I think the category of question at issue in your example - choosing personally to attend the ceremony as a guest partaking in the celebration, is a different category than that faced by a business such as a florist. It is hard to accept an invitation to attend as a guest and not give, merely by that fact of accepting and attending, moral support and affirmation to what is happening.I would think so, as well. Can one imagine attending a straight couple’s wedding ceremony out of simple courtesy, without endorsing the marriage taking place? It seems to me that a Christian florist could provide services for a gay wedding without fear that God will mistakenly consider your professional courtesy as an endorsement of the gay wedding.
I disagree - I think it probably happens quite often. How many parents have felt obligated to attend a wedding ceremony where they felt their child was making a big mistake? They may look like they support the match by just showing up, but what it looks like to people doesn’t really matter.I think the category of question at issue in your example - choosing personally to attend the ceremony as a guest partaking in the celebration, is a different category than that faced by a business such as a florist. It is hard to accept an invitation to attend as a guest and not give, merely by that fact of accepting and attending, moral support and affirmation to what is happening.
… I cannot see any equivalence between attending a wedding where one thinks the bride is a disappointing match for the groom, versus attending one that one’s conscience as a Catholic says is not a marriage at all, but rather a public commitment to a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex.I disagree - I think it probably happens quite often. How many parents have felt obligated to attend a wedding ceremony where they felt their child was making a big mistake? They may look like they support the match by just showing up, but what it looks like to people doesn’t really matter.
Instead of making straw men, try engaging in logical conversation. If you do, I’ll respond.That is a stretch! So if the cake is picked out of a sample book of standard cakes, and the retailer sources it from a wholesale supplier who has no knowledge of its intended use, it now becomes OK for the wholesaler to make it and the retailer to supply it?
I believe I was perfectly logical. If not, point out the logical error.Instead of making straw men, try engaging in logical conversation. If you do, I’ll respond.
Would you prepare taxes for a heterosexual couple, one or both of whom are divorced with a still living former partner? The Catholic Church sees that couple as living in a state of adultery. Do you think that by helping them with their taxes you are condoning adultery?In between real jobs, I am preparing tax returns at a large firm. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in my state, I may be asked to do tax returns for a same-sex couple. If I refuse, I will be fired (this has already happened at this company, albeit in another state.) I thought I would be perfectly fine with this, saying to myself, it’s what the IRS and the state allow. But then… people object to providing flowers and cakes and … for same-sex weddings. So I have doubt. If it is okay to do a tax return for a same-sex couple, then why not provide flowers, cakes. for such weddings?
I do know that if such a couple comes in, I would certainly be friendly and respectful. I certainly can’t be judgmental as I have prepared tax returns for people who are living together without being married.
Fine, but that wasn’t the equivalence we were trying to illustrate.… I cannot see any equivalence between attending a wedding where one thinks the bride is a disappointing match for the groom, versus attending one that one’s conscience as a Catholic says is not a marriage at all, but rather a public commitment to a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex.
See your Post #21.Fine, but that wasn’t the equivalence we were trying to illustrate.
I did see it. I actually wrote it. You misunderstood it.See your Post #21.
Then perhaps you will try again to explain why you reject my post #20? Attending a wedding as a guest affirms the ceremony, the celebration in which you are invited to participate, in a way that is not at all present in the act of a florist selling flowers.I did see it. I actually wrote it. You misunderstood it.
Not sure I can explain it any better. There’s no reason, in principle, why someone can’t object to the fact of a wedding ceremony, and yet still attend out of simple courtesy. It may look to others as though the ceremony is being affirmed by that person, due to their presence, but say, a hypothetical omniscient being could easily tell what that person really thought, if they cared to know.Then perhaps you will try again to explain why you reject my post #20? Attending a wedding as a guest affirms the ceremony, the celebration in which you are invited to participate, in a way that is not at all present in the act of a florist selling flowers.
I have no issue with the florist supplying flowers, and I see the act of guests coming together to celebrate a union as different from the florist selling flowers. You say they can be equivalent, in that a guest may not wish to affirm and celebrate the Union at all. But the difficulty is that such presence is in fact celebration and affirmation of the capacity of 2 persons of the same sex to marry. What one personally thinks about the matter does not change that. A good intention “to be courteous” cannot justify participating in the celebration of what one believes is a bad act. If any argument could be made by comparing the two, it would more likely be that the florist should refrain, but her act is far more remote in its degree of cooperation that that of the guest.Not sure I can explain it any better. There’s no reason, in principle, why someone can’t object to the fact of a wedding ceremony, and yet still attend out of simple courtesy. It may look to others as though the ceremony is being affirmed by that person, due to their presence, but say, a hypothetical omniscient being could easily tell what that person really thought, if they cared to know.
