Defending Catholic stance on gay marriage and business rights

[Shaolen]

My brother (who is not a catholic or at least trying not to be) recently posted a quote from a blogger about the Christians being persecuted for not providing services to Gays for gay marriage which said "No other group is afforded such privileges (as people want for gays). I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.

I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.

And you know what? I would never try.

Maybe that’s what separates liberty lovers from liberals. For all their talk about “minding your business” and “this doesn’t concern you” and “live and let live,” theirs is truly an ideology of compulsion. The free speech and expression of other citizens must be tamed by the whip of their lobbying, legislating, and litigating"

Then someone else commented “Where in the bible does it say not to serve gay couples? “Love and respect everyone except them gays, don’t bake them a cake!!!” These are the same things that were said during the civil rights movement about Black Americans. You may think it is wrong or sinful, but it isn’t your place to judge another man. It sure as hell has no place in our laws.”

How can we defend our stance on this? Where is it in the bible and else where that teach against gay marriage? Please help.

 

[phil19034]

Jimmy Akin had a good comment about “protesting” by refusal to do something. Make sure they know why. If I was a Baker who made wedding cakes, I would tell a gay couple that I cannot wedding cake for them, but could make a birthday cake if they wanted to return in the future for a birthday. We have to make sure we are explaining the fact that we love the sinner, but hate the sin.

But we also should be consistent too. Make sure the gay couple understands that I would not bake a cake for a Catholic (or two Catholics) getting married outside the Church without dispensation. Also that I would not bake a cake for a divorced catholic getting married without an annulment.

Personally, for Catholics, I believe the key is consistency. Don’t just single out the gays, protest all sinful or marriages. They still might not like us, but at least we will be seen as “discriminating everyone”!

God Bless.

 

[Shaolen]

Jimmy Akin had a good comment about “protesting” by refusal to do something. Make sure they know why. If I was a Baker who made wedding cakes, I would tell a gay couple that I cannot wedding cake for them, but could make a birthday cake if they wanted to return in the future for a birthday. We have to make sure we are explaining the fact that we love the sinner, but hate the sin.

But we also should be consistent too. Make sure the gay couple understands that I would not bake a cake for a Catholic (or two Catholics) getting married outside the Church without dispensation. Also that I would not bake a cake for a divorced catholic getting married without an annulment.

Personally, for Catholics, I believe the key is consistency. Don’t just single out the gays, protest all sinful or marriages. They still might not like us, but at least we will be seen as “discriminating everyone”!

God Bless.

That is an excellent point!

 

[GratefulFred]

Not being gay, I cannot claim to know what that is like.

I do know that God exists. That we have an immortal soul. That we are imperfect and struggle with all sorts of temptations. That, in the end, we will be either in Heaven or Hell for all eternity. About 85% of Americans accept this although we often push it to the background of our daily thinking and actions.

It goes against the two greatest Commandments - to Love God and to Love others for the Love God - to berate, belittle, or be violent against gays. There, but for the Grace of God, go I. I must be compassionate.

At the same time, there are limits set by God. The major limit in question these days is the definition of marriage. It is a false love to promote the change in God’s definition of a marriage as between a man and a woman. A definition that has strongly prevailed for thousands of years world wide.

I support Genesis 2: 18-25, and Matthew 19: 3-12, and Romans 1: 18-32, and other biblical statements. Between God’s Commands and man’s commands, I must choose God’s.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. I am called to exercise my religion every day in how I treat the people I encounter.

The conflict we are in is between love of others and recognizing there are limits to that love. It is morally wrong for me to enable others to sin and risk losing their immortal souls. I cannot stop them, but I should not be forced to enable them.

If those who think like me – God matters more - are to become a minority, just how will our rights be allowed to exist? If our rights are to be extinguished, where is Freedom?

 

[Corki]

Jimmy Akin had a good comment about “protesting” by refusal to do something. Make sure they know why. If I was a Baker who made wedding cakes, I would tell a gay couple that I cannot wedding cake for them, but could make a birthday cake if they wanted to return in the future for a birthday. We have to make sure we are explaining the fact that we love the sinner, but hate the sin.

But we also should be consistent too. Make sure the gay couple understands that I would not bake a cake for a Catholic (or two Catholics) getting married outside the Church without dispensation. Also that I would not bake a cake for a divorced catholic getting married without an annulment.

Personally, for Catholics, I believe the key is consistency. Don’t just single out the gays, protest all sinful or marriages. They still might not like us, but at least we will be seen as “discriminating everyone”!

