Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Peter_Plato]

I agree - but as you say where and how the line should be drawn is highly contentious, which is why it is so difficult to reach a consensus.

Again, it is impossible to reach consensus unless there is common ground. The only possibility for common ground is if there exists an objective good or set of goods that can be pointed to as a basis for agreement. Absent that, consensus is as tenuous and wavering as the whims and passions of the subjects involved.

Now, if you begin with a denial that such an objective ground even exists, then that insistence becomes a pretext for appealing to “what most people want” - a tyranny of the majority - not based on any concept of the “good,” but merely what most people can be convinced by money, influence and power to endorse precisely because (the argument goes) there IS no objective good.

If the promoters of "my fist stops where your nose begins were really serious about that principle, then the gay cake case wouldn’t be so problematic. The bakers’ nose (their conscience rights) would not be pounded by the gay couple’s fist (their insistence that the bakers take a beating for having a nose in the first place.)

It isn’t as if the gay couple is resisting “having at” the bakers’ nose, they are calling in their “big brother” to deck the bakers with a law suit. In other words, the social progressive’s attitude is, “If we don’t like the look or placement of your nose, we reserve the right to find some means to relocate it.”

So much for consensus. “Consensus” means “on our terms, not yours” because there are more of us.

 

[minkymurph]

Again, it is impossible to reach consensus unless there is common ground. The only possibility for common ground is if there exists an objective good or set of goods that can be pointed to as a basis for agreement. Absent that, consensus is as tenuous and wavering as the whims and passions of the subjects involved.

Now, if you begin with a denial that such an objective ground even exists, then that insistence becomes a pretext for appealing to “what most people want” - a tyranny of the majority - not based on any concept of the “good,” but merely what most people can be convinced by money, influence and power to endorse precisely because (the argument goes) there IS no objective good.

If the promoters of "my fist stops where your nose begins were really serious about that principle, then the gay cake case wouldn’t be so problematic. The bakers’ nose (their conscience rights) would not be pounded by the gay couple’s fist (their insistence that the bakers take a beating for having a nose in the first place.)

It isn’t as if the gay couple is resisting “having at” the bakers’ nose, they are calling in their “big brother” to deck the bakers with a law suit. In other words, the social progressive’s attitude is, “If we don’t like the look or placement of your nose, we reserve the right to find some means to relocate it.”

So much for consensus. “Consensus” means “on our terms, not yours” because there are more of us.

I too agree with a common good and rights are founded on that common good.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The only possibility for common ground is if there exists an objective good or set of goods that can be pointed to as a basis for agreement.

Not true. As far as all the parties accept something as a common ground, there can be a valid consensus.

Now, if you begin with a denial that such an objective ground even exists, then that insistence becomes a pretext for appealing to “what most people want” - a tyranny of the majority - not based on any concept of the “good,” but merely what most people can be convinced by money, influence and power to endorse precisely because (the argument goes) there IS no objective good.

Every society is based on power. Sometimes it is the power of the majority (democracy), sometimes it is the power of the minority (fascism or communism), sometimes it is based upon a commonly accepted constitution (constitutional republic). But all of them are based upon power.

If the promoters of "my fist stops where your nose begins were really serious about that principle, then the gay cake case wouldn’t be so problematic. The bakers’ nose (their conscience rights) would not be pounded by the gay couple’s fist (their insistence that the bakers take a beating for having a nose in the first place.)

Ah, yes. How do those despicable faggots dare to demand equal treatment? We, the “bakers” reserve the right to deny services to anyone whom we do not like. Well, in a theocracy it would be possible to enumerate a “right” to deny services to the faggots, the niggers, the kikes, the heathens, and other assorted abominations in the eyes of God. In our current society there is no such “right”.

It isn’t as if the gay couple is resisting “having at” the bakers’ nose, they are calling in their “big brother” to deck the bakers with a law suit. In other words, the social progressive’s attitude is, “If we don’t like the look or placement of your nose, we reserve the right to find some means to relocate it.”

