Denying service for gay marriage compared to

[Pat_M]

The line is according to the cake baker’s religious convictions as to what promotes and approves and encourages an established moral evil according to the baker’s Christian Faith. Homosexual wedding cakes are a physical approval of an immoral act …

Yes! It is an individual, prudential decision. It may well be sinful, FOR THEM, so they need the freedom to decline to participate.

This should be a no-brainer. This is what RELIGIOUS LIBERTY is!!! Why do even many Catholics not seem able to comprehend this basic principle? I think it is because the way most people inform themselves on issues like this is through the media and the culture. And the media and culture are biased on this, to the point of being propaganda. We need to stay close to our Christian faith as the only antidote to this misinformation campaign.

 

[Pat_M]

What this really boils down to is a fringe group of homosexuals,imposing their immoral/disordered lifestyle on the majority of society.These Christian establishments are purposely being targeted,for just this reason.Jack Phillips referred the homosexual couple to an equally good bakery right across the street.This bakery would have had no problem accommodating them.So ,there you go.No tolerance from the homosexual community re the religious rights of business owners.Nope it is their way or the highway.

True, but I fault the media more than the activists, because that is how the message of this small segment of society is getting so much play. You can see how ridiculous the coverage of this whole religious liberty issue in the news has been for proof. The activists are also ridiculous, it is true. But they are merely pushing their agenda. It would go nowhere if the media reported the issue fairly and accurately, and common sense people would see what a sham this whole thing is.

 

[Pat_M]

Maybe people will not appreciate me going off-topic here to some degree, but what do you all propose to do about it? Stand up for what you believe and face legal action against you, stop baking wedding cakes all-together, something else? Because I don’t think people have the legal right to refuse service to a certain group of people. I’m just wondering. If no one answers, I’ll take that as a hint and be quiet.

See I think you have subtly misunderstood the issue. This is understandable, because many many people have, because of how it is reported in the media!

Let’s start with the buzzword phrase “Denying Service”. Is that really a clear and accurate way to describe what is happening?

No. It is not. These cases have not been about denial of service. They are about pretending that two men or two women are the same as marriage. Marriage is an important moral concept. Sex within marriage is good. Sex outside of marriage is evil. So it is really about certain Christians who feel that cooperating in the moral evil of pretending homosexual partnerships are the same as marriage is, for them, participating in sin.

To call it denial of service, is like looking at the whole issue sideways or backwards. It is about religious liberty. The media and culture NEEDS to misrepresent it, because if it is presented accurately, it is a no-brainer. We have the right to religious liberty, the right not to act against our conscience - especially when there are always easy work-arounds for the gays who feel they are being “denied service”. It’s not about them not getting what they want, because in all these cases it is easy for them to get from somebody next door what they want. This is about imposing their idea of “unjust discrimination” on society. They are saying “it is wrong to deny that homosexual unions are marriage”, and they are punishing anybody who disagrees.

 

[Jim1905]

Maybe people will not appreciate me going off-topic here to some degree, but what do you all propose to do about it? Stand up for what you believe and face legal action against you, stop baking wedding cakes all-together, something else? Because I don’t think people have the legal right to refuse service to a certain group of people. I’m just wondering. If no one answers, I’ll take that as a hint and be quiet.

Couldn’t disagree more, and this goes beyond a religious liberty issue but liberty in general. Human rights unfortunately are morphing from true liberties into claims on other people, namely claims on this baker’s labor. You or I don’t have some sort phoney right to have someone bake us a cake, and if they don’t want to, for whatever reason, then so be it, they just lost my business and potentially others as well.

It’s the baker’s (or whoever’s) right to not sell their labor to us. That’s it. If I went into a store that refused me service due to being Catholic, I’d walk to the next one. No doubt they’re discriminating and they shouldn’t for unjust reasons, but I’m not about to compell them to offer me their labor by threat of violence (the state).

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t think “progressives” have a moral standard because they have said that morality is relative, while claiming the moral high ground. If morality is relative, how can there be a moral high ground?

