L
Lokadottir
Guest
Your RIGHT! It has greatly improved the lives of gays and has allowed them to share all things with the person they love. And you’ve been made a spot uncomfortable. I’m very sorry you have suffered so.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
Well if the gay couple had asked for a cake in the shape of a phalus, yes that is a perfectly valid reason to deny the service.I have an example. While I was in college a fraternity wanted to have a rush t-shirt made with the slogan on back “No ____ing clowns allowed” and a picture of two clowns engaged in … questionable activity. The local t-shirt printer said no, we won’t do that, it’s offensive. Without remedy, the fraternity changed their design.*
L
Lokadottir
Guest
Because all these actions are hypothetically on religious grounds. It brings up the bottom line in this debate: Up to what point can actions be excused on religious grounds?I am not sure I fully understand your point. What have most of those got to do with the right to deny business in certain situations?
christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I do believe secularism and atheism are religious identities. But even if you don’t, imagine a town that sprouts up of radical Islamist community. Because of jihad they refuse to sell any items to any non Muslims. Perhaps the next nearest town is 100 miles away forcing people to not be able to live in that town practically.Would a militant secularist be religious?
christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093
Is it automatically accepted for anybody to say, ‘I am religious so can’t serve XYZ?’
Should that be allowed? After all people can just go shopping elsewhere right?
It’s descrimination. Baking a cake is no way sinful. And frankly it’s appalling to see Catholics trying to justify their bigotry as if Jesus would refuse to bake a cake for a gay man. In fact, I think he would bake the cake and invite him to dinner to talk about repentance and living for the kingdom of God not the world.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Not necessarily, a religious person can be a secularist. While the label “atheist” tells us something about the person’s response to god(s) propositions, the label “secularist” tells us where a person stands on separation of church and state. I would expect most atheist to be secularist, but I don’t know that most secularist are atheist.I do believe secularism and atheism are religious identities.
Lots of this thread reminds me of the Jim Crow (I’ve been going through American history over the past few months) era which involved many of the same problems. There was even a book (Negro Motorist Green Book) that motorist used so that they could map out pathways that would put them through cities where they would be allowed to purchase gas or spend the night.But even if you don’t, imagine a town that sprouts up of radical Islamist community. Because of jihad they refuse to sell any items to any non Muslims. Perhaps the next nearest town is 100 miles away forcing people to not be able to live in that town practically.
Should that be allowed? After all people can just go shopping elsewhere right?
It’s descrimination.
Previously I’ve heard people say there were parallels between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. I took it to be a stretch at the time. But some of the comments in this thread support such a statement.
My concern with allowing religious objections is that there is very little to no boundary to what may fall under religious objections.Baking a cake is no way sinful. And frankly it’s appalling to see Catholics trying to justify their bigotry as if Jesus would refuse to bake a cake for a gay man. In fact, I think he would bake the cake and invite him to dinner to talk about repentance and living for the kingdom of God not the world.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Under the proposed additions to the Arizona law, if a Muslim didn’t want to serve items, that would have to go before the court and be assessed but if any Muslim wanted to do that, they would severely restricting their consumer base and thus perhaps their profit, as the Christian Post says in the context of homosexuals in Arizona, and the fact that there areas where people can deny service which is currently legal, ’ 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way to run a business’I do believe secularism and atheism are religious identities. But even if you don’t, imagine a town that sprouts up of radical Islamist community. Because of jihad they refuse to sell any items to any non Muslims. Perhaps the next nearest town is 100 miles away forcing people to not be able to live in that town practically.
Should that be allowed? After all people can just go shopping elsewhere right?
It’s descrimination. Baking a cake is no way sinful. And frankly it’s appalling to see Catholics trying to justify their bigotry as if Jesus would refuse to bake a cake for a gay man. In fact, I think he would bake the cake and invite him to dinner to talk about repentance and living for the kingdom of God not the world.
I don’t know that baking a cake for a homosexual ‘marriage’ is sinful or not.
