Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[Lokadottir]

So this law is supposed to be about conscientious objections. The first religion to receive this was Quakers and here is out one had to say:
flowerhorne.com/2013/11/26/get-your-fake-conscience-objections-off-my-lawn/
I leave a link because I cannot do it justice myself.

 

[sallybutler]

You apparently still don’t understand the issue. You have the state compelling people who are Christian, by force of law, to provide goods and services against their conscience.

How many doesn’t matter. Truth is not told by popular opinion.

No different than those being forced under Obamacare to cover and dispense ABC and abortifacients against their will.

Depends upon which or how many of their friends the gay couple tells. Scandal is not limited to believers alone.

Did the government force the person to become a baker and provide a service to the public? If the answer is yes, then that is a problem. However, if the baker, of their own volition, chose get a government issued business license, buy equipment, follow all the local govermental rules regarding health safety and building codes, accounting procedures, taxes, etc, then they were agreeing to obey the laws regarding business. They don’t get to pick and choose which laws/regulations/standards they want to follow.

If a person feels that they can not fulfill their spiritual obligations doing their job they should find a different profession.

 

[TCEL]

I think it’s important for all Catholics to realize that many gay lobbyists themselves are making this about denying conscience rights, using the argument that it’s about following the law. (Man-made laws, of course.) They (not all) are drawing connections between refusing a cake and not providing contraceptives. In other words, there’s a connection here to what’s going on with the HHS Mandate. Those who have eyes to see, ought to, I think.

People from all across the country would face very real harm if corporations get a license to discriminate under the guise of religious liberty. LGBT people could be turned away at hotels and restaurants, women could be denied access to birth control, people with HIV or AIDS could be denied health care, single mothers could be denied bank loans, and children could be prevented from getting immunizations.
LGBT, HIV, and Women’s Groups Speak Out Against Efforts to Let Corporations Discriminate: 50 Groups Issue Statement Against Extreme Agenda in State Bills and U.S. Supreme Court Case that Would Let Corporations Pick and Choose Laws to Obey

Of course, what keeps getting lost in all this is a mistaken understanding of conscience rights. That, or the refusal to understand what we are saying. People are talking past each other, intent only on making their own points. What I understand the point to be is this: you aren’t discriminating against an action, but a person. But, I myself know that is not the case. (It’s like a non-Catholic insisting I worship Mary.)

I think it’s ironic that for so long, the American people have been known for championing individual conscience.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You apparently still don’t understand the issue. You have the state compelling people who are Christian, by force of law, to provide goods and services against their conscience.

How many doesn’t matter. Truth is not told by popular opinion.

No different than those being forced under Obamacare to cover and dispense ABC and abortifacients against their will.

Depends upon which or how many of their friends the gay couple tells. Scandal is not limited to believers alone.

No my friend you are the one who just doesn’t get it.

The state is compelling no one to be gay wedding cake makers.

They are compelling no one to be a part of the marriage industry at all.

They can work wherever they want…perhaps they would better work for the Church or as a cook in a prison or children’s home or hospital.

They want to make cakes, then they have to make a cake for anyone that orders one. You can’t say I don’t like that its going to be used at a gay wedding, or a Muslim ceremony, or a Bahmitsva (sp), or a Political campaign, or a anything else.

Someone comes in, respectfully and orders something from your catalog … you sell it…end of story.

If you have a consciense objection to it then you can work elsewhere.

OF COURSE NO ONE IS COMPLAINING INCLUDING THE BAKER THAT HE IS COMPLICIT IN THE SIN OF MAKING CAKES FOR SECOND THIRD AND FOURTH MARRIAGES, OR FOR CATHOLICS MARRYING OUTSIDE THE CHURCH!!!

HE will make those cakes all day long, and if he really believed that he was complicit in the sins of the person he makes a cake for, he would have a very stringent morality questionnaire before selling a cake to anybody.

If you truly believe that “religious freedom” laws should be as you describe…A system where someone can refuse service based on religious objections of the person trying to obtain service,

Than I am sure you are very supportive of the laws in places like IRAN where everyone refuses service to Christians, and denies them services based on the fact that their religion prohibits it.

Are you ok with that.

