Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[rossum]

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

Is there a Catholic rule that forces people to work in a cake shop? If you don’t like the work then do something else.

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

Because the business owner is offering a service to the public. If you want to exclude gays from your customers, then set up a private club: Pat’s Cake Club. Only serve cakes to members of the club and carefully vet everyone who wants to be a member. That is perfectly legal.

There is a lot of well established law that a business serving the public must serve the public. If serving the public is against your religion, then you have to find a different job.

rossum

 

[meme1961]

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.

Businesses are not public. I suspect you accidentally conflated the terms “public accommodation” with “public”. English is a hard language to use when one wishes to make reasoned arguments that are true to fact.

The laws about “discrimination” (a false term, hence the quotes) are not applicable here, because said laws are directed at preventing one person from acting in reference to another person’s state of being.

What is under discussion here is refusing to take part in an immoral action.

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

Now you are just being offensive.

Your shot gun blast here is not furthering your cause. Why don’t you pick a topic and stick to it.

Seriously you think I should not become catholic because I think a person who decides to do a wedding business in a secular society should have to perform said business to any member of the public who seeks the service provided?

That’s odd.

To clear things up for you smart guy,

I am 100% behind the teachings of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

I am 100% against redefining marriage

I am 100% against homosexual acts which are “intrinsically disordered” and “grave matter”

I am also 100% against heterosexual acts far more prevalent in society such as sex outside marriage, cohabitation, adultery, etc… All grave matter.

I am 100% against the epidemic of pornography and masturbstion that has completely destroyed our culture.

If I am not in line with the Catholic Church , show your brother his fault, catechism references about providing food for a commitment ceremony would be appreciated.

It seems you give much more weight to the “same sex wedding” than I do. I see it as no marriage at all. You seen to see it as a legitimate marriage of some sort.

The war to fight is on the items above, not in providing cake from your catalogue to someone who takes it and does who cares what with

 

[meme1961]

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.

Is there anything that is legal, but that you find morally objectionable?

If so, would your attitude about taking pictures of that act be “it’s just a job, I’m not involved in any way?”

If you are not involved in anyway, then why care about getting the right shots? What makes a shot the “right” shot?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Businesses are not public. I suspect you accidentally conflated the terms “public accommodation” with “public”. English is a hard language to use when one wishes to make reasoned arguments that are true to fact.

The laws about “discrimination” (a false term, hence the quotes) are not applicable here, because said laws are directed at preventing one person from acting in reference to another person’s state of being.

What is under discussion here is refusing to take part in an immoral action.

What immoral action??

 

[Corki]

EXACTLY!

A gay marriage ceremony is in no way sinful. No more than two gay people meeting for a Lions club meeting. It is a commitment ceremony.

The immoral act is not being best friends, or committed to each other, or loving each other or living together or combining bank accounts.

The sinful act is sodomy and other sexual acts. So if they ask the baker to make an edible underwear cake then your right.

Otherwise it is just food for a ceremony that means nothing from our perspective.

Scandal would be in attending not catering.

This is where you are going wrong. Homosexual relationships are sinful. Full stop. It is immoral for a homosexual couple to have a “commitment ceremony”, to live together as a couple and/or to set up a joint household. The sinfulness of acting on homosexuality is not confined to what a couple may or may not do in bed. Yes, sodomy is a sinful act but it’s not the** only** sinful act.

Otherwise it is just food for a ceremony that means nothing from our perspective.

It’s a little more than that. From “our prospective” the ceremony is sinful both because it is an immoral act in itself and because it creates a mockery of what we hold to be sacred, marriage.

 

[meme1961]

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.”

And rightfully so, as businesses are not public.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service.”

Clearly illegal, by your argument.

A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, so long as such refusal is based in action, not a person’s state of being.

The Muslim shopkeeper is not refusing service to a woman because she is a woman, he is refusing service to an indecently dressed woman.

There are many restaurants, in many places, that will refuse service to a woman dressed in a string bikini. Not because she is a woman, but because her attire is indecent.

