not serving those who are committing mortal sin…or not serving those who have committed mortal sin in the past…or venial sin …or imperfections …or who are not Christians etc.

One of the bakers who got sued for not helping the persons celebrate a “homosexual wedding” - counted them as their friends as I recall…and served them all the time with other baked goods for normal consumption.

It is about not being forced to help them commit a mortal sin. To help them celebrate mortal sin - to celebrate that which is contrary to ones Faith and ones God. Not being forced to do something that is showing approval of a mortal sin. Not being forced to act contrary to one conscience …to act contrary to oneself …to act contrary to God.
Click to expand...
Today it’s that. Tomorrow it’s about having to set up party decorations for a gay couple celebrating their anniversary. The points can be as blurry. Or separate. Or divergent as we want them to be. But the idea that a person should have the right to serve whom ever they want is the total part I was after. And that saying it’s because of religion is just a part I don’t like. Stand up for your morals if you want to. But don’t shoehorn everyone into agreeing with you.

But thank you for addressing my points in a thoughtful one-by-one sort of way. Except you didn’t do that. Since we’re clearly talking past each other.

So I guess that’s why we’re back at the beginning of this argument again? 🤷

Ah well. Let’s each go our separate ways on this. And still shake hands when we meet again k? I mean I’m pretty tired right now. So maybe when I reread what you wrote tomorrow I’ll realize I was trying to sell you a coloring book. When what you were really after was an eraser.

Or something. :rolleyes:

Peace Bookcat.

-Trident
 
Trident_H said:
Today it’s that. Tomorrow it’s about having to set up party decorations for a gay couple celebrating their anniversary.
Click to expand...
Again - why should someone have to act against their conscience and do what would be for them “helping to celebrate” what is objectively gravely sinful?

The main thing is that someone should not be forced to go against their conscience and help others directly to commit mortal sins or to celebrate such.

Even where the others persons may be in good faith and rather nice persons…who may be quite ignorant (I am meaning in the moral theology use of the term) and in honest error in their conscience…but that does not mean that a person ought to be forced to go against theirs and help them celebrate what they hold to be seriously contrary to God.

It is not that one is denying them food or something…one is not baking them a cake to celebrate with!

And lets say I wanted a cake that said something that when against their conscience -why would I want to force others to act against their conscience to provide me with a cake?
 
A brief thank you to everyone who has contributed. I think with your help I’ve come to understand the issue and Catholic doctrine somewhat better.

Peace of Mary’s Son…
 
Bookcat said:
Again - why should someone have to act against their conscience and do what would be for them “helping to celebrate” what is objectively gravely sinful?

The main thing is that someone should not be forced to go against their conscience and help others directly to commit mortal sins or to celebrate such.

Even where the others persons may be in good faith and rather nice persons…who may be quite ignorant (I am meaning in the moral theology use of the term) and in honest error in their conscience…but that does not mean that a person ought to be forced to go against theirs and help them celebrate what they hold to be seriously contrary to God.

It is not that one is denying them food or something…one is not baking them a cake to celebrate with!

And lets say I wanted a cake that said something that when against their conscience -why would I want to force others to act against their conscience to provide me with a cake?
Click to expand...
Ah. I’m not really sure how we got here. Maybe I said some blurry things yesterday while half asleep. But all I was trying to say was I thought it was a bad idea to defend things on religious grounds. I mean I think people should be free to refuse to do things for any reason they want. I’m just not a fan of pinning everything in one corner. So in my world if you don’t want to do something just don’t do it.

In your world you’d have to justify it by referring back to a holy book of your choice.

The only difference between us is that I think having to refer to some deeper reason is a step we shouldn’t have to take.

Otherwise we’re pretty much in agreement. I mean I don’t have to serve at a gay wedding (because I think it’s pointless). And neither do you (because you’d find it immoral).

Done deal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top