Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[meme1961]

So if someone orders 100 chairs and tables from my party rental business and my workers go out and set it up and come back and tell me it was for a gay wedding, I should send them back to remove the chairs so I don’t sin.

Really?

Are you not aware of the requirements for sin? It requires knowledge, will and intent.

In your example, the business did not know what it was catering to until after the fact.

C’mon people. A baker is not celebrating every wedding he bakes a cake for. That’s ridiculous.

Really?

So a man who sells ammunition to another, knowing that that ammunition is going to be used to commit a murder is not in any way morally liable for the act of selling said ammunition?

The baker does not need to be celebrating to be morally complicit, he just needs to knowingly take part.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Are you not aware of the requirements for sin? It requires knowledge, will and intent.

In your example, the business did not know what it was catering to until after the fact.

Really?

So a man who sells ammunition to another, knowing that that ammunition is going to be used to commit a murder is not in any way morally liable for the act of selling said ammunition?

The baker does not need to be celebrating to be morally complicit, he just needs to knowingly take part.

Please tell me how the cake is going to be used for sinful purposes in the same way ammo a murder.

I am not familiar with gay sexual activities…is cake somehow involved?

 

[meme1961]

Do you really believe graphic designers agree and/or endorse all of the companies and organizations they design for?

Of course not. I think it would be ludicrous for a graphic designer to behave in the way you described.

What gives you the right to hold that belief? And why should anybody allow you to hold that belief?

As long as they are not making obscene signs they should do it.

So a baker has the right to refuse to make a cake that he views as obscene? Say, a cake that celebrates two mortal sins: the giving of scandal, and homosexuality?

And if they advertise “Custom signs made here” they should make them.

They should make them, even if a particular request is viewed as obscene by the maker?

But, above, you listed an exception for obscenity. Why should obscenity be an exception?

 

[meme1961]

No I do not believe they should be forced to comply.

Why not? The Little Sisters are not being required to engage in sex using contraception, nor are they being required to have abortions, so why not?

that is very different then selling cakes to the public though.

Different how? The Little Sisters refuse to be complicit in a moral evil. The baker is refusing to be complicit in a moral evil. What’s the difference?

 

[meme1961]

There is an interesting equivocation in gay debate. On one hand gays think they should be allowed to get married because of “Freedom of Religion”.

On the other hand, someone can’t use their religion to refuse service to gays who are getting married.

Apparently some civil rights are more equal than others…

It’s exactly the same civil right, so I’d contend your last sentence should be: “Apparently a homosexual’s rights are more important that the First Amendment rights of others.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Answer this (I noticed all your answers ignored it )

Is it a sin of scandal for a baker to bake a cake for a second or third marriage?

Is it a sin of scandal for a baker to bake a cake for Catholics marrying outside the church?

If so,

Provide ONE, even just ONE example of it occurring. (Good luck)

Still waiting!!..

Of course I will be waiting a while because you see no problem with a baker providing a cake for such ceremonies and it completely destroys your arguments.

 

[meme1961]

And so I am certain that you would not advocate laws against someone who, on religious grounds as defined in their religious documents ;

Married more than one woman
Performed Female Genital mutilation
Sacrificed Cats and Dogs
Sacrificed humans
Performed a Suicide ritual
Gang raped
Denied service to Black people.

Yes?

If not, why are people restricted in some aspects of those types of religious beliefs ?

What is the difference between objecting to the existence of someone, versus objecting to one of their actions?

Is denying service to a person because they are black based in an objection to their actions? Is objecting to an act of rudeness by a black person a rejection of that person’s existence based on their skin color?

You, and the “civil rights” boards keep conflating two very different things. A Christian should never hold anything but love for a person, regardless of their state of being. A Christian should never hold anything but disgust and moral contempt for acts of evil, regardless of the state of being of the person who commits the act.

“Hate the sin, love the sinner”, yes?

A white person must be served the same as any other person who holds a different state of being (black, women, children, Hindus, etc.). Someone who is acting to disrupt or damage your business, environment, culture or life may be refused service, regardless of their state of being (this includes black persons, women, children, Wiccans, etc.).

 

[TCEL]

A camouflage suit materially advances the cause of the sniper. He uses it in the commission of his crime. Without it he may very well be stopped from his crime. A cake does not materially advance the illicit cause of the couple. It is used at a celebration in which no illicit sexual act is performed. The absence of a cake would not have any effect on the subsequent commission of illicit sexual acts. It is not scandalous to proved food to unrepentant sinners.