If you claim morals are relative, then there are no such thing as rights. How can you then fight for gay/woman/black rights?

If there are not moral standards, then we can’t say Hitler was wrong. We can’t talk about women being “suppressed.” We can’t justify throwing murderers into jail. We can’t protest for a “just wage.” We can’t even denounce the priests that molested adolescents and the Bishops who covered their back…

In the moral relativist’s world, there is no Justice. And without Justice, there is no Mercy. Neither can exist without a standard.

However, the moral relativist is incoherent; he doesn’t think his philosophy through. Otherwise, he wouldn’t preach “social justice.” You are dealing with people who refuse to think rationally. The age of Reason ended at the beginning of the “Enlightenment.” It’s not about reason. It’s about pure Will (“I have the right to choose”). It’s not about what I think, but rather it’s about what I feel. For example, Science in our world is less about gaining knowledge about the natural world (reason), and more about gaining power over the natural world through technology (willpower). Do you think researchers get grants if they claim their research can’t be used to create “useful” things (technology)?

Moral Absoulutists can denounce Nazi Germany, saying “you and your entire society is wicked and will be destroyed.” The moral relativists can only say “different strokes for different folks. And I just personally disagree with yours.” The moral absolutist can be progressive. The moral relativeist cannot. These massive protests that denounce “homophobia” and “capitalism” have no foundation, since its members believe only in opinion. How can progressives talk about progress unless there’s a real standard to progress towards?

If morals are relative, social Darwinism, class struggle, power fights and the like are the only reality. The powerful win. The Ubermensch will dominate. The progressives want the government to back them because they believe not in Truth, but only in power (“eat this and ye shall be like gods”). Man no longer exists; he is lost in the sea of social constructions, which can be manipulated by the powerful at their whims (the progressives protest because they need to become the powerful). The world envisioned by Pontius Pilate comes to fruition. “What is Truth?”

“Forgive them Father; they know not what they do…”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

If the Christian is only against gay “rights” because he was indoctrinated by outdated ideas, ask why the person thinks interracial marriage is morally permissible? Do they have a reason for it to be permissible (and thus an objective standard), or are they for it only because they were raised that way?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[JRKH]

Maybe people will not appreciate me going off-topic here to some degree, but what do you all propose to do about it? Stand up for what you believe and face legal action against you, stop baking wedding cakes all-together, something else? Because I don’t think people have the legal right to refuse service to a certain group of people. I’m just wondering. If no one answers, I’ll take that as a hint and be quiet.

Jamal - You ask some good questions here. I don’t know for sure what I would do. I would need to pray carefully on it. If I could not avoid providing the cake, one possibility might be to subcontract the job to another baker. Not sure how that might stack up morally…Like I say, I’d have to pray on it.

The problem with “legal rights” is that one person’s legal right tends to interfere with another person’s legal right. Now certainly some legal rights have to be protected - Life, health, safety etc. Where there is potential for real harm, we should not withhold our service. However, I fail to see the real harm in a baker declining to enter into a contract to bake a cake for a same sex couple. jim1905 says it well:

Couldn’t disagree more, and this goes beyond a religious liberty issue but liberty in general. Human rights unfortunately are morphing from true liberties into claims on other people, namely claims on this baker’s labor. You or I don’t have some sort phoney right to have someone bake us a cake, and if they don’t want to, for whatever reason, then so be it, they just lost my business and potentially others as well.

It’s the baker’s (or whoever’s) right to not sell their labor to us. That’s it. If I went into a store that refused me service due to being Catholic, I’d walk to the next one. No doubt they’re discriminating and they shouldn’t for unjust reasons, but I’m not about to compel them to offer me their labor by threat of violence (the state).

Of course - it’s all fine and good to argue this here on the forum but ultimately - it seems - this is an issue that is going to become legal and so Jamal asks a good question. Realistically, what are we going to do as individuals if we are ever confronted with such a thing.

