current events / pick some

[KnightofChrist]

The nurse in such a case must discriminate against the child in order to prevent discriminating against the mother.

[Nihil Obstat]

41. If in the difficult times in which Our lot is cast, Catholics will give ear to Us, as it behoves them to do, they will readily see what are the duties of each one in matters of opinion as well as action. As regards opinion, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm grasp of mind, and, so often as occasion requires, must be openly professed.

42. Especially with reference to the so-called "liberties" which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind. Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties, but let each one reflect whence these have had their origin, and by what efforts they are everywhere upheld and promoted. Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore. If there really exist anywhere, or if we in imagination conceive, a State, waging wanton and tyrannical war against Christianity, and if we compare with it the modern form of government just described, this latter may seem the more endurable of the two. Yet, undoubtedly, the principles on which such a government is grounded are, as We have said, of a nature which no one can approve.

43. Secondly, action may relate to private and domestic matters, or to matters public. As to private affairs, the first duty is to conform life and conduct to the gospel precepts, and to refuse to shrink from this duty when Christian virtue demands some sacrifice slightly more difficult to make. All, moreover, are bound to love the Church as their common mother, to obey her laws, promote her honour, defend her rights, and to endeavour to make her respected and loved by those over whom they have authority. It is also of great moment to the public welfare to take a prudent part in the business of municipal administration, and to endeavour above all to introduce effectual measures, so that, as becomes a Christian people, public provision may be made for the instruction of youth in religion and true morality. Upon these things the well-being of every State greatly depends.

 

[KnightofChrist]

But what about refusing goods and services when someones life isnt on the line?

​But again you are ok with it when someone's life is on the line. So what does it matter what I think? But I do think that in some cases it would be acceptable to deny someone goods and services. For example if a black baker was asked to make a KKK anniversary cake. Or a Jewish baker was asked to make an Nazi anniversary cake. Or a Feminist baker was asked to make an Anti-Woman cake. Or if a Pro-Life baker was asked to make a Planned Parenthood anniversary cake.

[CrossCuT]

I find it so ironic that you cite civil rights issues (Blacks and KKK) when the thing you are defending would lead to similar discrimination. So you would be ok with a homosexual not baking a cake for a christian marriage equality anniversary cake?

Well dont worry. It looks like youll get your discrimination world as we regress back into the pre civil rights era. Discrimination is going to blow up and it will whip lash back on all of the valiant christians. 

[KnightofChrist]

I find it so ironic that you cite civil rights issues (Blacks and KKK) when the thing you are defending would lead to similar discrimination. So you would be ok with a homosexual not baking a cake for a christian marriage equality anniversary cake?

Well dont worry. It looks like youll get your discrimination world as we regress back into the pre civil rights era. Discrimination is going to blow up and it will whip lash back on all of the valiant christians. 

As a matter of law, I would not sue or have the person arrested. As a matter of business I simply would not do business there. Try as you might to turn the table around, but in the end you support discrimination at it's worse and it does invalidate your position. I'm sorry.

[Credo in Deum]

​Bakers are in the business of selling goods, not a moral compass for others affairs. I dont see your point.

Bakers are allowed, and have the right,  to be moral compasses for themselves.  This is where you're failing to understand the issue.  Business owners should not have to provide services for events which go against their core beliefs and values.  Companies have a right to make this decision and accept the consequences of doing so from a financial/business standpoint.  Companies also have the right to set their own quotas as to how much profit they would like to make each year, which means if a company feels it has enough profit, or is making enough to meet  thier own quota, then the company does NOT have to accept business from anyone for any reason. 

You want to enact laws which do not allow business owners to be owners.  That is discrimination against a person's fundamental right to beleive what they want and to do what they want with their own property.

[Credo in Deum]

A quoted that was sent to me from a Facebook status, which I feel is fitting:

"Interesting that Tim Cook and Apple, along with all the others who are boycotting the state of Indiana are doing EXACTLY what this law allows Christians to do....refuse to do business because of their beliefs.  What a bunch of hypocrites!  They would destroy an entire state just for the satisfaction of squelching Christianity!!  It is time to shut down some companies!!"

 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[veritasluxmea]

"Interesting that Tim Cook and Apple, along with all the others who are boycotting the state of Indiana are doing EXACTLY what this law allows Christians to do....refuse to do business because of their beliefs.  

 

​This is why I can't take people who are against this seriously. 

[Ice_nine]

Apple is boycotting Indiana?!

 

The first time I've ever considered moving to Indiana.

[Ice_nine]

http://theweek.com/articles/547448/overblown-hypocrisy-tim-cooks-business-boycott-indiana

I thought this article was succinct and to the point.

Some quotes: "f one establishment refuses to service gay customers, there are myriad others that will, imposing no severe hardship on them. To insist on being served by the few people whose beliefs would be violated seems more like a projection of power rather than a plea to secure legitimate rights."

"But what's truly obnoxious about his campaign is that he is using his right not to do business with Indiana, because it's doing something he disagrees with, to obtain a law that would deny Indiana businesses the same right not to do business with folks who they don’t agree with. This is simply intolerance masquerading as a crusade for justice and equality — a naked use of brute market power to legislate his views."

