Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[rossum]

#naked Wiccans everywhere

Only if they’re digambara (sky-clad) Wiccans. The svetembara (white-clad) Wiccans wear white.



rossum

 

[TCEL]

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.

I think it’s so interesting you can dissociate like that. It would be nice! I think it depends on the kind of service being provided. For example, I can make vestments. I was approached once by a clergy-woman wanting a chasuble. I politely declined. People thought I was being over the top. Maybe I was. I’m not convinced myself it would have been sinful. But, my instincts were uncomfortable with it. Given the liturgical (and sacramental) nature of vestments, I wouldn’t have felt comfortable providing a chasuble for that circumstance, made with my stamp on it. For a different example, someone also asked me once if a gift I gave to them could be used in a Wiccan service. I was deeply touched by this thoughtfulness, and said it was a generic gift so they could do what they wanted with it, but that I didn’t really like the thought. Of course, that’s a different thing, though. For me, if someone comes to me for a specific purpose I am explicitly made aware of, and provides money for it, that actually places more obligation on me because I’m receiving gain from it. I’m not responsible for what I don’t know, and don’t feel the need to “find out.”

 

[Jessica_Cunara]

For me, if someone comes to me for a specific purpose I am explicitly made aware of, and provides money for it, that actually places more obligation on me because I’m receiving gain from it. I’m not responsible for what I don’t know, and don’t feel the need to “find out.”

What I think is so interesting about what you’ve said is that it matters whether you know about it or try to know/not know. I would have thought logic says “Either it is wrong or it isn’t to have me/my object involved in something I would disagree with.” Why does ignorance about the circumstances excuse the outcome? It almost sounds like going out of one’s way to try and feel better about what someone has decided to do with what you make or provide. Is what you make or sell really representative of your views, and does ignorance about its purpose really make the outcome any better? I personally stand on the “My products don’t/shouldn’t reflect my stances, but if it does, ignorance about the outcome would/should not affect responsibility for the outcome.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

What I think is so interesting about what you’ve said is that it matters whether you know about it or try to know/not know. I would have thought logic says “Either it is wrong or it isn’t to have me/my object involved in something I would disagree with.” Why does ignorance about the circumstances excuse the outcome? It almost sounds like going out of one’s way to try and feel better about what someone has decided to do with what you make or provide. Is what you make or sell really representative of your views, and does ignorance about its purpose really make the outcome any better? I personally stand on the “My products don’t/shouldn’t reflect my stances, but if it does, ignorance about the outcome would/should not affect responsibility for the outcome.”

This is an interesting observation.

If you worked the check stand at Target, and a man came up to buy a tie, making small talk you say, “Oh isn’t this a sharp tie”. And he responds, “Thanks I am wearing it in my wedding with my partner of 20 years Steve.”

Do you them stop the transaction so you don’t cooperate in evil?

Can a catholic even work in a grocery store or big box store like Wal Mart? A checker has to process the purchase of contraceptives and condoms all day long.

Are they violating their conscience?

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.”

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

I presume that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act proposed in Arizona could be used as a defense for businesses who seek not to comply with Sharia law, if Sharia law expanded legally across the US.

Under RFRA, government action may still violate one’s religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a “compelling government interest” and the “least restrictive means” were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone’s religious freedom.

christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays–115093

Consider that in reference to what you say about Aryan Churches banning Blacks and Bob Jones university returning to ban interrcial dating or your example about sharia law.

Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School, was instrumental in helping get the federal RFRA passed. He points out for a Feb. 19 ScotusBlog post that RFRA was always understood to protect corporations, including for-profit corporations. The birth control mandate cases, though, demonstrate the possibility that judges may not see it that way, even though that was the intent of the legislators who passed those laws.

Second, in a case involving a wedding photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding based upon her religious beliefs, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state’s RFRA law only applies when the government is a party in the case. RFRA was never understood to mean that by the legislators who passed it, but that case demonstrated the need to make the Arizona state law more specific.

christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093

 

[rossum]

I presume that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act proposed in Arizona could be used as a defense for businesses who seek not to comply with Sharia law, if Sharia law expanded legally across the US.