Americans have the right to freely associate, to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and to refuse to involuntary servitude.

Subjects of a Monarch may have yet to avail themselves of these God-given rights, of course.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is where you are going wrong. Homosexual relationships are sinful. Full stop. It is immoral for a homosexual couple to have a “commitment ceremony”, to live together as a couple and/or to set up a joint household. The sinfulness of acting on homosexuality is not confined to what a couple may or may not do in bed. Yes, sodomy is a sinful act but it’s not the** only** sinful act.

It’s a little more than that. From “our prospective” the ceremony is sinful both because it is an immoral act in itself and because it creates a mockery of what we hold to be sacred, marriage.

No it is not sinful.

I suggest you read about St Basil and St Athanasius. I will try to find some quotes Later but reading it makes us uncomfortable because of how sexualized we are.

Same sex cohabitation and commitment is not sinful. In fact it used to be widely blessed in sacred rite by the church.

Of course I speak of a completely chaste relationship.

 

[meme1961]

Why does ignorance about the circumstances excuse the outcome?

Moral liability. If I sell you a gun, and you use it to commit murder, I have no moral liability.

If you tell me that you wish to purchase a gun in order to commit a murder, I must refuse to sell it to you, or face both moral liability (for being complicit in an immoral act) and legally liable (felony murder rules would apply to this situation).

The nice thing about being Catholic is that Catholicism is a religion of both faith and reason. As such, we are given the tools to reason out these kinds of things. The basis for answering this question can be found in the Catechism. I would encourage every Christian to study the Catechism.

 

[meme1961]

Is there a Catholic rule that forces people to work in a cake shop? If you don’t like the work then do something else.

Where do you get the right to order other people’s lives? Their choice of profession is their’s to make, and their’s alone. Your statement goes against the 13th Amendment.

Because the business owner is offering a service to the public.

But is not required to do so unconditionally and unequivocally. A business owner or employee still has rights, including the right to refuse service to any person whose actions are offensive to the business owner.

There is a lot of well established law that a business serving the public must serve the public.

There are two mistakes in that statement: no such law is valid if its enforcement violates the First Amendment. The second is that your statement is over broad to the point of absurdity. A business owner is a human being, with rights, and therefore has the right to refuse service to those whose actions are offensive, disruptive, or damaging to the business.

If serving the public is against your religion, then you have to find a different job.

Seriously? Or did you forget an emoticon? That argument is a nearly perfect example of reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Corki]

No it is not sinful.

I suggest you read about St Basil and St Athanasius. I will try to find some quotes Later but reading it makes us uncomfortable because of how sexualized we are.

Same sex cohabitation and commitment is not sinful. In fact it used to be widely blessed in sacred rite by the church.

Of course I speak of a completely chaste relationship.

Yes, it is. Look at the Catechism. Anything beyond a “disinterested friendship” is wrong. Homosexual dating is wrong, homosexual commitment ceremonies are wrong, and homosexual cohabitation is wrong.

This is a very dangerous application of moral teaching. It tries to create a situation where we are forced to accept homosexual activity as long as it’s not the sex act itself.

Think about it in terms of any other sexual disorder.

Would you say that it’s not sinful for an adult man to date a child, to move the child into his home and to call the child his girlfriend? That it would only become a sinful relationship IF he had sex with the child? Is the work of NAMBLA not sinful? The organization does not itself engage in sex with children but tries to normalize man/child relationships.

Or even an sexual sin that is not disordered in the same way… Would you say that it’s ok for a married man to date other women, to move in with a girlfriend and to set up a second household as long as they aren’t having sex?

Sometimes people have blinders on with regard to homosexuality. We don’t want to offend anyone so we lose sight of why it’s immoral. It’s not just the sex.

 

[Corki]

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’s not an excuse, it’s just a different kind of sin. We can’t entirely avoid cooperation with evil. The extent to which cooperation with evil is sinful depends on several factors: formal vs material, remote vs proximate, etc. as well as our knowledge of the evil act.