Arizona Catholic Conference had an action alert out asking people to email a letter to Gov Brewer to sign the SB 1062 bill:
azcatholicconference.org/?p=799
Making or selling cakes is one issue, but there is also the photography issue and other business regarding weddings.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
If a business truly believed photographing a wedding or baking a wedding cake could violate their religious beliefs then they shouldUnder the proposed additions to the Arizona law, if a Muslim didn’t want to serve items, that would have to go before the court and be assessed but if any Muslim wanted to do that, they would severely restricting their consumer base and thus perhaps their profit, as the Christian Post says in the context of homosexuals in Arizona, and the fact that there areas where people can deny service which is currently legal, ’ 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way to run a business’
I don’t know that baking a cake for a homosexual ‘marriage’ is sinful or not.
Arizona Catholic Conference had an action alert out asking people to email a letter to Gov Brewer to sign the SB 1062 bill:
azcatholicconference.org/?p=799
Making or selling cakes is one issue, but there is also the photography issue and other business regarding weddings. Couldn’t it be argued that trying to force a business to provide a wedding cake or photography, they are being discriminated against, by having their religious freedom inhibited?
- market as a religious organization and only make cakes for people that fit their strict religious beliefs, or
- not sell wedding supplies at all.
As for your "poor business practice " argument, I find it nonsense. Segregated America had no problem ignoring a huge part of the market and if a town of let’s say 99% Christian zealots and 1% gay decided not to serve gays, they aren’t really losing significant business, instead they just make it impossible for the gay person to live.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Even if a photography business marketed themselves as a religious organisation, I don’t see how that would stop a homosexual couple from approaching the organisation to take their photographs of their wedding, then the religious photography organisation says they can’t do that, then the homosexual couple sues.If a business truly believed photographing a wedding or baking a wedding cake could violate their religious beliefs then they should
- market as a religious organization and only make cakes for people that fit their strict religious beliefs, or
- not sell wedding supplies at all.
But these people aren’t concerned about sinfulness and weddings. They are wanting to just not serve gays who they are bigoted against.
When you talk about segregated America, I assume you are talking about it in the context of stores not serving Blacks.As for your "poor business practice " argument, I find it nonsense. Segregated America had no problem ignoring a huge part of the market and if a town of let’s say 99% Christian zealots and 1% gay decided not to serve gays, they aren’t really losing significant business, instead they just make it impossible for the gay person to live.
I reccomend you read the following article:
Analysis: 3 Reasons Religious Freedom Laws Are Nothing Like Jim Crow
In some areas it is legal to deny service to somebody based on their sexuality, but what business that has denied service or product for a homosexual ‘wedding’ had a history of not serving homosexuals, not including the areas where denying service to homosexuals is legal?
T
TCEL
Guest
Don’t you think that is part of the deeper point of what is going on here? It’s strange to me to hear so many Catholics (excepting your present state) think that somehow the market exchange makes something acceptable. (This past Sunday’s gospel, if you didn’t hear it, was about not being able to serve both God and mammon; we serve one or the either, not both.) Speaking as an artistic person, you put yourself into what you make. The dollar is just benefit. So, making something as important as the cake, a figurehead of sorts, indeed is important. SSM (not homosexual people) is also understood to be wrong, by the Church. If you want to get really picky, I wouldn’t have a hard time providing the chairs and such. I do think it’s important to have more fleshed out legislation regarding conscience rights, though.
- market as a religious organization and only make cakes for people that fit their strict religious beliefs, or
- not sell … at all.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Even if a photography business marketed themselves as a religious organisation, I don’t see how that would stop a homosexual couple from approaching the organisation to take their photographs of their wedding, then the religious photography organisation says they can’t do that, then the homosexual couple sues.If a business truly believed photographing a wedding or baking a wedding cake could violate their religious beliefs then they should
- market as a religious organization and only make cakes for people that fit their strict religious beliefs, or
- not sell wedding supplies at all.
But these people aren’t concerned about sinfulness and weddings. They are wanting to just not serve gays who they are bigoted against.