God Bless.

The only problem I have with this is that with a Catholic getting married outside the Church or a divorce person remarrying, you wouldn’t know about it unless you knew the couple personally. If Joe and Steve come in to meet with you to design their “wedding” cake, you are going to know right away.

 

[ahs]

My brother (who is not a catholic or at least trying not to be) recently posted a quote from a blogger about the Christians being persecuted for not providing services to Gays for gay marriage which said "No other group is afforded such privileges (as people want for gays). I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.

I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful.

And you know what? I would never try.

Maybe that’s what separates liberty lovers from liberals. For all their talk about “minding your business” and “this doesn’t concern you” and “live and let live,” theirs is truly an ideology of compulsion. The free speech and expression of other citizens must be tamed by the whip of their lobbying, legislating, and litigating"

Then someone else commented “Where in the bible does it say not to serve gay couples? “Love and respect everyone except them gays, don’t bake them a cake!!!” These are the same things that were said during the civil rights movement about Black Americans. You may think it is wrong or sinful, but it isn’t your place to judge another man. It sure as hell has no place in our laws.”

How can we defend our stance on this? Where is it in the bible and else where that teach against gay marriage? Please help.

The person is trying to change the argument…it’s a strawman. The inital position was that a person should not be forced to do something contrary to his beliefs. The retort was (paraprhasing), “where does the Bible say you shouldn’t do what I want to force you to do?” .

The answer is (paraprhasing): “…it doesn’t matter whether it’s in the Bible or not. I don’t want to be forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual due to my religious beliefs, and I shouldn’t be forced to do it for the exact same reasons those other people should not be forced to do something contrary to their religious beliefs. To ask me to do something contrary to my beliefs, while simulataneously supporting those others when they adhere to their beliefs, is hypocritical.”

If the person wants to argue the definition of Marriage, fine, but that’s a new argument. The retort he gave, however, has nothing to do with the argument initially presented.

For arguing about SSM, you will find this article extremely helpful:
osv.com/TodaysIssues/MarriageandFamily/Article/TabId/698/ArtMID/13742/ArticleID/8254/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-same-sex-marriage.aspx

I use it regualrly, such as in these blogs:
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/search/label/Homosexuality

My personal favorite is this one where I refute Sen. Diane Savino:
daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2013/06/secular-arguments-on-same-sex-marriage.html

 

[losh14]

How can we defend our stance on this? Where is it in the bible and else where that teach against gay marriage? Please help.

I think the stance speaks for itself. “Do not compel me to do something I find wrong, and do not demand of me to change my mind on why I think it to be wrong.”

Counter-pose this:
"You run a video editing service. You sell studio time by 4-hour block and conduct all business after signing a contract that specifically notes you will not work on material you deem illegal, a violation of copyright laws, pornographic, or depicting the nudity or simulated nudity or sexual act of any person.

A client signs the contract and buys 4 hours studio time. As you go through the raw footage with him, the actors undress and are nude. You stop the film and read your section in the contract, and offer to refund the payment. Your client asks why you have the proscription. You state you find pornography offensive. The client later sues, claiming his artistic license trumps your contract.

Should the client’s lawsuit be allowed to proceed?

Suppose that, instead of merely stating you find it offensive, you state that as a Christian you find pornography offensive. Does the lawsuit now have more merit, because you’ve interjected your religious beliefs into a business transaction?

Lastly, note that the actors in the nudity scene were both male. Has the video editor discriminated against a protected class?"

The one nice thing about pornography, as a concept, is that nearly everyone you talk with will be aghast at being forced to participate in it. It may be sufficient to move them past their preferred habitats and understand that a consistently-applied rule cannot be discriminatory.

I think it’s the wrong approach to answer these questions directly:
“Where in the Bible does it say not to serve homosexuals?”
“Love everyone, don’t bake the gays a cake”
“Judgment has no place in our laws”

What’s difficult is that, you may cite your Catholic faith in disagreeing with gay marriage (and you don’t need to go to the Bible for that, which doesn’t even mention gay marriage, you can go to the Catechism and that should be sufficient), but how would you get around baking a cake for a second wedding? Or for a woman who is marrying the man she cheated on her first husband with?