If the majority opinion of the United States became some sort of religion that believed they needed to not serve Christians, you would be perfectly fine with it. You would be fine with being forced to go underground and/or find your own services because 9 out 10 places would not serve you?

Please, at least be consistent in your arguments. If you in fact believe that the baker has a right to refuse service based on a religious objection…then you believe that in a different time and place what I describe is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What would you say if the owner of a restaurant said serving black people was against his conscience? What about if an owner could not serve women not wearing a hijab? Does this apply to all “faiths” or just mainstream Christianity? That’s the problem with these rules you guys make up. You forget they have to apply to all faiths equally. If you use tax dollars to put a religious statue on private land that’s fine, but you need to be OK with it if a hundred other faiths do the same thing.

I think the main problem is Christians want the law to protect them and them alone. Ask any Conservative Christian how they feel about the law protecting the conscience rights of Fundamentalist Muslims.

I may disagree with your opinions, but this was funny. Like really funny. I was reading it at work and had to fight from LOLing at the idea of Jesus congratulating them on a good haul.

I would ask you and everyone who agrees that baking a cake for a gay wedding is a sin a question: Which jobs, exactly, are sinful in regards to a gay wedding? Obviously the couple getting married and the officiant are the Big Three, but what about

Musicians?
The place renting out the location for the ceremony?
The place renting out the location for the reception?
We know the people who BAKE the cake and COOK the food are big huge sinners, but what about the poor souls who get paid minimum wage to hand out the food? Are they sinning?
What about the busboys who clean up the plates? Are they “celebrating” this ceremony enough to be sinning as well?
Or the guy in the kitchen who washes the dishes? What about him? Is he sinning?
Or how about the guy who sweeps up after everybody has left?
What about the electricity company that supplies the venue with electricity, or the water company which supplies them with water?
If the lady who owns the bakery takes the order, but has someone else at the bakery actually bake the cake and decorate it, which one is guilty of the sin? Or are they both guilty?
What if one person bakes the cake and another person decorates it? Do we now have 3 people guilty of sin?

At what point does it stop being “I’m celebrating with the couple” and start being “I’m getting paid to do stuff”?

I think the Catholic Church needs to write a new Encyclical, “Malum Pistoria” (The Evil of Baking) which explains exactly what jobs one is allowed to do regarding a gay marriage and which are sinful. Also, are they mortal sins or venial sins? Of course BAKING the cake is a huge mortal sin, but maybe the person who keeps the little sterno cans lit is just guilty of a venial sin.

Are you guys starting to realize how silly this is?

Now that is LOL worthy! Well Said! I can’t wait to read Malum Pistoria I know if it was written today, most of the posters on this board would be nothing but confronted with their bigotry, and then there would be a number of people again wondering if the pope was apostate for writing against bigotry.

It would be something worth seeing!

Nice response!

 

[Kevin_B]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says a store owner cannot discriminate. They own a public business. They must serve whoever walks in the door.

You are asking for some people to be exempt from this law for religious reasons.

My faith says paying taxes is immoral, even though the law says I have to. Therefore, I am asking to be exempt from this law for religious reasons.

What say you? Are we both granted exemptions from the law to appease our conscience? Out do you only support conscience rights for members of your own faith?

 

[TCEL]

This reminds me of the dispute over food offered to idols in the early Church; while not the same, there are some similarities. Just last night, we were studying it in 1 Corinthians.

The Corinthians, very logically, said they should be able to eat meat offered to idols because the idols weren’t real; therefore, it’s just meat. St. Paul said at first, that this is correct. But then he goes on to mention scandal, and that the true purpose of liberty exists for the sake of love and the Lord, and building up, not puffing up. He continues to say that idols are demons, and food offered to them is in fact offered to demons. “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the cup of demons.” 1 Cor. 10:21

Now, I am not calling people who want cakes demons. I certainly don’t know their heart! But, to willingly contribute to something the Church calls a grave evil, can’t be a good thing for either myself or the Body of Christ. Incidentally, the first council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem, called on people to abstain from that which is sacrificed to idols.

Since society is implicitly rejecting Christian values, some people take a stand.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This reminds me of the dispute over food offered to idols in the early Church; while not the same, there are some similarities. Just last night, we were studying it in 1 Corinthians.

