Do religious principles justify discrimination against SS couples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomdstone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tomdstone

Guest
We know that if you advertise an apartment for rent publicly, it is against the law to refuse to rent a that apartment on the basis of race. Or if you own a bakery, it is against the law to refuse to sell a cake to someone because he is not a member of the white race. And AFAIK, such discrimination is morally wrong also and against religious principles. However, do religious principles justify discrimination against same sex couples? Should a Church that makes its hall available on a fee basis to the general public for a wedding party be required to do so in the case of a SS wedding party? Should a baker who advertises and sells wedding cakes to the general public be required to do so in the case of a SS wedding? Does adherence to religious principles justify discrimination against SS couples?
 
Catechism said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like the way the catechism explains our ideal treatment of individuals with same sex attraction because it emphasizes compassion and respect. It also addresses your question of discrimination, reminding us that all signs of unjust discrimination must be avoided.

Note that it does not say that all forms of discrimination are to be condemned. There are times when we rightly discriminate. For example, we should discriminate, or differentiate, between heterosexual married couples and two men who are in a sexual relationship with one another.

With regard to the examples you offer, I tend to think of it this way: It is wrong to deny someone a service simply because they experience same sex attraction. It is not wrong to refuse to participate in objectively disordered actions or events.

If I’m a baker and a homosexual man comes to me and requests a birthday cake, I should not refuse him. If he asks for a wedding cake for his upcoming wedding to another man, I may see that as helping him to commit sin or participate in a mockery of a sacrament, and I can justly decline.

Every person should have the right to refuse to participate in that which they consider evil or wrong. If I, as a Catholic, approach a Protestant baker and ask her for a First Communion cake, she should be able to say to me, “I’m sorry, I don’t bake First Communion cakes. But please come back for your next graduation.” In other words, it’s not that I’m Catholic that she can refuse me, but that she doesn’t believe that she should help me celebrate something she believes is wrong.

So in sum, yes, I believe there are circumstances in which it is moral and perhaps even necessary to discriminate against same sex couples, but it is not out of hatred or disdain for the people themselves.
 
Tomdstone said:
We know that if you advertise an apartment for rent publicly, it is against the law to refuse to rent a that apartment on the basis of race. Or if you own a bakery, it is against the law to refuse to sell a cake to someone because he is not a member of the white race. And AFAIK, such discrimination is morally wrong also and against religious principles. However, do religious principles justify discrimination against same sex couples? Should a Church that makes its hall available on a fee basis to the general public for a wedding party be required to do so in the case of a SS wedding party? Should a baker who advertises and sells wedding cakes to the general public be required to do so in the case of a SS wedding? Does adherence to religious principles justify discrimination against SS couples?
Click to expand...
Your specific example of “renting” a hall to the public versus “renting” a hall to SS “couples” is not so straight forward. As a registered non-profit organization, the church is not allowed by IRS law to create revenue by use of its property and, by Canon Law, to charge for Sacraments. That said, use of any church facility is not a right but a privilege extended by the pastor and parish council. Use can be denied even to a parishioner if that parishioner intends to use the facility not in accord with church doctrine. Say, someone thought that it’s a good idea to hold a Quija tournament on church property and wanted to borrow the hall - NOPE! Same for a satanic temple who wants to borrow the sanctuary to conduct their satanic rites - NOPE! A church is NOT the same as a bakery or a florist shop.
 
I personally would rent the apartment and bake the cake, because I feel that I would be unjustly discriminating against the couple/person.

I don’t see how providing a good for money is condoning anything. I’m in the business of baking cakes, I want to keep my business running, I will bake you a cake.

If a friend came to me and asked if I would bake them a cake for their SSW in lieu of a gift and I would have to decline.

I would also decline a wedding invitation to a SSW.

I find it so strange where people see it fine to bake a cake for a gay person to give to his boyfriend for his birthday, but won’t bake a cake for a wedding reception. It isn’t like you are holding the cake beside the couple while they make their vows. Vows are said and done with before the cake even rolls out. 🤷
 
I think that if a place of worship does not approve of Homosexuality, they should not be forced to let gay people marry in their building. Nobody would call it discrimination if a Church refused to let two atheists marry in their building, so the same principal applies. A place of worship isn’t the only place where two people can get married, nor do people who marry in a place of worship get extra legal rights.

But that’s the only situation where I can see it being acceptable. Its wrong to tell a gay person he is not allowed to live in an apartment building, or that he not allowed to be around children, or even that he can do these things so long as he pays twice as much money as a strait person.
 
BornInMarch said:
I think that if a place of worship does not approve of Homosexuality, they should not be forced to let gay people marry in their building. Nobody would call it discrimination if a Church refused to let two atheists marry in their building, so the same principal applies. A place of worship isn’t the only place where two people can get married, nor do people who marry in a place of worship get extra legal rights.

But that’s the only situation where I can see it being acceptable. Its wrong to tell a gay person he is not allowed to live in an apartment building, or that he not allowed to be around children, or even that he can do these things so long as he pays twice as much money as a strait person.
Click to expand...
Lots of people don’t even get married in churches anymore. My protestant wedding was outdoors. Most of my sorority sisters had weddings outdoors or at resorts, country clubs, one got married at a barn that is just an event venue. I think there have been only 2 church weddings. One was Catholic, the other was Methodist.
 
Having looked at the moral theology of it, my very personal opinion is that Catholics would not be committing an immoral act if they baked a wedding cake for a SSW, simply because cake is not facilitating the sin, nor is it necessary for the sin to be committed.