No, it would prevent any such defence for either employees or customers. If a Muslim business decided to enforce elements of sharia within its premises and on its customers, the Arizona law would have supported it. If a Christian could refuse to serve customers wanting a same-sex wedding, than a Moslem could refuse to serve indecently dressed customers not wearing a hijab.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

No, it would prevent any such defence for either employees or customers. If a Muslim business decided to enforce elements of sharia within its premises and on its customers, the Arizona law would have supported it. If a Christian could refuse to serve customers wanting a same-sex wedding, than a Moslem could refuse to serve indecently dressed customers not wearing a hijab.

rossum

With the Christian in your example, your talking about refusing service for a type of ceremony. In the example of the Muslim business, the Muslim business would deny service to people because they are not wearing a veil. Considering that sharia doesn’t have much legal status in America, that may make it more difficult for such a Muslim business to claim to want to abide by sharia law. Considering what Douglas Laycock says in the Scotusblog article linked above, if a Muslim business refused to serve customers not wearing a hijab, couldn’t they have already sued for that right, using the federal RFRA? When have you read of such a lawsuit?

 

[rossum]

Considering that sharia doesn’t have much legal status in America,

Under the proposed Arizona law, sharia would have had legal status as a “sincerely held religious belief”, which was the basis for the law. Conservative Christians have sincerely held religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Conservative Muslims have sincerely held religious beliefs about how women should dress in public.

Both sincerely held religious beliefs would have had exactly the same protection under the proposed law.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

Under the proposed Arizona law, sharia would have had legal status as a “sincerely held religious belief”, which was the basis for the law. Conservative Christians have sincerely held religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Conservative Muslims have sincerely held religious beliefs about how women should dress in public.

Both sincerely held religious beliefs would have had exactly the same protection under the proposed law.

rossum

You didn’t answer my question. You are claiming that both would of had the same protection, but if a Muslim shop owner wanted to enforce sharia in his business, what is stopping that owner from appying under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that currently exists?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Under the proposed Arizona law, sharia would have had legal status as a “sincerely held religious belief”, which was the basis for the law. Conservative Christians have sincerely held religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Conservative Muslims have sincerely held religious beliefs about how women should dress in public.

Both sincerely held religious beliefs would have had exactly the same protection under the proposed law.

rossum

You didn’t answer my question so I will re word it in part. If a Muslim shop owner didn’t want to serve women who don’t dress in conform to his or her views, what is stopping that owner from from going to court and trying to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that currently exists as a defence?

 

[TCEL]

What I think is so interesting about what you’ve said is that it matters whether you know about it or try to know/not know. I would have thought logic says “Either it is wrong or it isn’t to have me/my object involved in something I would disagree with.” Why does ignorance about the circumstances excuse the outcome? It almost sounds like going out of one’s way to try and feel better about what someone has decided to do with what you make or provide. Is what you make or sell really representative of your views, and does ignorance about its purpose really make the outcome any better? I personally stand on the “My products don’t/shouldn’t reflect my stances, but if it does, ignorance about the outcome would/should not affect responsibility for the outcome.”

It depends on the product, the kind of business, the level of personal involvement, and the kind of information disclosed. And, I’m saying I don’t believe it should turn into a witch-hunt. Why does it have to be either/or? However, I still don’t see why simply making a buck from something negates our personal involvement.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I read on an article that there are 18 state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. Here is the list of states:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Acts

 

[Jessica_Cunara]

It depends [snipped]… Why does it have to be either/or?

Your comment and the issue at hand seems to provoke two questions that I see.

1. Is it wrong to sell products or provide services for something you would disagree with based on your moral standards? (I say your moral standards meaning the guidelines or rules you follow, they might not be made by you.)
2. Does knowledge of the use of what your product or service involved in affect your responsibility or reflect your moral standards?

