L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Hard to hold? On the contrary. The question is not whether a line is hard to hold but whether is it or is not worth holding.
- Status
M
Maryann_C
Guest
NOW you are making some sense …but who is the guide to whether or not it is worth holding…me?..you?..the government? THAT is the ultimate point.
M
Maryann_C
Guest
You site a real estate trainng manual which says in it’s opening overview "Overview
Federal laws do not prohibit discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation in housing or
employment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings,
and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex,
familial status, and handicap. However, an increasing number of states have laws prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, and access to public
accommodations.
Colour (color to you I suppose) highlight mine…NOTHING about sale of goods…or services for that matter.
I
Irishgal49
Guest
Am I correct that this is a business? OK how do you know that a heterosexual couple who orders candles isn’t getting married by some voodoo high priestess in the cemetery? Do you actually know that every single solitary person who orders candles is using them according to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Are you sure? Do you really want to spend all your spare time making sure every candle is used in a manner that meets approval? If you are running business, sell the candles. If you are wanting to be a priest, confessor or spiritual director, then pursue that.
C
Corki
Guest
Actually, we don’t know that. All the OP said was that the caller was a candlemaker. It could be a business, a hobby or he could have an occassional booth at a craft fair - we don’t know. We also don’t know if the homosexual couple are customers or if they were friends or aquaintances. The only information given is that the homosexul couple asked the candlemaker to make candles for their “wedding”.
O
OldYoungGuy
Guest
I’m not questioning the legality of refusing the service. It’s obvious in our culture today that somebody will try to sue you if they are unhappy with anything you do, and with the homosexual activist hold on our government, the individual is almost guaranteed an unfavorable outcome in court.
I think the individual may be relieved of culpability of the sin out of fear of financial ruin, but that was not even brought up on the radio show. It was made to sound as if the individual was discriminating against the individuals. I do not believe this would be discrimination against the individuals, but of their immoral behavior. There is a difference. That is why I brought up the issue of selling the loaf of bread. The loaf of bread will not be used for anything immoral (I know some imaginative hypothetical scenario could argue otherwise). Therefore selling it to a homosexual would not be a sin in this case, but to make candles for a wedding ceremony is not a neutral act.
That being said, I know legally one may be required by the state to do something that is goes against their belief. Although fear of financial ruin from a lawsuit is a legitimate concern, I think, would any of the saints especially the martyrs compromise even with this legitimate concern. Its a tough situation my parents face with their rental properties and I’ve argued with them the same. I’m just lucky that with my job I don’t have to deal with this, but I would be willing to give my financial support to such an individual.
I think the individual may be relieved of culpability of the sin out of fear of financial ruin, but that was not even brought up on the radio show. It was made to sound as if the individual was discriminating against the individuals. I do not believe this would be discrimination against the individuals, but of their immoral behavior. There is a difference. That is why I brought up the issue of selling the loaf of bread. The loaf of bread will not be used for anything immoral (I know some imaginative hypothetical scenario could argue otherwise). Therefore selling it to a homosexual would not be a sin in this case, but to make candles for a wedding ceremony is not a neutral act.
That being said, I know legally one may be required by the state to do something that is goes against their belief. Although fear of financial ruin from a lawsuit is a legitimate concern, I think, would any of the saints especially the martyrs compromise even with this legitimate concern. Its a tough situation my parents face with their rental properties and I’ve argued with them the same. I’m just lucky that with my job I don’t have to deal with this, but I would be willing to give my financial support to such an individual.
O
OldYoungGuy
Guest
No you don’t know all of these points, but if a couple of men come into your shop holding hands and ask for candles to be made for “our wedding” then you do know. I doubt the candle maker is investigating into the uses of his candle, but even in the event that he somehow found out the were being used for a voodoo wedding than he should refuse the service. I’m sure he did not ask specifically, “Oh, and by the way, are these going to be used for a gay wedding?” The fact was probably thrown in his face.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Perhaps I have missed this in the discussion, but I don’t think anyone has raised the concept of remote cooperation with evil.