I don’t think the reluctant baker is so concerned about giving scandal as he is about making life miserable for people he finds uncomfortable.

I think this is a good argument (aside from the last sentence, which simply isn’t true in my case, for sure), but unless we start defining marriage as a friendship with no sexual involvement, I don’t see how being involved in a SSMarriage ceremony doesn’t support the concept of celebrating same-sex acts. It is not the same thing as providing food at a restaurant for a family outing. One could make the argument that providing contraceptives does not require us to be in the bedroom. In one case we are being solicited, in the other, forced to pay. Maybe that’s the important difference everyone is so upset about.

 

[meme1961]

Yes on all four. People should be able to walk into any store without having to worry about the personal hang-ups of the people working there

Why? Why do the people who work there not have a right to freely exercise their religious beliefs?

Why do you put the rights of the customer in ascendance over that of the business owner?

 

[meme1961]

What it has to do with is religious freedom is restricted when it violates the rights of another person.

Therefore, if you decide not to sell goods and services to someone, it violates their rights.

Faulty syllogism. Unpacked, your syllogism would be: “I have the right to require any person to sell anyting to me, or do what I bid. You have refused to sell me what I want, or to do as I require, therefore you are violating my right.”

There is no right to force others to sell to or provide service to you. This moral truth is enshrined in the 13th Amendment and twice over in the First Amendment to the US Constitution (free exercise and free association).

Should a business be allowed to require you to do all your business with them? If not, why not?

 

[Corki]

Answer this (I noticed all your answers ignored it )

Is it a sin of scandal for a baker to bake a cake for a second or third marriage?

Is it a sin of scandal for a baker to bake a cake for Catholics marrying outside the church?

If so,

Provide ONE, even just ONE example of it occurring. (Good luck)

It could be. But you are unlikely to find an example (of scandal) because a Catholic couple would be unlikely to go into a Catholic bakery and announce that they are entering into their third marriage and that they didn’t get any annulments **and that **their previous spouses were still all living. The sin of giving scandal has an element of public sin or public approval. In most cases, the baker wouldn’t have any idea if the couple were marrying in the Church or if they had annulments for their prior marriages. This is not the case with a couple attempting a SS"M".

 

[meme1961]

Would a militant secularist be religious?

Yes. A militant secularist is another way of saying “atheist.”

Atheism is the religion that, according to René Descartes, worships the only God the worshiper can PROVE exists.

Have you not met any of the Atheist missionaries who are now trolling the web?

Is it automatically accepted for anybody to say, ‘I am religious so can’t serve XYZ?’

No. One may not refuse service to a person based on their state of being. One may freely refuse to participate in a morally objectionable act.

So: ‘I am religious so can’t serve XYZ?’ is immoral and illegal, but '‘I am religious so can’t DO XYZ?’ is moral and by the First Amendment legal, but it may be illegal depending on the jurisdiction, as the law is not required to be coherent or rational.

 

[meme1961]

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.

Why? Why that exception? There is nothing illegal in such a cake, and such depictions are protected under the First Amendment Free Speech right, so why grant this particular exception?

Why shouldn’t a business be forced to do was the customer commands?

 

[meme1961]

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.

They have denied themselves true happiness and peace; the benefit of obedience to God’s law, and have endangered their souls, and the souls of those around them.

That is the exact opposite of improvement.

 

[meme1961]

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?

Read the 13th Amendment.

Even a draftee may invoke free exercise religious arguments to avoid those forms of military service that require the performance of immoral acts.

It is immoral to act or refuse to act on the basis of another person’s state of being. It is morally required that one not be complicit in nor perform immoral acts, regardless of another person’s state of being.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think this is a good argument (aside from the last sentence, which simply isn’t true in my case, for sure)

Sorry. It was just wild speculation on my part. I apologize.

…but unless we start defining marriage as a friendship with no sexual involvement, I don’t see how being involved in a SSMarriage ceremony doesn’t support the concept of celebrating same-sex acts.

Everything we do in a multi-cultural society as we interact with others can be taken as having some degree of tolerance or approval implied. I think it is a question of degree. Someone who takes on the role of officiating at a SS Wedding is more complicit than someone who parks cars at the event. I think baking a cake falls somewhere at the lower end of that spectrum. It doesn’t support the concept of SS acts so much as it provides a commodity service. A baker rarely bakes only wedding cakes. A wedding cake may be a little more special than a birthday cake, but its purpose is to enjoy the eating. Its purpose is not to promote SS marriage. If a cake is scandalous, then so are any other services provided to people attending the event, including mopping the floor of the hall beforehand, seeing to the heating, lighting, and air conditioning. There comes a point where withholding services is just harrassment.