Frankly, I see those questions as either yes or no. There really isn’t much of a grey area here. Either it is wrong to sell or provide, or it isn’t. I can see how knowledge might be a grey area because you’ve got the question of if permission is given, if you’re made aware afterward, but it still boils down to a yes or no answer. If it does affect your responsibility or reflect on you, then you are responsible for finding out where possible. If it does not, then that’s the end of it.

It’s basic logic and reason, both of the parts of this is yes or no answers, so we have at most 4 answers. No it’s not wrong, no knowledge doesn’t affect; Yes it’s wrong, no knowledge doesn’t effect; Yes it’s wrong, yes knowledge effects (making it conditional); and lastly, No it’s not wrong, yes knowledge does affect (which itself is contradictory and really makes this 3 answers).

 

[Corki]

Your comment and the issue at hand seems to provoke two questions that I see.

1. Is it wrong to sell products or provide services for something you would disagree with based on your moral standards? (I say your moral standards meaning the guidelines or rules you follow, they might not be made by you.)
2. Does knowledge of the use of what your product or service involved in affect your responsibility or reflect your moral standards?

Frankly, I see those questions as either yes or no. There really isn’t much of a grey area here. Either it is wrong to sell or provide, or it isn’t. I can see how knowledge might be a grey area because you’ve got the question of if permission is given, if you’re made aware afterward, but it still boils down to a yes or no answer. If it does affect your responsibility or reflect on you, then you are responsible for finding out where possible. If it does not, then that’s the end of it.

It’s basic logic and reason, both of the parts of this is yes or no answers, so we have at most 4 answers. No it’s not wrong, no knowledge doesn’t affect; Yes it’s wrong, no knowledge doesn’t effect; Yes it’s wrong, yes knowledge effects (making it conditional); and lastly, No it’s not wrong, yes knowledge does affect (which itself is contradictory and really makes this 3 answers).

No, it’s not a yes or no. The “products” that started this whole discussion are not just products, they are custom products. They are a product produced specifically for the purchaser and not anyone else and involve personal (name removed by moderator)ut by the seller. That’s very different than just selling a product.

Now with services, it’s easier. Yes, it’s wrong to provide services for a sinful endeavor. Knowledge doesn’t make it more or less wrong, it just lessens (or enhances) culpability.

 

[TCEL]

Your comment and the issue at hand seems to provoke two questions that I see.

1. Is it wrong to sell products or provide services for something you would disagree with based on your moral standards? (I say your moral standards meaning the guidelines or rules you follow, they might not be made by you.)
2. Does knowledge of the use of what your product or service involved in affect your responsibility or reflect your moral standards?

Frankly, I see those questions as either yes or no. There really isn’t much of a grey area here. Either it is wrong to sell or provide, or it isn’t. I can see how knowledge might be a grey area because you’ve got the question of if permission is given, if you’re made aware afterward, but it still boils down to a yes or no answer. If it does affect your responsibility or reflect on you, then you are responsible for finding out where possible. If it does not, then that’s the end of it.

It’s basic logic and reason, both of the parts of this is yes or no answers, so we have at most 4 answers. No it’s not wrong, no knowledge doesn’t affect; Yes it’s wrong, no knowledge doesn’t effect; Yes it’s wrong, yes knowledge effects (making it conditional); and lastly, No it’s not wrong, yes knowledge does affect (which itself is contradictory and really makes this 3 answers).

Those are fair questions. I think Corki did a good job of answering them.

I think this article regarding property rights and conscience might help the discussion. It illustrates some of the nuances using a hypothetical example with PDA in a strip-club versus an Orthodox Jewish nursery.

What’s at Stake at the Bakery: How Property Rights Got Sexy

 

[Jessica_Cunara]

No, it’s not a yes or no. The “products” that started this whole discussion are not just products, they are custom products. They are a product produced specifically for the purchaser and not anyone else and involve personal (name removed by moderator)ut by the seller. That’s very different than just selling a product.

