Same-sex marriage and conscience - should do vs. obligated to do?

[Cris07]

I seem to be getting tripped up on conscience issues lately.

Same-sex marrige is one of the five non-negotiables when forming my conscence to vote. Ok. Check.

But, I am having trouble distinguishing between what is a violation of my conscience vs. being something that I don’t want to do.

A real-life example:

A New Mexico wedding photographer was asked to photograph a lesbian ‘commitment ceremony’ and she was sued for refusing. If she was forced to photograph it, would photographing the commitment ceremony be a violation of her conscience? Where is the line in regards to same-sex marriage? Where is the difference between being told to do something she doesn’t want to do vs. being forced to do something she’s obligated not to do?

Are Catholic bakers obligated not to bake a wedding cake for a gay-wedding or is it something whe shouldn’t do (or does it even matter?)?

Thanks!

 

[dean24us]

I seem to be getting tripped up on conscience issues lately.

Same-sex marrige is one of the five non-negotiables when forming my conscence to vote. Ok. Check.

But, I am having trouble distinguishing between what is a violation of my conscience vs. being something that I don’t want to do.

A real-life example:

A New Mexico wedding photographer was asked to photograph a lesbian ‘commitment ceremony’ and she was sued for refusing. If she was forced to photograph it, would photographing the commitment ceremony be a violation of her conscience? Where is the line in regards to same-sex marriage? Where is the difference between being told to do something she doesn’t want to do vs. being forced to do something she’s obligated not to do?

Are Catholic bakers obligated not to bake a wedding cake for a gay-wedding or is it something whe shouldn’t do (or does it even matter?)?

Thanks!

FWIW, I have been wondering similar things as of late… For reasons that I cannot seem to p(name removed by moderator)oint, many in society have adopted a (false) attitude that all for-profit businesses must be operated entirely secular. Or, to put it a different way, “my money overrides your morals”. Unfortunately, I don’t see any end to this in sight.

 

[Allegra]

I would say that a Catholic is obligated not to take part in a same-sex marriage. That does not mean they should never work for or with gay people, but we are obligated not to take part in something like that. I don’t see how someone could be forced to photograph something. They can be fined if they refuse, but no one can make someone take pictures of an event and the couple would be beyond stupid to risk having someone who doesn’t want to do their wedding photography forced to do so even if it was physically possible. They would probably be the ugliest pictures known to man! In the case you mentioned, the plaintiff actively baited several photographers until she found one that wouldn’t participate. If I were the judge, I would throw the case out for that reason alone.

 

[Will_B]

My opinion only… If you are open for business and that business is to serve the public, you should service the entire public regardless of your believes.

Example: Now, a store owner may refuse to serve an item to a customer… Like the owner of a Jewish delicatessen would not service pork to his customers, but would serve all customers.

Example: A Catholic owner of a pharmacy may not carry contraceptives, but would still serve all customers that come through his door.

A restaurant owner may not support “same sex marriage” but still should serve all who come in to eat. >> The exception being if that restaurant had a dress code (some do) {{ Men in coat & tie // Women in dresses or skirts }} then if a person shows up in jeans the owner may refuse service.

 

[sedonaman]

… For reasons that I cannot seem to p(name removed by moderator)oint, many in society have adopted a (false) attitude that all for-profit businesses must be operated entirely secular. …

I think it has something to do with the idea that a business that deals with the general public is considered a “public accommodation” and cannot discriminate against anyone based on race, etc. Apparently, so-called sex-orientation is now a protected category. Even the Boy Scouts, a non-profit, had to endure a 25-year war with the ACLU which claimed the organization was a “public accommodation”. The case went all the way to the SCOTUS which found for the Scouts. Since this is an expensive way to go, and there are undoubtedly hordes of lawyers out there looking for litigants, another defense might be in order. I’m not an attorney, but wonder if a law can be passed that permits business owners to claim conscientious objection. Just a thought.

 

[wmw]

Yes. we bake cakes for everyone, but we do not sell Male-Male, Female-Female decorations to put atop it.

 

[Allegra]

My opinion only… If you are open for business and that business is to serve the public, you should service the entire public regardless of your believes.