This is not a comparison between attending a wedding where you disapprove of whom the bride is marrying, and attending a wedding where a woman is marrying a woman. It’s a comparison between the former and the level of affirmation a florist necessarily grants a given marriage by providing her professional services (but not her attendance).
My point is that, even if there is a God, and even if he is omniscient, and even if he does disapprove of gay marriage, it seems obvious that a florist would be in no danger of earning this God’s disapproval by selling floral arrangements to a gay couple for their wedding ceremony or reception. In other words, I was agreeing with you, but you seem to want to push back on this, regardless.
I would not refuse to do the taxes in any of the situations you just listed. I would have to tell the client with gambling losses that they were deductible only up to the amount of winnings.I think that the difference here is that cakes and flowers and photographs are forms of art. At least in some way, they express something about the artist.
No two cake artists will produce exactly the same cake (even if they follow a set pattern, there’s always something unique about each one).
It’s not the same with taxes. If all the data is the same, a tax return “should” always be the same no matter who actually does it.
Preparing someone’s taxes implies no endorsement of the client’s lifestyle.
Some examples to think about:
Client (wealthy) gave zero money to charity last year. Would you refuse to do the taxes?
Client spent too much on luxury groceries (client is a glutton). Would you refuse?
Client had excessive gambling losses. Would you refuse?
Client gave money to immoral not-for-profits. Would you refuse?
The point is that the work you do (the particular type) does not reflect who you are as a person*. It’s morally neutral. Now, if someone wants help cheating, that’s altogether different, but that’s not what you asked.I would not refuse to do the taxes in any of the situations you just listed. I would have to tell the client with gambling losses that they were deductible only up to the amount of winnings.
And you’re right, a tax return which is done correctly at one place will be the same at another tax preparation company.
You are right, preparing taxes for such a person does not imply approval of their choices and I would prepare the tax return.The point is that the work you do (the particular type) does not reflect who you are as a person*. It’s morally neutral. Now, if someone wants help cheating, that’s altogether different, but that’s not what you asked.
When you sign the tax return as a preparer, that’s altogether different from an artist’s signature on a painting or sculpture or an artist who prepares a cake or flowers. You are not saying “this expresses something about me, or it expresses my mood or outlook or perspective.” It certainly is not saying “I approve of the filer’s lifestyle”—not by a long shot.
Look again at the gambler example. If someone approached you with proper records, who the previous year had gambled away the car, the house, and all the savings, would you think that preparing the tax return would be seen as an endorsement on your part of excessive and irresponsible gambling? You might think it wrong (I hope you would), and you have every right to that opinion, but I rather think that you would not refuse to do the taxes based on the moral choices made by the filer.
- sure, we could get into issues like “I won’t help someone cheat because I’m honest, or I don’t want to get caught…” but that’s not the topic at hand.
You say that derisively but it is the Evangelicals who actually oppose same sex marriage. A majority of Catholics support it. I don’t think the analogy is useful.Those that have refused to make cakes, etc. are Evangelicals who seem to think that making a cake is the same thing as saying they support SS marriage. It isn’t.
The Catholic church recognizes natural marriage. Same sex marriage is contrary to Natural Law. The Catholic church historically opposed divorce laws. I don’t see the analogy as useful.We don’t complain about other non-Catholic marriages. We may not like divorce, but non-Catholics get divorced and remarried all the time whether we like it or not. But they’re not doing it in a Catholic church (licitly anyway). We just don’t recognise the validity of the marriage, but how many people go to the lengths of refusing to provide services for opposite gender couples who are otherwise, in the Church’s eyes, in irregular marital situations?
Why should a restaurant owner feel obliged to feed a same sex couple? The only way you’d know they are a same sex couple is if they behaved in a manner that revealed their relationship was in some way erotic. If I owned a restaurant and a same sex couple wanted to eat there and demonstrate their relationship I would turn them away. But even if they didn’t act in such a way I could still see refusing to serve them. If an adulterous couple came into a restaurant I owned I’d turn them away. We’ve come a long way from the world we used to live in where hotels would not rent rooms to unmarried couples.Seriously though, I see no reason why you shouldn’t prepare them. If they came into a restaurant you owned I’d hope you’d feed them right!?