Now with services, it’s easier. Yes, it’s wrong to provide services for a sinful endeavor. Knowledge doesn’t make it more or less wrong, it just lessens (or enhances) culpability.

This is where I say you’re overcomplicating something for the sake of your own preferences on how to act on your morals.
A specially made product for someone is still exactly that, a product. A custom car being manufactured is still a car, a custom cake is still a cake. Trying to say that it’s custom made changes nothing other than the limited number of times you’ll make that particular variety or design.
Services it is easier because it’s plain and simple. If you run a cleaning service, there is zero difference between cleaning up after a religious gathering and cleaning up after a non-religious one, such as the frequently mentioned gay marriage). You aren’t participating in the ceremony as a photographer, you’re there to do a job, which is taking pictures, which happens to be of a group that disagrees with your own moral standards. When anyone looks at a picture a year from when it’s taken, do you genuinely think people go “Oh, this person took these pictures because they support this event.”? That’s equivalent to saying that the photographers in malls and the like support all the varying people that come in, from gay people to tattooed people to pierced people to cosplaying people. The first three at the very least you can agree are frowned upon in the bible, and frankly, I see much more emphasis over the gay clientele than tattoo or piercings. If you’re going to discriminate based on gay clientele over freedom of religion, you might as well go ahead and act on the mixing of fabrics or any number of other listed religious objections.

The issue that I see, and as others have pointed out, is that the moment you open up the opportunity to discriminate based on your religious objections is the moment that anything and everything mentioned in varying texts can be discriminated against. There’s been examples of Islamic rules, we have Judaic rules from Deuteronomy onward, and an innumerable amount of other rules that can be acted upon. Frankly put, I would think that God is more merciful and understanding than humans are, and if we’re capable of understanding that we may need to perform services or create products for those we do not agree with, I would certainly think that God would be merciful in judgment and understand needing to operate in the bounds of the law of the countries we live in, especially with him determining how our countries rules are. If it’s truly that important to him to have us not be involved, then laws won’t be in place that require us to be open to being involved in some fashion.

 

[TCEL]

The issue that I see, and as others have pointed out, is that the moment you open up the opportunity to discriminate based on your religious objections is the moment that anything and everything mentioned in varying texts can be discriminated against. There’s been examples of Islamic rules, we have Judaic rules from Deuteronomy onward, and an innumerable amount of other rules that can be acted upon. Frankly put, I would think that God is more merciful and understanding than humans are, and if we’re capable of understanding that we may need to perform services or create products for those we do not agree with, I would certainly think that God would be merciful in judgment and understand needing to operate in the bounds of the law of the countries we live in, especially with him determining how our countries rules are. If it’s truly that important to him to have us not be involved, then laws won’t be in place that require us to be open to being involved in some fashion.

We are making distinctions between people, and activities. Wouldn’t you object if you knew your services or products were being used by Nazis specifically to kill Jews? I’m using an extreme example to make a point. While you may or may not consider SSM wrong, and I certainly don’t think of it in the context of Nazis, I still believe it is wrong.

Conscience and the Right to Refuse Service

 

[Jessica_Cunara]

We are making distinctions between people, and activities. Wouldn’t you object if you knew your services or products were being used by Nazis specifically to kill Jews? I’m using an extreme example to make a point. While you may or may not consider SSM wrong, and I certainly don’t think of it in the context of Nazis, I still believe it is wrong.

Conscience and the Right to Refuse Service

There is no distinction between people and activities because you are not those people or those activities. Because you make or produce something for a group or event, doesn’t mean that you are suddenly a part of that group. Making a cake for a wedding doesn’t mean that you’re automatically a part of the wedding group. You’re not going to be included in the wedding photos or the dance by default.