I reccomend you read the following article:As for your "poor business practice " argument, I find it nonsense. Segregated America had no problem ignoring a huge part of the market and if a town of let’s say 99% Christian zealots and 1% gay decided not to serve gays, they aren’t really losing significant business, instead they just make it impossible for the gay person to live.
Analysis: 3 Reasons Religious Freedom Laws Are Nothing Like Jim Crow
In some areas it is legal to deny service to somebody based on their sexuality, but what business that has denied service or product for a homosexual ‘wedding’ had a history of not serving homosexuals, not including the areas where denying service to homosexuals is legal?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Even if a photography business marketed themselves as a religious organisation, I don’t see how that would stop a homosexual couple from approaching the organisation to take their photographs of their wedding, then the religious photography organisation says they can’t do that, then the homosexual couple sues.If a business truly believed photographing a wedding or baking a wedding cake could violate their religious beliefs then they should
- market as a religious organization and only make cakes for people that fit their strict religious beliefs, or
- not sell wedding supplies at all.
But these people aren’t concerned about sinfulness and weddings. They are wanting to just not serve gays who they are bigoted against.
Reccomend you read the following article:As for your "poor business practice " argument, I find it nonsense. Segregated America had no problem ignoring a huge part of the market and if a town of let’s say 99% Christian zealots and 1% gay decided not to serve gays, they aren’t really losing significant business, instead they just make it impossible for the gay person to live.
Analysis: 3 Reasons Religious Freedom Laws Are Nothing Like Jim Crow
In some areas it is legal to deny service to somebody based on their sexuality, but what business that has denied service or product for a homosexual ‘wedding’ had a history of not serving homosexuals, not including the areas where denying service to homosexuals is legal?
C
Corki
Guest
How would he know?I am opposed to homosexual “marriage”
But, I in know way can understand how you can refuse to serve someone over it.
Does the baker of the cakes refuse to make wedding cakes for Catholics marrying outside the church?
How would he know?Does the wedding photographer refuse to photograph weddings of a cohabitating couple?
Yes. In fact many bakeries do that for all kinds of cakes (not just wedding).Should people fill out a questionnaire prior to buying a cake.
If the baker knows the purpose of the celebration it is cooperation with an evil act.There is no approval or participation in evil by making a cake.
That proves nothing. Presumably the documentary photographer isn’t being paid by the “couple” or asked to help them create memories of their “special day”.There is no participation in evil by taking photographs of a gay wedding. (As can be proven by photos being taken for news or documentary purposes right?)
Yes people will make that association, wrong-headed as it is. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep fighting.So this is a fight that will not be won, it does nothing but equate people to racists and distracts from the real education on why marriage should just be between a man and woman
R
rossum
Guest
An alternative is to set up the business as a private club. Private clubs can discriminate where public businesses cannot. “Jane’s Cake Club” can discriminate on who to allow to join and only bake cakes for members. The club does not serve the public, but only members.If a business truly believed photographing a wedding or baking a wedding cake could violate their religious beliefs then they should
- market as a religious organization and only make cakes for people that fit their strict religious beliefs, or
- not sell wedding supplies at all.
In effect, Churches are private clubs: “I’m sorry sir. We don’t allow Catholics to marry here. We’re a Synagogue.” Like a private club, churches only have to serve members.
As soon as “Jane’s Cakes” becomes a business open to the public, then all the normal laws about discrimination apply. Businesses are public, not private.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-producti...0_882719645090823_1901323619_n.jpg?1393466489
$0.02
rossum
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
You should put up the URL source for that photo.An alternative is to set up the business as a private club. Private clubs can discriminate where public businesses cannot. “Jane’s Cake Club” can discriminate on who to allow to join and only bake cakes for members. The club does not serve the public, but only members.
In effect, Churches are private clubs: “I’m sorry sir. We don’t allow Catholics to marry here. We’re a Synagogue.” Like a private club, churches only have to serve members.