That is where the legal system and the enforcement comes into the picture. If you flaunt the law, the law will come and get you. And you deserve whatever comes your way. Obviously the same would apply to an atheist photographer, who would dare to refuse to take the pictures at a Catholic wedding. He would deserve the same kind of punishment. Not a coincidence that the Goddess of Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

 

[thinkandmull]

What about Catholics working at Walmart. Are they not to be cashiers because of the condoms

 

[SuperLuigi]

What about Catholics working at Walmart. Are they not to be cashiers because of the condoms

That’s a discussion someone would need to have with their spiritual director/Confessor ultimately.

My guess is that there would not ordinarily be an obligation to quit one’s job or refuse to take a job over that.

It would be problematic if the person wanted to work there because the chain sold condoms. Intent also plays a role in most sins, I think.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Pallas Athene;13046294]Not true. As far as all the parties accept something as a common ground, there can be a valid consensus.

There isn’t with so-called gay “marriage”.

Every society is based on power. Sometimes it is the power of the majority (democracy), sometimes it is the power of the minority (fascism or communism), sometimes it is based upon a commonly accepted constitution (constitutional republic). But all of them are based upon power.

Too simplistic. Governments need power in order to function. The question is how much power does it get and to whom does it go.

History has shown that large governments with lots of power oppress people, especially when they interfere in markets and micro-manage people.

Ah, yes. How do those despicable faggots dare to demand equal treatment? [We, the “bakers” reserve the right to deny services to anyone whom we do not like. Well, in a theocracy it would be possible to enumerate a “right” to deny services to the faggots, the niggers, the kikes, the heathens, and other assorted abominations in the eyes of God. In our current society there is no such “right”.

Here we go again with the extreme emotional example.

In the free marketplace, anyone may refuse service to anyone for any reason. Why stop with how a person looks? Why not force restaurants to allow in people who don’t wear shoes and shirts?

That’s discrimination, too.

That is where the legal system and the enforcement comes into the picture. If you flaunt the law, the law will come and get you. And you deserve whatever comes your way.

Indeed, just not in the way that comment portrays. Only God is capable of rendering final justice.

In light of that, some Catholics are aware that this issue could come down to imprisonment and martyrdom.

There’s a lot of angry people in the gay rights movement, and them resorting to violence isn’t out of the question.

Obviously the same would apply to an atheist photographer, who would dare to refuse to take the pictures at a Catholic wedding. He would deserve the same kind of punishment. Not a coincidence that the goddess of Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/

Are these folks going to feel the wrath of that feel-good justice? :ehh:
[/quote]

 

[thinkandmull]

My point about the Walmart cashier is that we have to take into account people rejecting Catholicism because we rub them the wrong way on these issues. Personally I would sell condoms to someone if I worked at Walmart. I can’t judge him. I don’t judge homosexuals as sinners either. Priests, and I too, smoke cigars sometimes. That’s a sin, but I have psychological needs. We are not suppose to hurt out temples, but Catholics eat sugary colored candy that does their temples harm. Again, I can’t judge a homosexual psychological needs likewise

 

[SuperLuigi]

My point about the Walmart cashier is that we have to take into account people rejecting Catholicism because we rub them the wrong way on these issues. Personally I would sell condoms to someone if I worked at Walmart. I can’t judge him. I don’t judge homosexuals as sinners either. Priests, and I too, smoke cigars sometimes. That’s a sin, but I have psychological needs. We are not suppose to hurt out temples, but Catholics eat sugary colored candy that does their temples harm. Again, I can’t judge a homosexual psychological needs likewise

I see my point about spiritual direction appears to have been completely ignored.

How is refusing to sell someone something “judging”?

Judging is the first corner of defense when it comes to sexual sins, and it’s ridiculous to compare the gravity of smoking a cigar to something as bad and destructive as so-called gay “marriage”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Again, it is impossible to reach consensus unless there is common ground. The only possibility for common ground is if there exists an objective good or set of goods that can be pointed to as a basis for agreement. Absent that, consensus is as tenuous and wavering as the whims and passions of the subjects involved.

