Cardinal Tobin discusses the Catechism’s language on homosexuality

[CilladeRoma]

, so it’s difficult for me to see how it benefits anyone to bring lawsuits forcing businesses that don’t want to work with you for a non-essential service to do so.

Would you feel the same way if a black owned business refused you a service just because you were white?

I don’t understand business people refusing service period. It’s not good for business.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Under the US law, sexual orientation is not protected to the same level as race, so the race comparison is not quite on point. I am fine with the current state of the law. I think it’s appropriate taking all factors into account. I will leave it at that.

 

[Elf01]

Would you feel the same way if a black owned business refused you a service just because you were white?

A more apt comparison would be a black business owner providing services for a KKK event.

 

[Thorolfr]

CilladeRoma:

Would you feel the same way if a black owned business refused you a service just because you were white?

A more apt comparison would be a black business owner providing services for a KKK event.

Is that really a good comparison? Is being gay similar in your opinion to being a member of the KKK? It’s not as if gay people go around lynching people, or beating them.

 

[Elf01]

Is that really a good comparison? Is being gay similar in your opinion to being a member of the KKK? It’s not as if gay people go around lynching people, or beating them.

From the business owners point of view they are being forced to serve an event that they find immoral.

That is the only comparison I intended to draw.

 

[CilladeRoma]

It’s immoral for a Catholic to get remarried without a benefit of an annulment.
Would you refuse to do business with somene in that situation?

 

[theCardinalbird]

How did we get from the CCC on homosexuality to refusing to do business for a gay wedding?

 

[Elf01]

enefit of an annulment.
Would you refuse to do business with somene in that situation?

Assuming I was aware of it I would refuse dealings involving the ‘wedding’ or ‘anniversaries’. No different to a same sex couple save I would know about the same sex couple. I may not know about a divorce or lack of dispensation.

 

[CilladeRoma]

And people wonder why the good Cardinal is saying what he is. If this thread isn’t proof that the attitude toward gay people by some in the Church is far from what the Catechism calls us to, I don’t know what would be.

 

[njlisa]

@Tis_Bearself
U.S. law is not monolithic. Federal law may not protect LGBT people, but many states do.

Here in NJ, in the 1990s, housing and employment discrimination was outlawed.

In the 2005 or so domestic partnerships became legal. In 2007, civil unions became legal. And same-sex marriage became legal in the early 2010s.

So, it all depends on where the person lives.

 

[CTBcin]

And people wonder why the good Cardinal is saying what he is. If this thread isn’t proof that the attitude toward gay people by some in the Church is far from what the Catechism calls us to, I don’t know what would be.

Honestly, I haven’t really seen anything in this thread that would indicate a negative attitude towards gay people. I’ve mostly seen productive (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[goout]

Elf01:

CilladeRoma:

Would you feel the same way if a black owned business refused you a service just because you were white?

A more apt comparison would be a black business owner providing services for a KKK event.

Is that really a good comparison? Is being gay similar in your opinion to being a member of the KKK? It’s not as if gay people go around lynching people, or beating them.

Time out. Red herring.
The comparison is a valid comparison of a universal principle, not of the specific subject matter. This ought to be easy to understand.

The principle is that a person should not be required to perform actions that violate legitimate beliefs. If the KKK is asking a baker (of any color) to perform a service that supports racism, the baker ought to be able to say “no thanks”.

Same universal principle with the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. This is a legitimate belief, and a person should not be required to perform a service that violates his/her beliefs.

Now, the reflexive response is to bring up something like restaurant service. That doesn’t work, because now you are speaking of basic human activities like sustaining one’s health through eating, that everyone is entitled to do.
Having a cake for your wedding is not a human right, no matter how important it is to the couple’s big day.
Go to the baker down the street or make one at home would be a practical solution,

And I want to add that what you did above is a method of shaming people who disagree with you and is unproductive in solving problems. The person obviously did not attempt to equate homosexuality with lynching.

 

[Thorolfr]

So, since you think that the belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is bad is a “legitimate belief,” do you also think that those who believe that gay people should be able to marry also have a “legitimate belief”? Or is only one of them “legitimate”?

And I want to add that you shouldn’t presume to know what my motives were for answering the way I did. I answered the way I did because I found the comparison offensive, not because I was trying to shame anyone.

 

[goout]

So, since you think that the belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is bad is a “legitimate belief,” do you also think that those who believe that gay people should be able to marry also have a “legitimate belief”? Or is only one of them “legitimate”?

And I want to add that you shouldn’t presume to know what my motives were for answering the way I did. I answered the way I did because I found the comparison offensive, not because I was trying to shame anyone.

Let me point out one thing that careful reading should have observed.
I did not say that “same sex marriage is bad”.

This is what I said:

Same universal principle with the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. This is a legitimate belief, and a person should not be required to perform a service that violates his/her beliefs.

Can we discuss what I said?
This is two posts now where you have manufactured discussion points. It’s like you are talking to your mirror and winning points.