As soon as “Jane’s Cakes” becomes a business open to the public, then all the normal laws about discrimination apply. Businesses are public, not private.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-producti...0_882719645090823_1901323619_n.jpg?1393466489
$0.02
rossum
Are you claiming Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are like Jim Crow laws?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Not only did the Arizona Catholic conference support Arizona SB 1062, but:
latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-gay-brewer-politics-20140227,0,247193.story#ixzz2v1xBeyJMThe state’s four Roman Catholic bishops had urged people to “politely ask” the governor to sign the bill.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I just did a google search on the image. The description:You should put up the URL source for that photo.
“Four A&T College students sit in seats designated for white people at the racially segregated Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960. Greensboro News & Record photo by Jack Moebes” (learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-postwar/5.0)
The version of the image with the caption attached can be found all over several social networks. I don’t know the origins, but didn’t spend more than 15 seconds looking.
twitter.com/klvalverde/status/438183640099328000/photo/1
veooz.com/photos/GufnNg.html
facebook.com/CREDO/photos/a.121478005967.124121.6851405967/10152585224100968/?type=1&permPage=1
so on…
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I wanted to mention to you too, I used to be a professional wedding photographer. I photographed and designed albums for many weddings.You should put up the URL source for that photo.
Are you claiming Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are like Jim Crow laws?
I never once felt like I was celebrating the wedding in any way.
Even when I photographed a close friends wedding, it was a bummer because it felt more like a job than a celebration and I would have preferred to be celebrating with him rather than worrying about catching the right shots.
So if that helps you understand why I think these “celebrating sin” arguments are ridiculous, perhaps it can give you some perspective.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
That is your subjective view, other photographers may feel different. I guess that a couple can request a certain style of the way things are captured, or a photographer may be known for a certain style of photography. A wedding is a celebration of love and typically a wedding photographer captures the celebration, including the couple kissing. To ask a photographer who is opposed to homosexual ‘marriage’ or civil unions to capture that celebtration is a step too far for some photographers.I wanted to mention to you too, I used to be a professional wedding photographer. I photographed and designed albums for many weddings.
I never once felt like I was celebrating the wedding in any way.
Even when I photographed a close friends wedding, it was a bummer because it felt more like a job than a celebration and I would have preferred to be celebrating with him rather than worrying about catching the right shots.
So if that helps you understand why I think these “celebrating sin” arguments are ridiculous, perhaps it can give you some perspective.
Look at these responses to questions:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548411
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8166963
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7708748
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=32445
Bishop Tobin said in a letter:
diocesepvd.org/letter-to-catholics-on-the-approval-of-same-sex-marriage-in-riAt this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.
R
rossum
Guest
No. I am claiming that the RFRA laws are effectively allowing what was once private behaviour to be legal in public as well. Under RFRA, any Muslim shopkeeper could enforce Sharia law in his shop: “No women served unless wearing an abaya and hijab.”Are you claiming Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are like Jim Crow laws?
As a side effect it would allow members of Aryan Nation churches to return to “No Blacks Served”, or Bob Jones University to return to its ban on inter-racial dating.
Effectively it allows private prejudices and behaviours to be legal in public. Many things that are allowable in private are not generally allowed in public. There is a sect of Jains known as “sky-clad”, whose monks do not wear clothes (at least inside their monasteries). Would you want that behaviour made legal in public because it is religious?
These laws blur the distinction between public and private. That is where they can create problems.
rossum
L
Lokadottir
Guest
#naked Wiccans everywhereNo. I am claiming that the RFRA laws are effectively allowing what was once private behaviour to be legal in public as well. Under RFRA, any Muslim shopkeeper could enforce Sharia law in his shop: “No women served unless wearing an abaya and hijab.”
As a side effect it would allow members of Aryan Nation churches to return to “No Blacks Served”, or Bob Jones University to return to its ban on inter-racial dating.
Effectively it allows private prejudices and behaviours to be legal in public. Many things that are allowable in private are not generally allowed in public. There is a sect of Jains known as “sky-clad”, whose monks do not wear clothes (at least inside their monasteries). Would you want that behaviour made legal in public because it is religious?
These laws blur the distinction between public and private. That is where they can create problems.
rossum
- Status
- Not open for further replies.