Formal cooperation with evil, of course, is immoral. But remote cooperation is less clear cut. I admit I am a bit hazy on this, so will appreciate any guidance or corrections.
Selling candles is a morally neutral act. How the candles will be used, once sold, is beyond the control of the candlemaker. So even if the candlemaker believes they will be used for an immoral act by the purchaser, the seller has a diminished culpability so long as he does not encourage the buyer to commit the immoral act.
Candles are not essential for a same-sex marriage. Refusing to sell the candles will not prevent the marriage. This diminishes the culpability of the candlemaker even more… much more, I would think. Whether the couples have candles or whether they don’t, they will still get married.
Refusal to sell the candles might be praiseworthy as a witness to one’s faith. But doing so isn’t morally necessary.
Formal cooperation with evil, of course, is immoral. But remote cooperation is less clear cut. I admit I am a bit hazy on this, so will appreciate any guidance or corrections.
Selling candles is a morally neutral act. How the candles will be used, once sold, is beyond the control of the candlemaker. So even if the candlemaker believes they will be used for an immoral act by the purchaser, the seller has a diminished culpability so long as he does not encourage the buyer to commit the immoral act.
Candles are not essential for a same-sex marriage. Refusing to sell the candles will not prevent the marriage. This diminishes the culpability of the candlemaker even more… much more, I would think. Whether the couples have candles or whether they don’t, they will still get married.
Refusal to sell the candles might be praiseworthy as a witness to one’s faith. But doing so isn’t morally necessary.
S
smiddle
Guest
I was citing that as a list of states with the laws. If you actually research it, you will see that it prevents discrimination in places of public accommodation. Do you know what public accommodation means?
According to Title lll ADA regulations, a place of public accommodation is a private establishment (for profit or nonprofit) that fits one of twelve categories specified by the Department of Justice in ADA regulations. It includes hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, retail stores, private schools, banks, doctor’s office, and health clubs.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
How about plain, old common sense? :ehh:
S
smiddle
Guest
M
Maryann_C
Guest
Again who’s version of common sense?
M
Maryann_C
Guest
And yet there are fitness clubs such as Curves that are exclusively for women , which by their nature is discriminatory against a male persons gender, there are colleges that are single sex and are ‘grandfathered’ in. So according to Legal Zoom "Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner’s private right to exclude is violated? " For the most part of course the law tends to side with the right of the person attempting to obtain the services …or to serve…hence the new fight for women to enter combat units…but IMHO what is going to happen next is a gay couple attempting to sue the Catholic Church for refusing to marry them and then we will have a precedence on the the books. The GLB …and whatever …2% of the country’s program is to force something on the majority by court of law.
S
smiddle
Guest
It is not discrimination for there to be single-sex schools because they are private institutions that do not receive funding from the government. You are also wrong about Curves; men ARE allowed to join, it is just marketed towards women (and what man wants to do 30-minute aerobics workouts?).
I am not sure what you mean by suing the Catholic Church. Do you mean the Church as a whole, as in the Vatican? That would be impossible…
M
Maryann_C
Guest
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
I’m curious here…whatever happened to the phrase “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?” I believe there are still place of businesses that have signs posted in the building. Would this be a loop hole against the anti-discriminatory act? Just wondering thats all.
S
smiddle
Guest
Suing the Catholic Church for the molestation of young men is completely different than suing for marital purposes. Marriage equality that homosexuals are attempting to gain is a legal matter, they are not trying to change the ways of the Catholic Church.
And they were not allowed to sue. The Vatican is a sovereign state, it cannot be sued by anyone/anything, except for Italy or the Vatican itself.
S
smiddle
Guest
Those signs are not always legally allowed (like denying a public restroom).
G
GEddie
Guest
How could the Vatican sue itself??
S
smiddle
Guest
Hahaha I’m not sure, but they gave themselves the ability to. liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/17/sex-abuse-crisis-can-you-sue-the-vatican/
- Status