That’s where the consistency requires more detail to sustain. As one suggested, “I will bake cakes for gay birthdays, gay new house parties, gay adoption parties, but not for a gay wedding” at least concentrates the refusal on one particular event. I personally don’t think I’d make that distinction - a cake is a cake and if they wanted a male-male topper I’d tell them I just don’t have any in stock, here’s an online store, pick what you like. But I am strongly opposed to this being a basis for a lawsuit. How petty to ruin someone’s business financially just because they didn’t bake you a cake.

Or refused to build a website that denied the Holocaust
Or refused to print a pornographic t-shirt (note: the local t-shirt place near where I went to undergrad would ROUTINELY refuse to print fraternity rush shirts)
Or refused to run a series of brochures on why their own faith is dead wrong
Or refused to make a commercial for a candidate with whom they vehemently disagree
Or refused to ghost-write a novel that glorified violence against women

Yes, sexual orientation is a protected class. So is creed, which is more broadly defined than merely religion (since atheists, agnostics, and non-affiliated Christians may not be fired for their beliefs). Deference shouldn’t be given to one over the other, but both must be considered.

Again, if ours were a civil, rather than litigious, society, we’d not need such a discussion.

 

[livingwordunity]

Jimmy Akin had a good comment about “protesting” by refusal to do something. Make sure they know why. If I was a Baker who made wedding cakes, I would tell a gay couple that I cannot wedding cake for them, but could make a birthday cake if they wanted to return in the future for a birthday. We have to make sure we are explaining the fact that we love the sinner, but hate the sin.

But we also should be consistent too. Make sure the gay couple understands that I would not bake a cake for a Catholic (or two Catholics) getting married outside the Church without dispensation. Also that I would not bake a cake for a divorced catholic getting married without an annulment.

Personally, for Catholics, I believe the key is consistency. Don’t just single out the gays, protest all sinful or marriages. They still might not like us, but at least we will be seen as “discriminating everyone”!

God Bless.

They would still sue and call the press no matter how nicely you tell them that you can’t make a same-sex “marriage” cake for them. Perhaps the only way is if Christian bakeries eliminate wedding cakes all together and advertise with signs on the front and inside that they don’t do any kind of wedding cakes. The same can be for Christian photographers. They can advertise that they don’t take any professional photos for any wedding. Private free services done for friends and family should be considered legally different than professional services. Although if the gay activists go further and take away our private freedom of choice then Christians would have to stop making wedding cakes or taking wedding photos even for friends and family. And, in that case, if Christians wanted a wedding cake or photos of our weddings, we could just have a non-Christian do it for us.

 

[losh14]

This is a tough one:

The only problem I have with this is that with a Catholic getting married outside the Church or a divorce person remarrying, you wouldn’t know about it unless you knew the couple personally. If Joe and Steve come in to meet with you to design their “wedding” cake, you are going to know right away.

In the instance of Arlene’s Flowers in Washington state, the florist who refused to do the flowers for a gay wedding had actually provided flowers to one of the men for years for a number of occasions. So she knew them personally. I don’t know if it makes her a hypocrite - I don’t think it necessarily does - nor do I know why what ended on a conciliatory note (she talked about her faith, they hugged each other and cried a bit) became a lawsuit with both the State attorney general and the ACLU coming down on this woman for thousands of dollars.

I suppose another thing could be: “I want you to bake a cake for my sister. We’ve never gotten along and she died yesterday. Can you decorate it with ‘I’m glad she’s dead.’ Could you deliver it to her house after 4 o’clock so her kids can get it at the door?” Clearly that’s offensive, and I shouldn’t have to give a reason why I find that offensive and would turn down the business.

Again, it’s only an issue because LGBT individuals are a protected class.

 

[MarcoPolo]

That is an excellent point!

I like the Jimmy Akin comment. Basically, the wedding cake/photographer incidents are demanding that people be complicit in an objectionable ceremony. A businessperson can’t be forced to do such things. Would the friend you described in the OP think a photographer that refused to film a man doing unmentionables in his backyard think the photographer has a right to refuse to do that?

 

[livingwordunity]

I like the Jimmy Akin comment. Basically, the wedding cake/photographer incidents are demanding that people be complicit in an objectionable ceremony. A businessperson can’t be forced to do such things. Would the friend you described in the OP think a photographer that refused to film a man doing unmentionables in his backyard think the photographer has a right to refuse to do that?

Unfortunately, the liberal courts and politicians are making their decisions based on emotion politics and not on logical consistency.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Unfortunately, the liberal courts and politicians are making their decisions based on emotion politics and not on logical consistency.