Example: Now, a store owner may refuse to serve an item to a customer… Like the owner of a Jewish delicatessen would not service pork to his customers, but would serve all customers.

Example: A Catholic owner of a pharmacy may not carry contraceptives, but would still serve all customers that come through his door.

A restaurant owner may not support “same sex marriage” but still should serve all who come in to eat. >> The exception being if that restaurant had a dress code (some do) {{ Men in coat & tie // Women in dresses or skirts }} then if a person shows up in jeans the owner may refuse service.

That works out fine. The photographer will be happy to take pictures for a gay person’s birthday party. But he doesn’t do gay “weddings”. Problem solved.

 

[Z_Ninja]

My opinion only… If you are open for business and that business is to serve the public, you should service the entire public regardless of your believes.

While I agree that you should serve the public regardless of race, creed, etc., I don’t think it should be regardless of your beliefs. This would mean a Catholic nurse working at a hospital should participate in an abortion despite his/her beliefs. (extreme example)

As far as the photographers, if it were me, I would go to the yellow pages and look for a photographer that would take my business. I’m sure they weren’t/aren’t the only photographers in the area. It just seems like the SSA couple was searching for someone to refuse based on their homosexuality with the intent to sue and “make an example” of them.

 

[Cris07]

Will B and wmw I real appreciate your take on things! It seems like there’s some wiggle room to give Caesar what is Caesar’s and to give God what belongs to God!

Thanks for the replies!

 

[dean24us]

I think it has something to do with the idea that a business that deals with the general public is considered a “public accommodation” and cannot discriminate against anyone based on race, etc. Apparently, so-called sex-orientation is now a protected category. Even the Boy Scouts, a non-profit, had to endure a 25-year war with the ACLU which claimed the organization was a “public accommodation”. The case went all the way to the SCOTUS which found for the Scouts. Since this is an expensive way to go, and there are undoubtedly hordes of lawyers out there looking for litigants, another defense might be in order. I’m not an attorney, but wonder if a law can be passed that permits business owners to claim conscientious objection. Just a thought.

Thanks for the response! I’m not saying you’re wrong – in fact, you’re analysis was pretty much spot on – but I believe it is wrong to force people to “check their morals at the door” simply because money is involved.

Granted, most business transaction are amoral in the sense that a person’s sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. For example, when I go to Taco Bell or hire somebody to mow my lawn, my sexual orientation or the fact that I am Catholic doesn’t matter, since it has nothing to do with the product/service being offered. And in these cases, I totally agree that I should not be allowed to discriminate. However, in a situation like the one discussed in the OP, I think the situation is at a “different level” since the business owner is being forced in to an active participant in something that he/she considers immoral.

I’m not sure where that “line” is, but do see a logical distinction between the two. As such, I do wish for some type of “conscientious objection” laws as you described when the business owner/employees would be forced to directly violate their faith. With that said, I’m not going to hold my breath on that actually happening.

God bless,
Dean

 

[SonCatcher]

That works out fine. The photographer will be happy to take pictures for a gay person’s birthday party. But he doesn’t do gay “weddings”. Problem solved.

A photographer who does weddings couldn’t just say he doesn’t do “gay weddings”. He could, however, take all the facts and call back after checking against other obligations and even suggest alternates. (minimum information which must be supplied before checking availability)

Bride’s name?
Groom’s name? (sorry, “other bride’s name”)
Date?
Location?

I’ll get back with you on availability…

(later) Sorry, I have another obligation that prevents participation. May I suggest X, Y, or Z? (photographers whom you know don’t have any issues w/ “gay weddings” - it’s always good business sense to have a list of alternates in the event of already being booked, anyway)

Any request for explanation can be rebuffed with “Sorry, that’s proprietary information.”

 

[Allegra]

A photographer who does weddings couldn’t just say he doesn’t do “gay weddings”. He could, however, take all the facts and call back after checking against other obligations and even suggest alternates. (minimum information which must be supplied before checking availability)

Bride’s name?
Groom’s name? (sorry, “other bride’s name”)
Date?
Location?