Now, if you begin with a denial that such an objective ground even exists, then that insistence becomes a pretext for appealing to “what most people want” - a tyranny of the majority - not based on any concept of the “good,” but merely what most people can be convinced by money, influence and power to endorse precisely because (the argument goes) there IS no objective good.

If the promoters of "my fist stops where your nose begins were really serious about that principle, then the gay cake case wouldn’t be so problematic. The bakers’ nose (their conscience rights) would not be pounded by the gay couple’s fist (their insistence that the bakers take a beating for having a nose in the first place.)

It isn’t as if the gay couple is resisting “having at” the bakers’ nose, they are calling in their “big brother” to deck the bakers with a law suit. In other words, the social progressive’s attitude is, “If we don’t like the look or placement of your nose, we reserve the right to find some means to relocate it.”

So much for consensus. “Consensus” means “on our terms, not yours” because there are more of us.

:clapping:

Well said!

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is where the legal system and the enforcement comes into the picture. If you flaunt the law, the law will come and get you. And you deserve whatever comes your way. Obviously the same would apply to an atheist photographer, who would dare to refuse to take the pictures at a Catholic wedding. He would deserve the same kind of punishment.

Funny, I wouldn’t have thought to suggest the atheist photographer would deserve any kind of punishment for refusing to take pictures at a Catholic wedding, I would accept that s/he is within his/her rights to refuse to do so. And if I were seeking a photographer, I would simply find one who would want to do so. Certainly not one I would have to coerce with threat of jail time to garner approval for a Catholic wedding.

I guess that is the difference between you and I: I respect the rights of others to disagree and hold their own opinions on matters, whereas you seem bound and determined to dislocate noses with your fist.

Not a coincidence that the Goddess of Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

Note: she has no billy club tucked under her skirt.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There isn’t with so-called gay “marriage”.

Marriage TODAY is a secular institution. There is no “sacramental marriage” for gays, at least not TODAY.

Too simplistic. Governments need power in order to function. The question is how much power does it get and to whom does it go.

History has shown that large governments with lots of power oppress people, especially when they interfere in markets and micro-manage people.

Yes, but that is a different issue.

Here we go again with the extreme emotional example.

I don’t think so. If the government gives an explicit right to one group of people to discriminate against others - on grounds that you agree with! - then you cannot complain if it gives the same kind of right to discriminate against you. There is nothing emotional about it.

In the free marketplace, anyone may refuse service to anyone for any reason.

That kind of “free market” has been out of fashion ages ago. And you would be extremely upset if the discrimination would go against you.

Indeed, just not in the way that comment portrays. Only God is capable of rendering final justice.

Unfortunately God is notoriously “gun-shy”. I find it very amusing that all believers assert that they and only they are the real mouthpiece for God, that God always agrees with them, and speaks through their mouth. How about a little humility? To say that you have an intimate knowledge about God’s thoughts and plans sounds a tad unrealistic to me.

In light of that, some Catholics are aware that this issue could come down to imprisonment and martyrdom.

I am sure that SOME Catholics would love to become martyrs. After all that is a very powerful way to gain support. Everyone likes to root for the underdog (I wonder if anyone is aware of the origin of that expression. It is quite interesting.). But that will not happen any time soon. I cannot foresee Catholics being thrown into the lions’ den as a tasty morsel for breakfast.

There’s a lot of angry people in the gay rights movement, and them resorting to violence isn’t out of the question.

Do you remember Matthew Shepard? His murderers had no reason to be angry, they were just vicious killers because they did not like his sexual orientation. Of course I would not condone any violence against Catholics, just like I abhor any violence against anyone (the only exception being is defending against violence).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Funny, I wouldn’t have thought to suggest the atheist photographer would deserve any kind of punishment for refusing to take pictures at a Catholic wedding, I would accept that s/he is within his/her rights to refuse to do so. And if I were seeking a photographer, I would simply find one who would want to do so. Certainly not one I would have to coerce with threat of jail time to garner approval for a Catholic wedding.