To directly answer your question, I’ll assume for the sake of brevity that I’m making services or products that have the capacity to kill, let’s use the example of a hunting store. I will answer immediately the answer is no. The products in a hunting store are specifically geared for hunting and the ability to kill, albeit not people normally. It is my responsibility to make sure that they are capable of making good decisions regarding the ownership of their weapon, whether its a bow and arrows or gun and bullet, but how they use it is on their head after I’ve made my due diligence. Before you try and claim that you should ‘due dilligence’ regarding the products for a gay marriage, I’ll say that most people don’t need a test to use a cake properly, it is going to be eaten 9 times out of 10, the last time being smeared on a baby’s face because people think it’s adorable.
Unless your cake or photos or whatever involvement you have in someone else’s event is directly related to sex (i.e. having cake placed on/in unmentionables), then its not your responsibility. Let God be the one to judge here and let’s focus more on our own lives and behavior. Denying a cake over someone else’s sin/behavior is trying to remove the speck from their eye while leaving the log in your own.

 

[Amandil]

There is no distinction between people and activities because you are not those people or those activities. Because you make or produce something for a group or event, doesn’t mean that you are suddenly a part of that group. Making a cake for a wedding doesn’t mean that you’re automatically a part of the wedding group. You’re not going to be included in the wedding photos or the dance by default.

To directly answer your question, I’ll assume for the sake of brevity that I’m making services or products that have the capacity to kill, let’s use the example of a hunting store. I will answer immediately the answer is no. The products in a hunting store are specifically geared for hunting and the ability to kill, albeit not people normally. It is my responsibility to make sure that they are capable of making good decisions regarding the ownership of their weapon, whether its a bow and arrows or gun and bullet, but how they use it is on their head after I’ve made my due diligence. Before you try and claim that you should ‘due dilligence’ regarding the products for a gay marriage, I’ll say that most people don’t need a test to use a cake properly, it is going to be eaten 9 times out of 10, the last time being smeared on a baby’s face because people think it’s adorable.
Unless your cake or photos or whatever involvement you have in someone else’s event is directly related to sex (i.e. having cake placed on/in unmentionables), then its not your responsibility. Let God be the one to judge here and let’s focus more on our own lives and behavior. Denying a cake over someone else’s sin/behavior is trying to remove the speck from their eye while leaving the log in your own.

The fact that you tolerate a sin means by that very act you condone it. The whole notion of tolerance is directed towards the good; you tolerate lesser goods for the sake of greater goods. You don’t tolerate things which are objectively evil and immoral.

Baking a cake for a gay “wedding”(as if they could actually be married) is what is called material cooperation with evil. Like when you give money to Planned Parenthood or politicians who support abortion. While you don’t commit those sins personally you do give material support, and therefore approval, for others to commit those sins by using that support.

By forcing bakers to bake cakes for these sham ceremonies against their conscience your forcing them to commit this sin against their will.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose I’m a congregants of Westboro Baptist and I’m getting married. So I look specifically for a bake shop owned by a gay/lesbian baker. And I require them to bake a cake for my wedding.

**And I require this cake to be decorated with the most inflammatory and incindiary anti-gay imagery that I could think of. **

Are you going to argue that that baker HAS to bake that cake?

I doubt it.

With God there is no middle-ground in regards to sin.

 

[Elizium23]

The fact that you tolerate a sin means by that very act you condone it. The whole notion of tolerance is directed towards the good; you tolerate lesser goods for the sake of greater goods. You don’t tolerate things which are objectively evil and immoral.

No, I disagree. The Masked Chicken in Fr. Z’s blog made a very good point about toleration being always directed toward evil. “You tolerate an evil, and you accept a good.”

I do not have a car. When people give me rides, I tolerate distracted driving. But I frequently make my displeasure known, so it is understood that I do not accept their behavior. If I did not tolerate this at all, then I would demand they stop the car, and get out and walk.

At first homosexuals admitted their behavior was bad. They asked for tolerance. They were given tolerance but it was not enough. They demand acceptance now. Tolerance was possible but it is impossible to accept an evil such as this. It is ironic because they will not accept or tolerate the Church, or Christians, the pro-life movement, or many of the things that oppose them, yet every hint of this opposition is met with cries of “hater!” and “bully!” in an astounding show of hypocrisy.