I’ll get back with you on availability…

(later) Sorry, I have another obligation that prevents participation. May I suggest X, Y, or Z? (photographers whom you know don’t have any issues w/ “gay weddings” - it’s always good business sense to have a list of alternates in the event of already being booked, anyway)

Any request for explanation can be rebuffed with “Sorry, that’s proprietary information.”

This is probably a good business practice and it certainly an alternative (Though I think I’d say, sorry we aren’t available for that event so that we aren’t lying.) However, I think there is no reason why someone shouldn’t be able to say “We don’t handle same sex wedding ceremonies” without facing persecution.

 

[McDale721]

A photographer who does weddings couldn’t just say he doesn’t do “gay weddings”. He could, however, take all the facts and call back after checking against other obligations and even suggest alternates. (minimum information which must be supplied before checking availability)

Bride’s name?
Groom’s name? (sorry, “other bride’s name”)
Date?
Location?

I’ll get back with you on availability…

(later) Sorry, I have another obligation that prevents participation. May I suggest X, Y, or Z? (photographers whom you know don’t have any issues w/ “gay weddings” - it’s always good business sense to have a list of alternates in the event of already being booked, anyway)

Agree this is the best approach. A friend of ours did our renewal of vows as a present to avoid a lesbian ceremony. They had left a message with their date. When he realized ours was the same date he jumped on doing ours so that he could say that he was already booked.

Any request for explanation can be rebuffed with “Sorry, that’s proprietary information.”

 

[SonCatcher]

This is probably a good business practice and it certainly an alternative (Though I think I’d say, sorry we aren’t available for that event so that we aren’t lying.) However, I think there is no reason why someone shouldn’t be able to say “We don’t handle same sex wedding ceremonies” without facing persecution.

It is absolutely true that the person has “another obligation”: one to conscience.

I agree that one should not have to fear saying “we don’t do same sex weddings.” However, the litigious society we live in forces us to choose other reasons. There are some valid reasons why a person who disagrees should be able to excuse himself from such a situation. Among them:

The art: A person who believes he is photographing a travesty is likely to produce photos that display a travesty. This again opens the photographer to the possibility of being sued for “taking horrible photos”. It would be bad for business to tell a customer, “I wouldn’t be able to take the photos you want,” so a generic excuse is better.

Customer service: a person who dislikes the situation he is hired to photograph would likely render poor service the customer. Again, it would be bad for business to tell a customer, “I’ll treat you badly,” so a generic excuse is better.

 

[sedonaman]

Thanks for the response! I’m not saying you’re wrong – in fact, you’re analysis was pretty much spot on – but I believe it is wrong to force people to “check their morals at the door” simply because money is involved.

I believe it is wrong to force people to “check their morals at the door,” period, even when money is not involved [e.g., voting].

Granted, most business transaction are amoral in the sense that a person’s sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. For example, when I go to Taco Bell or hire somebody to mow my lawn, my sexual orientation or the fact that I am Catholic doesn’t matter, since it has nothing to do with the product/service being offered. And in these cases, I totally agree that I should not be allowed to discriminate. However, in a situation like the one discussed in the OP, I think the situation is at a “different level” since the business owner is being forced in to an active participant in something that he/she considers immoral.

I’m not sure where that “line” is, but do see a logical distinction between the two. As such, I do wish for some type of “conscientious objection” laws as you described when the business owner/employees would be forced to directly violate their faith. With that said, I’m not going to hold my breath on that actually happening.

God bless,

Agreed. I think this is also an attempt to advance the idea that sex orientation is a protected class like race.

 

[wmw]

Unless your photography business has a Catholic name I don’t thing there is scandal at being a hired picture taker at a gay “wedding”. Just because they call the event something I don’t think it is doesn’t mean I wouldn’t accept the business. The Photographer doesn’t make the event different by taking pictures of it. So that is a valid course for a Catholic Photographer.

I could see people not really having there heart in it and I’d rather tell them that, e.g. “Sure I’ll do it, but my heart won’t really be in it and you might try X photography.” Also, I don’t disagree with the “other obligation” excuse. All are valid courses of action as far as I’m concerned.

The Catholic Nurse example simply falls under the “I don’t offer that service to anyone” category.