H
Hume
Guest
This reminds me of the “Whites Only” defensive rhetoric of the 50s and 60s
Report: "Christian photographer sues Virginia over law that may force him to service gay weddings."
- Status
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
No, because the issue is whether a person has the right to decide what idea to promote or celebrate.
F
Freddy
Guest
So…they’d have a good case to refuse.
S
Servant31
Guest
This is where I struggle. It goes from don’t tell me what marriage is, to now your forced to violate your conscience to appease my conscience. It’s not that they are being refused a standard provided quantity. It’s that you now must do something extra or else you are breaking the law. That to me is a major major legal failure.
Edit: for clarification. Could I then force a gay person to provide a service to a Christian person. Just because I claim discrimination if they don’t. How about an artist who paints landscapes… could I force them to take a commission at a Christian monument, paint a major scene, a multi year project, just because I present the idea. If they don’t they are discriminating.
Edit: for clarification. Could I then force a gay person to provide a service to a Christian person. Just because I claim discrimination if they don’t. How about an artist who paints landscapes… could I force them to take a commission at a Christian monument, paint a major scene, a multi year project, just because I present the idea. If they don’t they are discriminating.
Last edited:
S
Servant31
Guest
Or the neo nazis of wherever, force a Jewish person to bake them some cakes…or a Jewish newspaper to print neo-nazi promoting events…
M
MNathaniel
Guest
I haven’t seen anyone here argue that the reason conscience rights should exist is because a given activity necessarily meets the Catholic Church’s standard of objectively sinful. (I think the question of sinfulness re: degrees of cooperation with sin in cases A B C might be more a matter for a different thread.)
Is it possible the point you’re coming in with seems to keep bouncing off people, because they feel it doesn’t address what they’re saying?
By the way I largely think you’re approaching things in a reasonable way here, and I get that you don’t want Christians to make waves that you consider unnecessary.
At the same time, can I ask you one more question from one more angle?
Are you basically onside with the general advice given to family and friends invited to these same-sex rituals, to abstain from attending the ritual as a celebratory witness? (I’m not saying pastoral advice may leave attendance open to exceptions in drastic circumstances, though even then one cannot seem to celebrate or affirm the ritual underway; but in general the advice I’ve always heard is not to go.) If not onside, do you at least respect your fellow Catholics who, often at great personal cost and pain, make this choice not to attend?
So assuming you can at least answer that yes you can respect the choice of a Catholic to abstain from attending his friend’s ‘gay wedding’… how is that friend going to feel if the following week that same Catholic attends and takes 300 celebratory photos, framed and posed for maximum beauty and romantic glow, at a stranger’s ‘gay wedding’? Just because he did it for money, do you think that will make it ‘better’ for the friend? I reckon no. I reckon if anything it’ll make it worse, that the Catholic will seem willing to do for money (or fear of Caesar) what he wouldn’t do ‘for friendship’.
What do you think?
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Are you trying to get at whether or not the government has a right to force speech (in this case, promoting a cause you don’t agree with)?
I don’t accept the idea that the government can force my speech.
You may feel differently.
I don’t accept the idea that the government can force my speech.
You may feel differently.
F
Freddy
Guest
I was responding to a post. It’s quite clear what I said.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
So then forcing a photographer to provide services at a Catholic wedding when the photographer’s conscience is opposed to the religion of Catholicism is all right, and not religious discrimination in your view?
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
I mean, some people are perfectly docile and content with the government forcing their speech and opinions.
Which is very nice for you.
But I won’t have it.
Which is very nice for you.
But I won’t have it.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
You veel have it and you veel like it!
F
Freddy
Guest
The fact that I was suggesting just the opposite seems to have missed you completely.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Which was why I was trying to clarify
F
Freddy
Guest
Then I think we’ve been talking at cross purposes. My apologies.
Which was why I was trying to clarify
S
sealabeag
Guest
No, I would consider your example as being the same as any other. And why would you think I thought that?
Last edited:
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That doesn’t matter, being false is enough.
Simply going to another wedding to photograph would look bad it doesn’t really matter who is getting married.
I would respect their decision.
Last edited:
C
catholicray
Guest
Wouldn’t this run into the issue of racism at some point? Should I be able to reject providing service in the public square to someone simply because of the color of their skin?
I think there are limitations.
C
catholicray
Guest
Marriage is the joining together of man and woman that they become one flesh. That is the proper direction of marriage. The coming together and joining into one flesh takes place in the birth of children. A man and another man can not complete the ritual of marriage so the marriage is invalid.
A man can have a truly deep love and appreciation for his brother but in no way can he ever complete the ritual of marriage according to scripture. Marriage is not merely the love of a man for a woman. Men and woman can do that without marriage.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Personally I think a reasonable limitation might be at the level of refusing to provide certain services (rather than at the level of refusing certain persons). E.g. that would prevent refusing to serve someone on the basis of their race, but affirm the right to refuse to provided a specific ritualistic service for someone they’re otherwise willing to serve in other ways.
E.g. I imagine everybody here (or at least most people here; some folks do seem to have backed themselves into a corner of “set no limitations”, although I think that might be mostly because of doubting the state’s capable of recognizing reasonable lines, and wanting to err on the side of freedom of religion) thinks that if the photographer owns a photo shop, and an LGBT person wants to buy a landscape print off his shelf, it would be wrong for the photographer to refuse to sell the print. Because that would be refusing to serve a PERSON, not refusing to perform a specific service.
The sticking point seems to be that linguistically, the state has colonized the linguistic territory to try to force religious people to call something “marriage” that their ancient religious traditions firmly teach are not “marriage”. So whereas the religious people realize that the rituals are different and therefore agreeing to serve at one is not the same thing as agreeing to serve at another, the state (seemingly) thinks everyone should just accept its colonization of language and consider themselves bound to treat one ritual exactly the same as another.
It’s definitely not consistent with ‘tolerance’.
PS then again, I do think technically it should be possible to sometimes refuse service to a person. E.g. if they’re being verbally abusive to staff or other customers. But that’s probably a pretty easy exception to write into any law, that I imagine nobody disagrees with.
Last edited:
M
Mythicalbio
Guest
I have no idea what to think of conscience rights or even the concept of rights in general, or it being good for governments to make it their purpose to guarantee/not violate these, or anything about it. I don’t really have political opinions there, so maybe it is wrong, or maybe it isn’t. They may very well be right in saying it is wrong, I don’t know, law and polsci is above me.
Abstaining as a celebratory witness is required to avoid scandal, one may attend if you don’t give scandal, but that is very awkward and weird (you would have to make it explicit publicly that you are not going to celebrate an event you consider immoral, that you consider it immoral, and you are going for other reasons) so it’s probably best not to go at all. Fellow Caths that do this are right and their sacrifice virtuous and praiseworthy.
The friend will be greatly offended, although the circumstances I think are different in isolation, when put together it may become sinful for that particular Catholic with friends like this to do it. One of many reasons cutting out bad company is one of the first steps on the way to God’s love.
Abstaining as a celebratory witness is required to avoid scandal, one may attend if you don’t give scandal, but that is very awkward and weird (you would have to make it explicit publicly that you are not going to celebrate an event you consider immoral, that you consider it immoral, and you are going for other reasons) so it’s probably best not to go at all. Fellow Caths that do this are right and their sacrifice virtuous and praiseworthy.
The friend will be greatly offended, although the circumstances I think are different in isolation, when put together it may become sinful for that particular Catholic with friends like this to do it. One of many reasons cutting out bad company is one of the first steps on the way to God’s love.
- Status