Will Catholic beliefs be deemed "hate speech"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZemD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do think it is a possibility that a company like Visa could deny service to the Catholic church based on some of our beliefs. We believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, and contraception and abortion are intrinsically evil and can never be permitted for any reason, just to name 2 things quickly that are could be considered offensive.

Gab was targeted for “hate speech”. There is no legal definition of that, so what is hateful is up to the person using that phrase.

The Catholic church does not publish comments that cruelly mock injured people, but they do hold values that are unpopular in modern culture and some could view them as “hateful”.
 
ZemD said:
I do think it is a possibility that a company like Visa could deny service to the Catholic church based on some of our beliefs. We believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, and contraception and abortion are intrinsically evil and can never be permitted for any reason, just to name 2 things quickly that are could be considered offensive.

Gab was targeted for “hate speech”. There is no legal definition of that, so what is hateful is up to the person using that phrase.

The Catholic church does not publish comments that cruelly mock injured people, but they do hold values that are unpopular in modern culture and some could view them as “hateful”.
Click to expand...
Unpopular does not equate to hateful. Unless you express them in a hateful way.
 
Ding ding ding we have a winner! The Church in her wisdom teaches truths in a way that is like Christ, in a way that respects and encourages people.

Somewhere the world has lost civility and kindness and we have devolved to making words weapons. Scripture tells us to tame our tongues.
 
Pattylt said:
I realize he won’t approve of the marriage but he isn’t being asked to approve of it…just do his job of snapping photos. How is this different from a doctor that’s Muslim treating a Jew in the ER? They aren’t expected to approve or disapprove of the people, just do their job.
Click to expand...
I think you bring up a good point tbh. Im definitely not in favor of discrimination. However the question at large is “does a busisness owner have the right to choose who they serve” Historically this answer has been a yes, they do. If you like to make say, beer, and start selling it, can you not choose who you want to sell it to? You MUST sell it to anyone? What if you only make 100 gallons at a time, and want to support friends and family, someone walks through the door and you are now forced to sell them 50 gallons because they say so? What if that person is pregnant and you think they are going to drink themselves into a stupor 6 knights a week? Or an alcoholic with a real problem? Thats the point of freedom. If you make something you can sell it whomever you like, is not the governments job to dictate that to you. This seems small but its a major change in both personal freedoms, and governmental control.

That said in your ER example, that’s a little different. A physician is an essential busisness and health related. Access could have severe impacts on peoples health. Ones persons rights dont surperceed others’ when it comes to safety. Its often is cited in the “cant cry fire in a crowded theater”. Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. However that cant allow one to say something which causes an immediate health or safety issue for others. so in that specific case, the freedom of speech is limited. And I think most would agree appropriately.
 
Personally I think the case of the pharmacist is debatable. He has conscience rights, however the patient has access rights to a certain extent. To me however, this begs the question, could this person have walked to another pharmacy? I often hear complaints about abortifacients not being dispensed. Where I live there is a pharmacy on every block. Does the onerous fall onto the pharmacist to automatically provide for you anything you want because of complaints. Historically the answer is “no”. Its not others’ job to provide anything you want. That’s not how freedom works. In the case of health is affected, so the question would be “did the pharmacist know the situation?” or did the person just walk in and say “I want RU-”. If its the latter I would argue the pharmacist has every right to refuse based on conscience. If the former,and the person had absolutely no other access options, then I would argue its a personal choice.

However in all of this, a wedding photographer isn’t an essential business related to health or any extreme need. Wedding photos are nice, but no one is going to be harmed by not having them. So the question arises, does one persons want, wedding photos, supersede the business owners’ right to be able to practice business consistent with constitutional standards. And further, and even more fundamental; does it supersede the owners’ right to operate within the confines of their constitutional right to religious liberty? I would argue its not even close tbh.

Further even, could in the area did the gay couple have access to other photographers? Was that the ONLY photographer in the area? I’m struggling to see that. They want to place the burden of any contradiction on the business owner, which I don’t think is fair, and violates religious freedom. Further in the cake bakers’ case, its isnt just access to a previously baked cake, its the government saying you must make something specific to them, which violates your conscience. Again a cake isnt an essential or health related service.