I guess that is the difference between you and I: I respect the rights of others to disagree and hold their own opinions on matters, whereas you seem bound and determined to dislocate noses with your fist.

As long as it is their privately held beliefs, there is no problem. They are entitled to believe whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, temples, churches or synagogues. But when they come out into the public sphere, they are subject to the laws, just like everyone else. If you don’t like the laws, you can choose to disobey them, and accept the consequences, or you can exercise your power of voting against them. Or you can choose “bullets” instead of “ballots”, but that is not something I would advise.

Note: she has no billy club tucked under her skirt.

Nope, she has a sword displayed openly. A fair warning to the ones who wish to challenge her to a fight.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Pallas Athene;13046539]Marriage TODAY is a secular institution. There is no “sacramental marriage” for gays, at least not TODAY.

Then the question becomes why should the state subsidize so-called gay “marriage”? Where is the benefit to the state?

Yes, but that is a different issue.

No it isn’t.

I don’t think so. If the government gives an explicit right to one group of people to discriminate against others - on grounds that you agree with! -

Laws simply by existing discriminate.

then you cannot complain if it gives the same kind of right to discriminate against you.

I’d advise same-sex “marriage” advocates of that with the rise of Islam in the West…

There is nothing emotional about it.

It sounds to me like there is. :yup:

In the comments I responded to there was, and the reply to my response is also seems loaded with emotion.

That kind of “free market” has been out of fashion ages ago.

Ah, yes! One of my favs! The “you’re out of touch, too old-fashioned” argument.

Nothing new about gay relationships.

you would be extremely upset if the discrimination would go against you.

Sent PM

Unfortunately God is notoriously “gun-shy”. I find it very amusing that all believers assert that they and only they are the real mouthpiece for God, that God always agrees with them, and speaks through their mouth.

The Catholic Church has the Truth, and why would anyone be surprised that we declare or imply that the Catholic Church is the One, True Faith on a Catholic website of all places!

Or is the expectation for me to go out of my way on a Catholic Forum to say that all religions are one and the same while shots are fired across the bow of Roman Catholicism?

I do see how Western progressive activism desperately needs such an advantage to promote things like so-called gay “marriage”.

then you cannot complain if it gives the same kind of right to discriminate against you.

Well, if we still had that silly old-fashioned free market, they could. And I wouldn’t have a problem with anyone discriminating against me for say supporting traditional marriage because then I know where they would stand, and I would not have to give them my business.

How about a little humility?

There’s a time for humility and a time to recognize scandal.

But it’d be great if gay “marriage” advocates could admit they were wrong. That would be humility.

To say that you have an intimate knowledge about God’s thoughts and plans sounds a tad unrealistic to me.

Yes and no. God has revealed Himself to us and sent His only Son.

So please do not insinuate that we are all in the dark and that morality is relative.

I am sure that SOME Catholics would love to become martyrs. After all that is a very powerful way to gain support. Everyone likes to root for the underdog (I wonder if anyone is aware of the origin of that expression. It is quite interesting.). But that will not happen any time soon. I cannot foresee Catholics being thrown into the lions’ den as a tasty morsel for breakfast.

Funny, some Catholics may not feel the same way.

Do you remember Matthew Shepard? His murderers had no reason to be angry, they were just vicious killers because they did not like his sexual orientation. Of course I would not condone any violence against Catholics, just like I abhor any violence against anyone (the only exception being is defending against violence).

I’ll have to remember to pray for him tonight. Otherwise, that’s a red herring.

 

[SuperLuigi]

As long as it is their privately held beliefs, there is no problem. They are entitled to believe whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, temples, churches or synagogues.But when they come out into the public sphere, they are subject to the laws, just like everyone else. If you don’t like the laws, you can choose to disobey them, and accept the consequences, or you can exercise your power of voting against them. Or you can choose “bullets” instead of “ballots”, but that is not something I would advise.