If the person the OP is dealing with is of such intellect, then it might be futile –*but if not, I think the response is reasonable and may help them or at least plant a seed for when they intellectually mature.

 

[Shaolen]

So the guy responded to something else my brother said

“It doesn’t change the fact that you are using religion, which is based on respect and love; as a cunduit of hate and segregation. I am not talking about slavery, I am talking about the civil rights movement. All of these exaples you are giving are the same examples given by racists of the past. You have no right to reject service to someone because they are a homosexual, neither legally or morally. Think about what your children are going to think of you in 20 years. Are they going to look back in the history books and see hate? Or are they going to look back and see a man of tolerance? I harldy think Jesus Christ would not let a gay couple drink his wine.”

Even though I’ve pointed out the fact that it’s not gay people we are mad at it’s the action and idea of gay marriage, he seems to have just ignored me.

My dad (who is southern Baptist) is saying he’s going to quote some part of the OT where it supposedly says we can kill a homosexual and it wouldn’t be murder. I don’t think this will help our cause at all. Does anyone know the verse my dad is taking about and is it really saying it’s ok to kill homosexuals or is it just a misinterpretation on his part?

 

[Corki]

This is a tough one:

In the instance of Arlene’s Flowers in Washington state, the florist who refused to do the flowers for a gay wedding had actually provided flowers to one of the men for years for a number of occasions. So she knew them personally. I don’t know if it makes her a hypocrite - I don’t think it necessarily does - nor do I know why what ended on a conciliatory note (she talked about her faith, they hugged each other and cried a bit) became a lawsuit with both the State attorney general and the ACLU coming down on this woman for thousands of dollars.

I suppose another thing could be: “I want you to bake a cake for my sister. We’ve never gotten along and she died yesterday. Can you decorate it with ‘I’m glad she’s dead.’ Could you deliver it to her house after 4 o’clock so her kids can get it at the door?” Clearly that’s offensive, and I shouldn’t have to give a reason why I find that offensive and would turn down the business.

Again, it’s only an issue because LGBT individuals are a protected class.

But they aren’t the ONLY protected class. In your final example, would the obligation to provide the cake be different if the person ordering it was black or handicapped? I would say no. Just because the person is part of a protected class doesn’t mean that all of their actions are protected.

 

[kozlosap]

Unfortunately, the liberal courts and politicians are making their decisions based on emotion politics and not on logical consistency.

I must disagree. The courts are basing the majority of their decisions on the Equal Protection Clause which was also used in the Loving vs Virginia case decades ago. I think that the legal dominoes have fallen to the point where there is almost no point in bringing further cases on this issue. We need to follow Papa Francis’ suggestions and live our lives by following the Gospels and Works of Mercy instead of continually spending our resources fighting a battle that even most Catholics view as discriminatory.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good article here…

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/02/of-consciences-and-cakes

 

[cargau]

Jimmy Akin had a good comment about “protesting” by refusal to do something. Make sure they know why. If I was a Baker who made wedding cakes, I would tell a gay couple that I cannot wedding cake for them, but could make a birthday cake if they wanted to return in the future for a birthday. We have to make sure we are explaining the fact that we love the sinner, but hate the sin.

But we also should be consistent too. Make sure the gay couple understands that I would not bake a cake for a Catholic (or two Catholics) getting married outside the Church without dispensation. Also that I would not bake a cake for a divorced catholic getting married without an annulment.

Personally, for Catholics, I believe the key is consistency. Don’t just single out the gays, protest all sinful or marriages. They still might not like us, but at least we will be seen as “discriminating everyone”!

God Bless.

I don’t see it your way. The goal of the “movement” is to get society to accept a behavior that is sinful and offensive to God. One cannot begin to equate this to the discrimination that took place against black people. On one hand we are talking about an evil action and the other is simply the color of skin. Being born black is not a sin.

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is like driving the getaway car for a bank robber. It is aiding and abetting the sin.

At the same time, I am deeply disappointed that this movement is getting so much traction.
I think being supportive of gay marriage makes a lot of folks feel very charitable and tolerant. Maybe even a bit progressive. That is prideful. It’s also very shortsighted because it is not good for families and especially children. But, when in the past 40 years have children ever been a priority over self gratification.

 

[losh14]

Good question:

But they aren’t the ONLY protected class. In your final example, would the obligation to provide the cake be different if the person ordering it was black or handicapped? I would say no. Just because the person is part of a protected class doesn’t mean that all of their actions are protected.