Peace
James

 

[unstoppable_II]

If you claim morals are relative, then there are no such thing as rights. …

Interesting, but I don’t see how that follows. Can you elaborate?

 

[wmw]

I would tell them I don’t agree there is any such thing as same sex marriage, but you can have a cake you just might not be able to choke it down because my heart won’t be in it. If they persist I would make sure I got paid well in advance then put a nice heavy portion of baking soda in it and the icing. The appearance would be quite unappealing also. So no I’d not get into any tangled legal proceedings about “denying service”.

 

[Lucretius]

Interesting, but I don’t see how that follows. Can you elaborate?

1. Morals are based in the ends of Human nature.
2. Rights are based in the ends of Human nature.
3. Human nature does not exist.
4. Therefore, Morals do not exist.

It then follows from 2 and 3 that:

1. Rights do not exist.

I mean exist in the sense of objectivity: not arbitrary based in whatever one “feels” is moral or a right. Interestingly enought, everyone practically believes in the natural law on every point except the points our culture in general disagrees with: when was the last time someone claimed that having one’s immune system disabled (HIV) was only bad because we choose to decide it’s bad?

In other words, these people argue that rights are whatever we want them to be: which is a fancy way of saying we have no rights unless the Emperors graciously provide them (Locke thought we only had rights because we were God’s property. When a modern culture abandons God, it seems to follow that if we don’t have God’s Will to give us rights, we then must provide them for ourselves, which is basically saying the Powerful provide the standard for rights. To abandon God is to surrender to the State).

Rights being relative is just the logical outcome of morals being relative.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Ask them where Scripture bans interracial marriage?

God bans sodomy in several places, including

“Be fruitful and multiply” (which is the first command by God to Humanity),

The story of Sodom,

and St. Paul (several times).

I don’t see justification for a ban against irnterracial marriage: it looks like an idea that existed because of the slavery of the 1700’s; not based in the Divine Law.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Ricky_C]

(Sorry if someone has already said this; I skimmed the previous posts.)
I think that refusing service to homosexuals should only apply if the customers’ being homosexual is relevant.

Let’s say I’m a baker that makes wedding cakes; if a homosexual couple wants me to make a cake for their wedding, I should have the freedom to deny them that.

But now let’s say I own a burger restaurant. Am I going to refuse homosexuals from eating there when that has nothing to do with their homosexuality? I don’t see why I would; I’m open to other thoughts on that because I may be wrong, but that’s where I stand.

The issue with this is that there’s definitely a grey area; if I’m running a daycare, would I allow a homosexual couple’s adopted child at the daycare? I wouldn’t know what to do in this case. That’s the biggest issue with making a law about this subject, though we should definitely make sure that Catholics are not forced to support what we do not believe in.

And though it’s been said already, this has no connection to interracial marriage, because there is nothing in our faith that prohibits us from interracial marriage; if allowing the denial of service based on a couple being interracial is allowed in legislation like this, then there is a problem.

But whatever is the correct decision, I pray that it be known and reached; Lord, help us to learn what is right and to teach what we know to be true to those who will hear us.

-Ricky

 

[laircy]

I wonder what would happen if those signs that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” actually applied and it would be legal to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Then offended people could boycott as they see fit and let the business rise or fall accordingly. But maybe that would only apply to small businesses that have competition. If it were a large business that is the only option for a particular service, or the only one in a certain area, that would be a problem.

 

[marymary1975]

Also, I’d be interested in hearing from a lawyer or legal expert on the viability of defending the right to refuse based on the constitution and civil law.

It depends on the circumstances…that is the actual legal answer.

 

[Lucretius]

(Sorry if someone has already said this; I skimmed the previous posts.)
I think that refusing service to homosexuals should only apply if the customers’ being homosexual is relevant.

Let’s say I’m a baker that makes wedding cakes; if a homosexual couple wants me to make a cake for their wedding, I should have the freedom to deny them that.