I abhor discrimination, but when we erode rights to fight it in non-essential areas its a huge slippery slope. Today its something trivial, tomorrow it can be something much more significant. Just my .02 Sorry for the novel, best regards 07.
 
In the case of the pharmacist, it was the only pharmacy open late at night. The woman had just suffered an undesired miscarriage and the drug was prescribed by her physician. I think she finally had to go clear across town to another pharmacy that was open and she was not only mentally distressed but also physically ill…miscarriages are not pleasant. The pharmacy itself realized the problem later, apologized and now makes sure another pharmacist is on call. I do have a problem with a pharmacist overriding a doctors medicine orders because of personally held religious beliefs in these cases. Any sin involved is between her and her doctor. The pharmacist should just fill any orders legally prescribed. It isn’t his judgment to make.

Again, with any business, if they sell or provide a service to the public, it should be to all the public. If there are real religious reasons why he/she can not provide a public service to all the public, then perhaps he/she needs to reevaluate being a public business.

What I hope for are clear lines that can be drawn. If someone doesn’t want to provide a service to a specific set of the public, it needs to be clearly stated on their door or somewhere prominent.
 
Pattylt said:
I do have a problem with a pharmacist overriding a doctors medicine orders because of personally held religious beliefs in these cases. Any sin involved is between her and her doctor. The pharmacist should just fill any orders legally prescribed. It isn’t his judgment to make.
Click to expand...
Yet, if it had been perscribed to induce an abortion, then my opinion would be that the pharmacist would be morally obliged to refuse.
 
Elf01 said:
Yet, if it had been perscribed to induce an abortion, then my opinion would be that the pharmacist would be morally obliged to refuse.
Click to expand...
Is it any of the pharmacists business why any drug is prescribed? That’s where I have a problem. I understand his desire to not be an accomplice to an abortion yet it’s not his right to know why. If it’s a drug only used for abortion, then I agree he should have a right to refuse. But, if it’s a drug that has multiple uses of which only one is abortion, should he ask?
 
As a person who is clearly against abortion in conscience…
Im not sure of all the details in this specific case. But just based on what you have said if I were a pharmacist I would say it’s a grey area. Clearly the drug wasn’t to cause an abortion. However in 99% of cases that’s what it is for. So a person walks in…hands the pharmacist the prescription… Or was us clear that this person already had a miscarriage in this instance?

This strikes me as a grey area. I think the pharmacist has rights too.

However there are multiple solutions to this. If it’s between “a woman and her doctor”…(the statement leaving out the pharmacist from the equation), then her doctor could dispense. Or her physician could have a list of pharmacies which could. Or the pharmacy could have someone on staff on call which could. Or there could be a hospital which could. There are many possible solutions.

To say “oh they can violate their conscience” to me indicates that the argument is coming from a position of saying that someone is entitled to something, therefore it is any person who could provide it is now required to provide it. It’s your responsibility to serve my opinion. This is where I fundamentally disagree.

As much as I empathize with a tragic case, I don’t think that provides impetus to constrain all providers everywhere to violate their conscience, otherwise you may not open a business and serve the public. Do all planned parenthood’s provide NFP services? Why not then? If they are open to the public they should shouldn’t they…
 
I agree, it’s a hard problem. If I am recalling this case correctly, the woman did explain her situation but the pharmacist still refused because it was an abortificant. The store itself made arrangements so it wouldn’t happen again. I think it was settled out of court, too.

The problem is these edge cases are going to continue to happen until the legal system decides where public rights and private rights in regards to religion are…more edge cases will happen until they do.

I’m anti abortion, too…but I feel very strongly about medical right to privacy and don’t want a pharmacist overstepping my rights.

I’d be happy with private businesses being able to discriminate as they wish if they publicize it…on their store front and web sites. That way a gay couple can know ahead of time they won’t be served or a woman getting a drug that also an abortificant can call ahead to have the proper pharmacist serve her…but we don’t have that now.

It’s been a good discussion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top