But the sin we were discussing is the sin of giving scandal. In order to give scandal, a person needs to have knowledge of the sinful act and himself act in a way that gives approval or the appearance of approving the sinful act. It is impossible to commit the sin of giving scandal without knowledge of the evil act.

 

[MysticMansion]

God is not as understanding as humans about sin. He hates not just the sin but the sinner. When He is offended He is infinitely offended. He can do nothing less.

God is forgiving for those who are sincerely sorry. He is not forgiving for those who are not.

Knowingly making a cake or giving a person a ride to the wedding of a gay couple are things that are a matter of choice and free will and our sinful. The better thing would be to refuse but expect to suffer the consequences.

Choosing to sterilize instruments in a hospital that you know will be used in performing of an abortion, maybe the only way to save your job, but it would be a serious sin. Losing you job to do the right thing takes more courage then most Christians will ever show. We are called to much greater faithfulness then that. “Anyone who will not lose his or her life for my sake is not worthy of me.” We lose our life in sincere service to His will by following the teachings of the Catholic Church and the pathway to personal Holiness.

 

[Jon_S_1]

God is not as understanding as humans about sin. He hates not just the sin but the sinner. When He is offended He is infinitely offended. He can do nothing less.

God is forgiving for those who are sincerely sorry. He is not forgiving for those who are not.

Knowingly making a cake or giving a person a ride to the wedding of a gay couple are things that are a matter of choice and free will and our sinful. The better thing would be to refuse but expect to suffer the consequences.

Choosing to sterilize instruments in a hospital that you know will be used in performing of an abortion, maybe the only way to save your job, but it would be a serious sin. Losing you job to do the right thing takes more courage then most Christians will ever show. We are called to much greater faithfulness then that. “Anyone who will not lose his or her life for my sake is not worthy of me.” We lose our life in sincere service to His will by following the teachings of the Catholic Church and the pathway to personal Holiness.

God is love.

By his nature he cannot and does not hate.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, it is. Look at the Catechism. Anything beyond a “disinterested friendship” is wrong. Homosexual dating is wrong, homosexual commitment ceremonies are wrong, and homosexual cohabitation is wrong.

This is a very dangerous application of moral teaching. It tries to create a situation where we are forced to accept homosexual activity as long as it’s not the sex act itself.

Think about it in terms of any other sexual disorder.

Would you say that it’s not sinful for an adult man to date a child, to move the child into his home and to call the child his girlfriend? That it would only become a sinful relationship IF he had sex with the child? Is the work of NAMBLA not sinful? The organization does not itself engage in sex with children but tries to normalize man/child relationships.

Or even an sexual sin that is not disordered in the same way… Would you say that it’s ok for a married man to date other women, to move in with a girlfriend and to set up a second household as long as they aren’t having sex?

Sometimes people have blinders on with regard to homosexuality. We don’t want to offend anyone so we lose sight of why it’s immoral. It’s not just the sex.

“Disinterested” in disinterested friendship means disinterested in sexual acts which of course include kissing petting, etc…

So as I stated earlier, very committed same sex couples can be best of friends and cohabitants and live life together.

I suggest everyone read this from the divine office readings:

St Gregory states:

Basil and I were both in Athens. We had come, like streams of a river, from the same source in our native land, had separated from each other in pursuit of learning, and were now united again as if by plan, for God so arranged it.

I was not alone at that time in my regard for my friend, the great Basil. I knew his irreproachable conduct, and the maturity and wisdom of his conversation. I sought to persuade others, to whom he was less well known, to have the same regard for him. Many fell immediately under his spell, for they had already heard of him by reputation and hearsay.

What was the outcome? Almost alone of those who had come to Athens to study he was exempted from the customary ceremonies of initiation for he was held in higher honor than his status as a first-year student seemed to warrant.

Such was the prelude to our friendship, the kindling of that flame that was to bind us together. In this way we began to feel affection for each other. When, in the course of time, we acknowledged our friendship and recognized that our ambition was a life of true wisdom, we became everything to each other: we shared the same lodging, the same table, the same desires, the same goal. Our love for each other grew daily warmer and deeper.