 

[meme1961]

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?

No. This is the refusal to do business based on the customer’s state of being.

The Muslim must, however, be allowed to choose not to perform or be complicit in immoral ACTIONS.

It’s descrimination.

Discrimination is an unmixed good; it is the heart and soul of reason.

Baking a cake is no way sinful.

Reductio ad absurdum argument. “Shooting a gun is no way sinful.” True, but shooting a gun at an innocent human being with the intent to kill them IS sinful. Your argument fails by eliding the telos, leaving only the action.

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

Second logical fallacy: strawman argument. Nobody is refusing to bake a cake because the customer self identifies as homosexual. The refusal is to bake a cake in celebration of a homosexual “wedding”.

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 agree. But we should not bake him false “wedding cake.”

“Father, when is a piece of bread not a piece of bread?”

“When it is the body of Christ, my son.”

 

[TCEL]

Sorry. It was just wild speculation on my part. I apologize.

Everything we do in a multi-cultural society as we interact with others can be taken as having some degree of tolerance or approval implied. I think it is a question of degree. Someone who takes on the role of officiating at a SS Wedding is more complicit than someone who parks cars at the event. I think baking a cake falls somewhere at the lower end of that spectrum. It doesn’t support the concept of SS acts so much as it provides a commodity service. A baker rarely bakes only wedding cakes. A wedding cake may be a little more special than a birthday cake, but its purpose is to enjoy the eating. Its purpose is not to promote SS marriage. If a cake is scandalous, then so are any other services provided to people attending the event, including mopping the floor of the hall beforehand, seeing to the heating, lighting, and air conditioning. There comes a point where withholding services is just harrassment.

I agree with you that it is a matter of degree. I’m not a baker but I am an artistic person who puts part of myself into my custom work, so I can sympathize with seeing how a cake is more personal, particularly if a mom & pop shop is doing the service. I also know that some people agonize over details like the cake, so I do think it’s one of the more important “elements” of the wedding tradition in this country. (Maybe it depends on if its a man or woman in this specific debate about cakes. ) I agree that being a janitor or doing clean-up is not very involved because it really involves no personal “memorial” that supports what is happening, and I personally wouldn’t object to something like that. But, I don’t think it has to be all or nothing. Thanks for a thoughtful response.

 

[meme1961]

If a business truly believed photographing a wedding or baking a wedding cake could violate their religious beliefs then they should . . .

Another straw man argument. Properly stated, the question is: “Should a person who is proud and happy to bake wedding cakes to celebrate the sacrament of marriage be forced to bake a cake that defiles that sacrament, and in doing so, give scandal and participate in the celebration of mortal sin?”

Your imputation of motive (that this is a secret form of bigotry directed at homosexuals) is in itself a sin, as it falls under the category of judging another person’s heart. As Christians, we are required to judge, and in fact the Bible considers Christians the only valid judges, but we are required and competent to judge only actions, not hearts.

Final judgement (the judgement of a person’s heart and soul) is God’s, and God’s alone.

If you are so in opposition to the truth, why are you interested in becoming Catholic?

You might want to seriously consider if you have truly discerned that you should convert.

 

[meme1961]

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.

And the push to force homosexuality as normal on us reminds me a lot of the imposition of a theocracy.

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.

That’s why it is so important for Catholics, who have the truth, to teach it to others. The difference is quite clear and quite stark: it is the difference between being “against” someone for WHAT they are, versus being against the ACTIONS of a person, REGARDLESS of what they are.

My concern with allowing religious objections is that there is very little to no boundary to what may fall under religious objections.

Which is, again, why it is so important for Catholics to stand up for and teach the truth. That you cannot immediately see the difference between a state of being, versus action, is where Holy Mother Church should step in and perform her essential function of teaching.

Religious liberty should never be an excuse for taking immoral action against a person based solely on their state of being. But the right to be, does not confer on one the right to engage in every conceivable act, nor does it confer the right to force others to act against the truth.

“Homosexual marriage” is a lie, and a lie an offence against reason. To force others to promulgate that lie is a second sin.