But now let’s say I own a burger restaurant. Am I going to refuse homosexuals from eating there when that has nothing to do with their homosexuality? I don’t see why I would; I’m open to other thoughts on that because I may be wrong, but that’s where I stand.

The issue with this is that there’s definitely a grey area; if I’m running a daycare, would I allow a homosexual couple’s adopted child at the daycare? I wouldn’t know what to do in this case. That’s the biggest issue with making a law about this subject, though we should definitely make sure that Catholics are not forced to support what we do not believe in.

And though it’s been said already, this has no connection to interracial marriage, because there is nothing in our faith that prohibits us from interracial marriage; if allowing the denial of service based on a couple being interracial is allowed in legislation like this, then there is a problem.

But whatever is the correct decision, I pray that it be known and reached; Lord, help us to learn what is right and to teach what we know to be true to those who will hear us.

-Ricky

Yes, you make a distinction between being and doing. In this theory, one can discriminate someone based on their actions, but they can’t based on what they are (being Black, for example). The problem with this principle is, although it allows a baker to reject baking an anti-Jewish cake for a KKK cross burning rally, it allows him also to discriminate against a Jew for celabrating Chanukah, not because they are Jewish, but because they celebrate the holiday. However, since only Jews celebrate the holiday (Universal Universalists notwithstanding), he’s still basically discriminating against Jews.

I think the key to the difference between discriminating between two sodomites and a black couple is that having black skin is not against the natural law, while gay “marriage” is the public glorification of a clearly wicked activity. The State has the duty to defend the natural law, and for American public institutions to allow this monstrosity is a scandal. Gay marriage as an institution is against reason and God; we should refuse to take part in the injustice and attempt to reform it if it is pragmatically and charitably possible.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

I will also explain that just because in law theory one can’t discriminate against catering either KKK events not gay “weddings,” in law practice discrimating against gays will be far more enforced. The KKK are small, so this won’t make much of a difference, but not only is the LGBTs a larger and more politically connected group, they tend to be bullies. They actively push the limits on what they can force those who disagree with them to do

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Personanongrata]

What about a same sex couple wanting to rent a Catholic facility ? or another Christian facility that does not recognize such unions ? and what if they wanted their ‘wedding’ at such a facility… then what if a satanic group decides it wants to do the same…

If I (the straight person) walked in for pizza with married gay friends after a gay wedding, would I be served? Or would we all be asked to leave? If the gays acted like straight people till after we were served, would we be kicked out of the place when found out?

As a Christian facility, wouldn’t it be easier to just check sexual identity at the door? What is wrong with self identification? If married gays are not welcome, just say so. It’s easier.

 

[upbeatjonm]

What if someone goes to a photographer and wants them to record a pornographic film? Will they be able to say no because of religious objection? Will they be called haters?

 

[seaton2005]

This is not true. To “discriminate” simply means to observe a difference. Whenever you make a choice, you have discriminated. Example: when you buy a new car, you check out its features and make a decision based on the differences of the various models.

Discrimination of any type is evil.

 

[Ricky_C]

Yes, you make a distinction between being and doing. In this theory, one can discriminate someone based on their actions, but they can’t based on what they are (being Black, for example). The problem with this principle is, although it allows a baker to reject baking an anti-Jewish cake for a KKK cross burning rally, it allows him also to discriminate against a Jew for celabrating Chanukah, not because they are Jewish, but because they celebrate the holiday. However, since only Jews celebrate the holiday (Universal Universalists notwithstanding), he’s still basically discriminating against Jews.

I feel like the better distinction to make would be whether the reason for denying them service is:

1. 
   *]because the service itself would be a sin, or
   *]because the customer has committed a sin unrelated to the service.
   
   So if I’m running a bowling alley, allowing a homosexual to bowl there wouldn’t be supporting homosexuality; I most likely wouldn’t even know they were homosexual unless they were with their partner. There’s still the grey area like I said before, but I think this is a better way to phrase what I said.
   
   God bless,
   -Ricky