The same hope inspired us: the pursuit of learning. This is an ambition especially subject to envy. Yet between us there was no envy. On the contrary, we made capital out of our rivalry. Our rivalry consisted, not in seeking the first place for oneself but in yielding it to the other, for we each looked on the other’s success as his own.

We seemed to be two bodies with a single spirit. Though we cannot believe those who claim that “everything is contained in everything,” yet you must believe that in our case each of us was in the other and with the other.

Our single object and ambition was virtue, and a life of hope in the blessings that are to come; we wanted to withdraw from this world before we departed from it. With this end in view we ordered our lives and all our actions. We followed the guidance of God’s law and spurred each other on to virtue. If it is not too boastful to say, we found in each other a standard and rule for discerning right from wrong.

Different men have different names, which they owe to their parents or to themselves, that is, to their own pursuits and achievements. But our great pursuit, the great name we wanted, was to be Christians, to be called Christians.

Now if that type of relationship can be described as saintly, I see absolutely no reason why it should be different today.

The only difference is our obsession with sex.

Now I’m not kidding myself that homosexual weddings are celebrations of chaste bonds. They aren’t, I am simply saying that providing cake to someone who is not using the cake for a sinful purpose is not sin.

If it was, start sending mailings to every catholic baker that he is complicit in sin of all his cakes he provides for second marriages.

 

[Corki]

“Disinterested” in disinterested friendship means disinterested in sexual acts which of course include kissing petting, etc…

So as I stated earlier, very committed same sex couples can be best of friends and cohabitants and live life together.

I suggest everyone read this from the divine office readings:

St Gregory states:

Now if that type of relationship can be described as saintly, I see absolutely no reason why it should be different today.

The only difference is our obsession with sex.

Now I’m not kidding myself that homosexual weddings are celebrations of chaste bonds. They aren’t, I am simply saying that providing cake to someone who is not using the cake for a sinful purpose is not sin.

If it was, start sending mailings to every catholic baker that he is complicit in sin of all his cakes he provides for second marriages.

No problem with “best friends” living together. But two people who live together and have a romantic relationship are doing something immoral and it would be wrong of a Catholic to act in any way that signaled approval of such.

If it was, start sending mailings to every catholic baker that he is complicit in sin of all his cakes he provides for second marriages

I don’t know what “mailings” you are talking about. No one put the baker “on notice” that he shouldn’t provide a cake for the wedding. It was his own recognition of the situation that caused him to refuse.

But, yes, a baker who makes a cake for a second marriage, where no annulment was granted and prior spouses are still living, is cooperating with an immoral act. But, as stated before, the degree of “complicity” is a factor of the degree of cooperation as well as the knowledge the baker has about the situation.

 

[rossum]

Businesses are not public.

They are in terms of laws on discrimination. Private clubs and similar may discriminate on grounds of sex – some Golf Clubs for example. Businesses are not private, but are public in terms of discrimination law. Different laws apply.

What is under discussion here is refusing to take part in an immoral action.

So, baking a cake for a sinner is an “immoral action”? Better not go into the cake baking business then, there are a great many sinners who might want cakes baked.

rossum

 

[kozlosap]

---

“MysticMansion
Trial Membership”

God is not as understanding as humans about sin. He hates not just the sin but the sinner. When He is offended He is infinitely offended. He can do nothing less.

MysticMansion - that statement does not adhere to Church teaching.

 

[Corki]

So, baking a cake for a sinner is an “immoral action”? Better not go into the cake baking business then, there are a great many sinners who might want cakes baked.

rossum

Helping a same sex couple design the cake for a SS"M" is the immoral action. It’s not the “who” (sinner) it’s the “what” (SS"M").

 

[Jon_S_1]

Helping a same sex couple design the cake for a SS"M" is the immoral action. It’s not the “who” (sinner) it’s the “what” (SS"M").

Why?