The Corinthians, very logically, said they should be able to eat meat offered to idols because the idols weren’t real; therefore, it’s just meat. St. Paul said at first, that this is correct. But then he goes on to mention scandal, and that the true purpose of liberty exists for the sake of love and the Lord, and building up, not puffing up. He continues to say that idols are demons, and food offered to them is in fact offered to demons. “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the cup of demons.” 1 Cor. 10:21

Now, I am not calling people who want cakes demons. I certainly don’t know their heart! But, to willingly contribute to something the Church calls a grave evil, can’t be a good thing for either myself or the Body of Christ. Incidentally, the first council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem, called on people to abstain from that which is sacrificed to idols.

Since society is implicitly rejecting Christian values, some people take a stand.

So would Paul have told the meat market guy in his congregation to refuse to sell meat to someone who will use it for idolatry?

No one here is saying going to a gay wedding and eating the cake is scandalous. It is.

But selling a cake in the marketplace…or in Paul’s case meat is not scandalous.

If it was not sin but scandal to actually eat the meat it certainly is not scandalous to sell meat to someone.

I’d love to hear an answer to whether you believe the same laws should exist regarding denying service to Christians in a predominately Muslim country?

 

[Elizium23]

And once again our interlocutors are trying to make this about people and not actions.

This is about homosexual “marriage” and other depraved activities. Abyssinia chose a poor title for the thread. Please stop calling in similarities to the Civil Rights struggle, racial discrimination, and other red herrings. Clearly the distinction between sinners and sins is lost on you, but that doesn’t mean you get to make an invalid argument here because you can’t understand the premise. Please stick to the topic at hand.

 

[TCEL]

So would Paul have told the meat market guy in his congregation to refuse to sell meat to someone who will use it for idolatry?

No one here is saying going to a gay wedding and eating the cake is scandalous. It is.

But selling a cake in the marketplace…or in Paul’s case meat is not scandalous.

If it was not sin but scandal to actually eat the meat it certainly is not scandalous to sell meat to someone.

I’d love to hear an answer to whether you believe the same laws should exist regarding denying service to Christians in a predominately Muslim country?

I do not know what St. Paul would have said.

Hypothetical. If you are aware a product you are making is directly solicited for and involved in something that, as far as you are aware, displeases God, what would you do?

I think conscience is an important thing. Are they denying Christians service because they are Christian, or because of the activity they are participating in? As a Christian, I would also argue the superiority of Christian values over Muslim ones, too. Wouldn’t you?

 

[Lokadottir]

And once again our interlocutors are trying to make this about people and not actions.

This is about homosexual “marriage” and other depraved activities. Abyssinia chose a poor title for the thread. Please stop calling in similarities to the Civil Rights struggle, racial discrimination, and other red herrings. Clearly the distinction between sinners and sins is lost on you, but that doesn’t mean you get to make an invalid argument here because you can’t understand the premise. Please stick to the topic at hand.

I challenge you to make legislation that only gives the right to refuse service on the basis of actions you find objectionable on the grounds of religion. If you did it is literally a law only about religious “freedom” regarding making a cake (or some other service) for a gay marriage.
Or you end up with a broader law and then the problems of discrimination that have already been pointed out emerge.
Also since we are going to make this about marriage… what if someone has a religious objection to an interracial couple getting married? It’s not about the people right? Its the act!

 

[Jon_S_1]

And once again our interlocutors are trying to make this about people and not actions.

This is about homosexual “marriage” and other depraved activities. Abyssinia chose a poor title for the thread. Please stop calling in similarities to the Civil Rights struggle, racial discrimination, and other red herrings. Clearly the distinction between sinners and sins is lost on you, but that doesn’t mean you get to make an invalid argument here because you can’t understand the premise. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Not sure if this is directed at me, but if so, I am on the topic at hand of "refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances (wedding cakes).

Further please respond to if you support:

“Christians in Iran being refused service at establishments based on the religious convictions of the majority of Iranians”

 

[Lokadottir]

I would also argue the superiority of Christian values over Muslim ones, too. Wouldn’t you?