I agree that protected class doesn’t protect all actions, but it does pre-empt reasons on the basis of that class. So you can’t refuse to bake a cake for a black person, but you can refuse to bake a cake to commemorate Malcom X’s birthday (if that’s even something people celebrate), whom you consider to be a racist individual. What makes it tough, legally, is that only LGBT individuals will ever have a gay wedding. It’s intrinsic to the class of people, so the event itself might be intrinsically protected. Meanwhile, everyone, technically, celebrates MLK’s birthday (since its a national holiday) so you could refuse to bake MLK cakes.

Examples are useful, but when we start getting into a realm that would never be explored (desserts enjoyed only by people in wheelchairs), it tends to make for bad policy - rules based on exceptions instead of ruling for the majority of cases and allowing the Courts to intervene in the particulars when they do arise.

Pulling it back, it becomes.
“When do we need a legal remedy to compel a person to violate his or her own subjective moral conscience?”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is like driving the getaway car for a bank robber. It is aiding and abetting the sin.

OK, let’s go with your car analogy. Only this time you are a new car salesman. A gay couple comes in to your showroom and wants to buy a new car, and they tell you they plan on using it in their upcoming wedding, to drive to and from the ceremony. In a sense the car is more “aiding and abetting” than a cake, because you can have a wedding without a cake, but you can’t have a wedding if you can’t get to the wedding. So by your argument, you should not sell them the car, which of course is nonsense. So there must be more to it than that.

I don’t think you are looking critically enough at the degree of cooperation in sin. Baking a cake is not cooperating in sin. They don’t need it to sin. It only indirectly approves of the sin. And I think the level of involvement is quite indirect, not like, say, officiating at the ceremony. The only thing you can “proudly” say after refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is that you did not pass up an opportunity to make life miserable for gays. I would not be so proud of that.

 

[losh14]

I concur with this.

The goal of the “movement” is to get society to accept a behavior that is sinful and offensive to God.

But I differ here:

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is like driving the getaway car for a bank robber. It is aiding and abetting the sin.

At some point we must coexist with sinners - we don’t consider every single action they take to be abetting their sin. If you have the thief over for dinner, you’re not harboring a fugitive (provided you let the police in while he finishes his éclair). And gays are a protected class. I’d rather that the law respect the conscience right of someone not to take part in an action they deem immoral, while also understanding that pumping gas into a limo doesn’t involve a moral choice that differs whether that limo is going to a funeral, a wedding, or a raucous bachelor party in which 7 of the 9 groomsmen will commit mortal sins with an emotionally-scarred young woman who survived an abusive childhood.

At the same time, I am deeply disappointed that this movement is getting so much traction. I think being supportive of gay marriage makes a lot of folks feel very charitable and tolerant.

It’s certainly the cause celébre. The media remain in a reactionary mode where any perceived slight against a gay person or the goal of attaining nationwide legality of gay marriage is immediately condemned as bigotry and homophobia.

I think there’s a considerable difference between the cake and the car:

OK, let’s go with your car analogy. Only this time you are a new car salesman. A gay couple comes in to your showroom and wants to buy a new car, and they tell you they plan on using it in their upcoming wedding, to drive to and from the ceremony.

’
The cake will only be eaten once. The car will probably also get the men to and from work, church (I do hope they go), visiting family and perhaps delivering food to a shelter. I think near proximity of evil is avoided or at least mitigated because the primary purpose of the car is to be driven.

That’s not to say that the cake itself is necessarily evil, but it serves a singular purpose of marking a traditional symbol of marital union. And feeding the guests. I’d give more credence to a personal moral objection for such a specific-use item than to something far more general like a car.

We could go with an even worse analogy to help make a clearer point - “I plan on using this to make pornographic films of me picking up women and paying them for favors on-camera while I drive.” Would you still sell? The buyer (a maker of smut) isn’t a protected class. In the cake example, the couple is a protected class, but that doesn’t render all their purchases protected.

I don’t think you are looking critically enough at the degree of cooperation in sin. Baking a cake is not cooperating in sin. They don’t need it to sin. It only indirectly approves of the sin. And I think the level of involvement is quite indirect, not like, say, officiating at the ceremony.

This is my thinking as well if I were in the situation, but I wouldn’t use my personal feeling to tell a service provider they are compelled - under the weight of legal remedy and deprivation of private property or even incarceration - to bake that cake.