So then when slavery was legal, it would have been fine by that logic for the abolitionists to say “gee, this is bad” in the privacy of their own home, but not okay for them to have the underground railroad. After all, slavery was the law of the land. Wrong, but still the law.

I wonder where we’d be today if they had done that. :hmm:

See, it’s fun and cool to hide behind the letter of the law when one personally agrees with it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As long as it is their privately held beliefs, there is no problem. They are entitled to believe whatever they want in the privacy of their homes, temples, churches or synagogues. But when they come out into the public sphere, they are subject to the laws, just like everyone else. If you don’t like the laws, you can choose to disobey them, and accept the consequences, or you can exercise your power of voting against them. Or you can choose “bullets” instead of “ballots”, but that is not something I would advise.

Why are religious beliefs consigned to the “privacy of their homes, temples, churches or synagogues,” but atheistic beliefs have the run of the town? Since when did 3-5% of the population get to dictate where and when 95-97% of the population think about things they want to think about or express ideas they want to express.

It’s not like expressing a religious belief in public is actually harming someone, is it? I thought harm was the cut-off point. If no one is being harmed we shouldn’t restrict the freedom of those who are merely different than ourselves. Yet, here you are advocating shutting away the religious views of a majority of people and restricting their freedom of expression even though they are not harming anyone.

Which is it, then? People should be free to say and do things you disagree with or not? If not, why should, religious expression be arbitrarily limited but atheistic expression not?
Is it because some people are offended by religious ideas or actions? Well, a greater number could conceivably be offended by secular ideas and actions. Why side with one or the other? As long as the actions and ideas are not harming anyone why are some citizens free to express their “privately held beliefs” (secular atheists,) while others (religious believers) not so much?

Where is this blind justice woman you speak so highly of when we need her? I am not clear that she wields the sword “blindly” after all. It seems some factions get “more equal” treatment than others quite regularly. Not so neutral after all, it seems.

 

[thinkandmull]

I see my point about spiritual direction appears to have been completely ignored.

How is refusing to sell someone something “judging”?

Judging is the first corner of defense when it comes to sexual sins, and it’s ridiculous to compare the gravity of smoking a cigar to something as bad and destructive as so-called gay “marriage”.

Paul VI sign a Holy Office decree that said that sexual sins are the majority of the time not fully consented to. Further, what other reason could there be for not selling condoms than that they will be used for sin. Catholics are on one side shouting about sin, while the gays on the other side are saying this is not their fault, and I think they are both right, for the most part.

As for the gravity of sin, this is debatable. Maybe a Catholic who eats gummy worms and smokes cigars is objectively sinning more than a gay husband. Who’s to say…

 

[Rau]

Paul VI sign a Holy Office decree that said that sexual sins are the majority of the time not fully consented to. Further, what other reason could there be for not selling condoms than that they will be used for sin. Catholics are on one side shouting about sin, while the gays on the other side are saying this is not their fault, and I think they are both right, for the most part.

As for the gravity of sin, this is debatable. Maybe a Catholic who eats gummy worms and smokes cigars is objectively sinning more than a gay husband. Who’s to say…

Can you link to that decree - interested to have a read.

 

[thinkandmull]

I have an old 1970’s pamphlet of it. Its called the Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics, approved by the Pope on September 1975 and published that December

 

[Rau]

I have an old 1970’s pamphlet of it. Its called the Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics, approved by the Pope on September 1975 and published that December

Is it this?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

This paragraph in particular:

It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject’s responsibility. In this matter it is particularly opportune to recall the following words of Scripture: “Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart.”[25] However, although prudence is recommended in judging the subjective seriousness of a particular sinful act, it in no way follows that one can hold the view that in the sexual field mortal sins are not committed.

This is not the same as your remark above (post #294).

 

[thinkandmull]

It says what I said: sexual sins are not mortal a majority of the time. According to Paul VI’s decree at least