I wouldn’t argue that for any belief system. Especially since it would be awkward if on the last day Mohamed came and I had to apologize to my once Muslim friend about converting them.

 

[TCEL]

I wouldn’t argue that for any belief system. Especially since it would be awkward if on the last day Mohamed came and I had to apologize to my once Muslim friend about converting them.

I would love to follow-up on this, but unfortunately, it would be off-topic.

 

[Lokadottir]

I would love to follow-up on this, but unfortunately, it would be off-topic.

Make a thread. I’ll come.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I do not know what St. Paul would have said.

Hypothetical. If you are aware a product you are making is directly solicited for and involved in something that, as far as you are aware, displeases God, what would you do?

I think conscience is an important thing. Are they denying Christians service because they are Christian, or because of the activity they are participating in? As a Christian, I would also argue the superiority of Christian values over Muslim ones, too. Wouldn’t you?

I certainly would argue the superiority of Christian values. But that is beside the point.

You seem to be missing the fact that America is not a theocracy. What makes America great is that everyone can live in freedom.

The gay couple can shop at any store.

And you can choose to engage in any form of commerce you like.

If it truly violates the bakers conscience to sell wedding cakes to gay couples then he is free to stop selling wedding cakes.

If a racist refused to sell wedding supplies based on a perceived sinfulness of interracial marriage then he is free to get out of that business.

I hope that your outrage at the baker being forced to bake a cake celebrating the gay sin is just as equal for the thousands of catholic bakers baking cakes for the sinful second and third marriages of 35% of their customers.

Right?!

 

[TCEL]

I certainly would argue the superiority of Christian values. But that is beside the point.

You seem to be missing the fact that America is not a theocracy. What makes America great is that everyone can live in freedom.

The gay couple can shop at any store.

And you can choose to engage in any form of commerce you like.

If it truly violates the bakers conscience to sell wedding cakes to gay couples then he is free to stop selling wedding cakes.

If a racist refused to sell wedding supplies based on a perceived sinfulness of interracial marriage then he is free to get out of that business.

I hope that your outrage at the baker being forced to bake a cake celebrating the gay sin is just as equal for the thousands of catholic bakers baking cakes for the sinful second and third marriages of 35% of their customers.

Right?!

I’m not outraged.

This description of freedom sounds more like “Don’t like an abortion, don’t have one.” And yet, here’s the HHS Mandate.

Also, I think there’s a strong case against SSM. Not so with inter-racial marriage. (Probably using the same reasoning that I think abortion is wrong–it’s denying a basic right. SSM advocates are already equal with us under the law, and in the eyes of God.)

Those are my reasons, and I can’t go more into them without getting too far afield of the topic on what measures we can take to protect religious conscience in the marketplace. I don’t think it’s a good thing to push Christian values further out of the market, which is what people are asking for.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m not outraged.

This description of freedom sounds more like “Don’t like an abortion, don’t have one.” And yet, here’s the HHS Mandate.

Also, I think there’s a strong case against SSM. Not so with inter-racial marriage. (Probably using the same reasoning that I think abortion is wrong–it’s denying a basic right. SSM advocates are already equal with us under the law, and in the eyes of God.)

Those are my reasons, and I can’t go more into them without getting too far afield of the topic on what measures we can take to protect religious conscience in the marketplace. I don’t think it’s a good thing to push Christian values further out of the market, which is what people are asking for.

You need to better understand how the law works in this country IMO.

This is nothing like…“don’t like abortion don’t have one”.

It is more like, “don’t like dispensing contraceptives than don’t be a pharmacist in a secular marketplace”

No one seems to like my question of why it’s ok for the baker to bake a cake for a second or third marriage, or for Catholics marrying outside the church.

guess it doesn’t fit into your program…you only find certain sins a problem.

 

[TCEL]

No one seems to like my question of why it’s ok for the baker to bake a cake for a second or third marriage, or for Catholics marrying outside the church.

guess it doesn’t fit into your program…you only find certain sins a problem.

This simply isn’t true.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This simply isn’t true.

What’s not true?

Are you or are you or are you not trying to educate catholic bakers about the sinfulness of them providing cakes to second marriages, and the scandal it creates ?