But if I were a baker, I would take a brilliant person’s advice (Sorry! I forgot his name!) and make it clear that I would be donating the profit to an organization like the AFA!
 
I think the original presupposition starts from the wrong place. First, gay couples committing to each other and calling it marriage is not a civil right (though it may soon become one with the pending Supreme Court decision).

Even if it were, our laws allow private businesses to choose to serve who they want. Look at people who choose to carry a gun (which is an enumerated civil right). Private businesses are allowed to post a sign stating “no guns allowed” and if someone were to walk in wearing one, the owner could choose not to provide their services to that patron.

The laws around serving gay couples who want people to violate their religious rights are not about gay rights, otherwise the Muslim or Jewish bakeries who refuse would be sued too, as would gay owned bakeries who refuse to bake for Christians who want a religious saying on their items. These activists’ mission is to remove the Christian Faith from public life and this is one front in furthering that effort.

Thanks for the topic.
 
808Catholic said:
Your specific example of “renting” a hall to the public versus “renting” a hall to SS “couples” is not so straight forward. As a registered non-profit organization, the church is not allowed by IRS law to create revenue by use of its property and, by Canon Law, to charge for Sacraments. That said, use of any church facility is not a right but a privilege extended by the pastor and parish council. Use can be denied even to a parishioner if that parishioner intends to use the facility not in accord with church doctrine. Say, someone thought that it’s a good idea to hold a Quija tournament on church property and wanted to borrow the hall - NOPE! Same for a satanic temple who wants to borrow the sanctuary to conduct their satanic rites - NOPE! ** A church is NOT the same as a bakery or a florist shop.**
Click to expand...
👍
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
I find it so strange where people see it fine to bake a cake for a gay person to give to his boyfriend for his birthday, but won’t bake a cake for a wedding reception. It isn’t like you are holding the cake beside the couple while they make their vows. Vows are said and done with before the cake even rolls out. 🤷
Click to expand...
Celebrating a birthday isn’t sinful. Celebrating a gay marriage is. 🤷
 
Should same sex “couples” vilify people on account of their religious beliefs?
 
Discrimination implies that they are being denied something they have an intrinsic right to. They do not have an intrinsic right to marriage, nor do they have any intrinsic right to be provided services for anything short of the necessities; no one does. They also definitely don’t have the right to force someone to violate their deeply held beliefs just so they can get what they want.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
…It isn’t like you are holding the cake beside the couple while they make their vows. Vows are said and done with before the cake even rolls out. 🤷
Click to expand...
What if you are asked to:
  • officiate at the service; or
  • be the wedding planner; or
  • video the ceremony so it can be relived again and again
Would it be just to decline any of these roles (if not baker).
 
St_Francis said:
Having looked at the moral theology of it, my very personal opinion is that Catholics would not be committing an immoral act if they baked a wedding cake for a SSW, simply because cake is not facilitating the sin, nor is it necessary for the sin to be committed.

But if I were a baker, I would take a brilliant person’s advice (Sorry! I forgot his name!) and make it clear that I would be donating the profit to an organization like the AFA!
Click to expand...
Tigg said:
Correct. Thought I’d post the Vatican document for the OP:

Under Applications:
There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html
Click to expand...
What a great document 🙂

Having read that, I will modify my statement to say that while it may not be *strictly *immoral to bake a SSW wedding cake, it would not be unjust to refuse.

I think that further participation, videotaping, catering with servers, etc., are more participatory. If I were a caterer, I would not accept the request if I had to send employees to serve, because I have responsibilities to my employees.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Yes.

People discriminate nearly all of the time.
Click to expand...
Yes. “Discrimination” is probably the most overworked word in the [American] English language. Whenever you make a choice, you have discriminated [e.g., I choose Coke over Pepsi].
“When it comes to discrimination, we have to be willing to distinguish between different types of discrimination. Discriminating between different concepts is called intelligence. Refusing to lump all forms of discrimination together is called common sense. It is what keeps us from having blind bus drivers.” – Prof. Mike Adams
 
nodito said:
Celebrating a birthday isn’t sinful. Celebrating a gay marriage is. 🤷
Click to expand...
You aren’t celebrating it. The people who were invited and are eating the cake that was bought and dancing on the dance floor are the ones celebrating it. :rolleyes:
 
Rau said:
What if you are asked to:
  • officiate at the service; or
  • be the wedding planner; or
  • video the ceremony so it can be relived again and again
Would it be just to decline any of these roles (if not baker).
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t officiate. I don’t have those credentials, don’t want those credentials. And I don’t feel like it would be right for me to officiate any wedding.
I’m just providing a service if I decided to plan their wedding. Ok, what colors? Alright if you REALLY want to do teal and purple. Oh, you want doves? Sure (that isn’t tacky in the least)
My wedding wasn’t videoed and I relive it again and again. Hell, I cried in class on my third wedding anniversary because I’m going through a freaking divorce and I all I see in my head is my husband holding my hands with a tear rolling down his cheek telling me I’m beautiful. Those memories are going to be there with or without someone filming it. You are still providing a service. I wouldn’t do it for free and there wouldn’t be a gay discount either. Kendra likes to eat.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
You aren’t celebrating it. The people who were invited and are eating the cake that was bought and dancing on the dance floor are the ones celebrating it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
By taking part in it, even providing simple services, you are lending your approval to it publicly. As Catholics, we cannot cause scandal by supporting something which is opposed to God’s will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top