Report: "Christian photographer sues Virginia over law that may force him to service gay weddings."

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I already know what the Church teaches here, and I have read that page before. Looking at it again, there is nothing related to this subject on it. None of this makes a different for remote material cooperation, which is not inherently sinful. Yes I am Catholic.
 
We’re not talking about sin and cooperation. We’re talking about whether the wedding industry worker should be forced violate his or her conscience.
 
Last edited:
Compelled speech isn’t sinful to you? I’d certainly put it as a violation of human rights.
 
My point in my first post (first one in thread), and throughout responses to it, is basically that: taking photos is remote cooperation and not sinful, the person’s conscience is misinformed, by acting like it is sinful and they are being forced to do something wrong they are making us look bad and dishonoring God (because saying things are a sin when they aren’t is lying on God, since morality is based on His Nature), and being made to not discriminate on such things is fine for a public business.

I would make someone opposed to interracial weddings do so or also face penalties (whether one wants to be a customer of them when you know their views is another question). Freedom of conscience is not some holy thing to me, by any law being done, someone’s conscience is going to get violated. Whether or not this instance is one where it should be is a matter of debate. I personally am indifferent to it. Same reply to @Inquiry
 
Last edited:
So if you’re indifferent to it why post so much? If someone wants nothing to do with gay weddings, then it would be upsetting to have to use one’s artistic ability to celebrate it. I believe that was one of the points of Masterpiece, and I think it would apply here as well.
 
Jen95 said:
Curious @Borninmarch, would two brothers, or two sisters, or uncle / nephew etc. qualify as marriage partners?
Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Do you know the difference between romantic love and filial love, or do you think it’s all the same?

What does homosexuality have to do with incest? I think they have nothing to do with each other, and that bringing one up in a conversation about the other is whataboutism.
 
What if the brothers romantically love each other? I get the sense that you think that if people love each other, they are allowed to get married. What if two brothers love one woman, and they want to have a three-person marriage? Are you cool with it?
What if nephew wants to marry older uncle to get his health benefits, are you cool with it?
 
Jen95 said:
What if the brothers romantically love each other? I get the sense that you think that if people love each other, they are allowed to get married. What if two brothers love one woman, and they want to have a three-person marriage? Are you cool with it?
What if nephew wants to marry older uncle to get his health benefits, are you cool with it?
Click to expand...
I am not okay with incest, but that is different. There is actual, measurable psychological harm caused by incestuous relationships.

As I said before, the two things have nothing to do with each other. Your attempts to conflate homosexuality with incest is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters.
 
Primarily due to any implication that it might be intrinsically evil to provide remote cooperation in this way. Secondarily due to the word “Christian” being associated, making it seem like it would be some kind of inherent sin in our religion of one if one of us provided services to it. The main thing I dislike in these stories is the false ideas of morality people seem to take away from it, mainly non-Christians.
 
Last edited:
Compelled speech is a violation of free speech, which is a human right. In general I would say that the violation of human rights would count as a sin.

Further I would hold that rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s does not include giving Caesar things he specifically said weren’t his. In this case the US government is prohibited from compelling speech.
 
BornInMarch said:
There is an allowance though: the photographer could have chosen not to cater to cater to weddings at all. If he did that there’d be no grounds to sue him for discrimination because he wouldn’t be treating customers differently based solely on their sexuality.
Click to expand...
The idea that he should have to step out of the entire class of assignments, because of an incremental government change of definition, is unreasonable. The photographer’s objection is not the sexuality of the customer, but the specifics of the event.
 
Last edited:
You may well be right, but that would be sinfulness on the government’s part, and have nothing to do with if taking the photos is sinful.
 
BornInMarch said:
I understand freedom just fine, and freedom means people don’t have to live by or even believe in Christian values. To the LGBT couples who get married, and to the nation’s government, these are real weddings and just as meaningful as heterosexual ones.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t freedom imply the right to live by Christian values? There is a genuine question of balancing rights here - but your remarks repeatedly ignore any right the photographer has.
 
Last edited:
So, regardless of normal religious liberty politics, has the question of baking cakes and professional photography for same sex weddings been analyzed in terms of formal/material immediate/mediate proximate/remote cooperation with evil ethics?

That should guide the limits of religious liberty debates for Catholics.
 
Last edited:
I’ve done it here in the thread. I think it is certainly remote, and not inherently sinful. If your intention is good, and the circumstances, it is a moral and good thing to do. Which is why I am indifferent towards but tolerate laws like this.
 
Last edited:
I’m reading through a chart published by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. While I’m sure the discussion can be more nuanced than this chart, the cooperation does seem material, mediate, and remote.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying that should be the sole point of discussion in regards to religious liberty or what would be a just or unjust law, but I do think it’s important to consider. And it appears that, regardless of the law or what it should be, a person would not be sinning by providing these specific services according to Catholic moral theology.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
40.png
BornInMarch:
Well in America you can’t have it both ways; if you want to be open to the public you can’t also pick and choose
Click to expand...
What if you were asked to photograph and glamorize a KKK meeting?
Click to expand...
The KKK is an organisation that promotes racism. A gay couple getting married is just that. Two people getting married who are gay. A better comparison would be a marriage between two people who are racist.

So could a black photographer refuse to take pictures of a wedding between two people who are racist? Or a gay photographer refuse the wedding of two people who are homophobic?

I think they’d have a good case to refuse.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top