[AccountDeleted]

I have to honestly say that I get torn with issues of individual liberties vs discrimination of a group. I grew up with restaurants that always had signs saying 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' and 'No shoes, no shirt, no service.' so I just assumed the business owners could choose which customers they would serve or not serve.

But then when we get to issues like segregation in the South during the civil rights era, it became clear to me that certain types of discrimination were simply injustice dressed up as individual rights. 

If someone owns their own business, it does seem that they should be able to say no if they don't want to serve someone, but once that is allowed, then any group is fair game to discrimination. So then it seems that if someone wants to open a business, they should have an obligation to serve anyone who wants to use it.

I don't know the answer. I don't own a business so I can't identify with their feelings, but then again, I am not in a group that usually suffers from discrimination, so I can identify with their feelings either. I think, if I had to choose, I would have to say that personal choice of customers can't be allowed for businesses that serve the public because it opens the door to all kinds of abuse and discrimination. That might not be the popular viewpoint around here, I don't know, but it seems like the right one to me.

[Credo in Deum]

I have to honestly say that I get torn with issues of individual liberties vs discrimination of a group. I grew up with restaurants that always had signs saying 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' and 'No shoes, no shirt, no service.' so I just assumed the business owners could choose which customers they would serve or not serve.

But then when we get to issues like segregation in the South during the civil rights era, it became clear to me that certain types of discrimination were simply injustice dressed up as individual rights. 

If someone owns their own business, it does seem that they should be able to say no if they don't want to serve someone, but once that is allowed, then any group is fair game to discrimination. So then it seems that if someone wants to open a business, they should have an obligation to serve anyone who wants to use it.

I don't know the answer. I don't own a business so I can't identify with their feelings, but then again, I am not in a group that usually suffers from discrimination, so I can identify with their feelings either. I think, if I had to choose, I would have to say that personal choice of customers can't be allowed for businesses that serve the public because it opens the door to all kinds of abuse and discrimination. That might not be the popular viewpoint around here, I don't know, but it seems like the right one to me.

And this is the problem with this issue.  The case with the Christian bakery is championed as some type of civil rights violation when in the end it's not one.  The bakery didn't deny them service because they were gay.  It denied them service because of the nature of the event: their "marriage!" This means if those same gay customers wanted a muffin or a birthday cake, then they would have been served.  There is no discrimination of persons here.

What is happening here is the forcing of the LGBTQ agenda upon society and to treat anyone who opposes their agenda and beliefs as enemies to civil rights.   

This law does not foster discrimination, it allows owners the right to refuse service for events which go against their beliefs and values.  Everyone should have that right.

[veritasluxmea]

 

If someone owns their own business, it does seem that they should be able to say no if they don't want to serve someone, but once that is allowed, then any group is fair game to discrimination. 

​Actually, not really. We can- and should- make discrimination illegal. It should be- and pretty much is- illegal to refuse service or segregate against someone because of who they are (black, gay, Jewish, Catholic, whatever). I don't think businesses should have the civil right to turn down a person because of who they are, even if they don't want to serve them. 

Allowing business owners to turn down an event for any reason- even a religious or personal one- doesn't go against that. It's not turning down a person. It's turning down an event. You can turn down an event because because your religion doesn't allow you to support the event. You have the civil right to do that. You don't have the civil right to turn down a person because of who they are, and I want to make that clear.

After further reflection, I know some people (not here, other places) will disagree with me and say businesses should have the right to discriminate against black people or gays as a group just because of who they are, but I strongly disagree with that position. I don't think they have the moral, and in this country thankfully the civil, right to do that. I'm not sure how strongly I stand by my statement that forcing people to work against their will is slavery. Technically it's true, but they also have a choice not to work, period. (that's where you get into the tricky game of government, violence, consent, and social contracts). If someone doesn't want to serve a black or gay customer because of who they are, too bad. However, that still doesn't take into account the fact that a gay wedding is an event and not person; and an event that goes against some people's religion. People themselves can't go against beliefs but events, and what happens during them, can and do. If a gay person was involved in a straight wedding I wouldn't turn it down because a gay person was involved, and I wouldn't accept a gay wedding because a straight person was involved. It's not about the people as it is about the event.

Also, on a funny note: 

When some homosexual couple comes to your Christian business for services at their immoral event, don’t panic.  Go ahead and take their business!

Then explain what is going to happen next.

Tell them that the food and services will be just fine.  And then inform them that all of the money that they pay for the services will be donated to a traditional pro-family lobby.   If it is something like catering, where your employees have to be there to provide services, tell them that all your people will smile, be professional, and everyone of them will be wearing crucifixes and have the Holy Family embroidered on their uniforms.  Then show them pictures of your uniforms.  When the truck pulls up, speakers will be playing Immaculate Mary.  Show them the truck and play the music.

“Oh, you would be offended by that?  I’m so sorry.  You approached us because we are Christians. Right?  We are happy to provide services for you and we are grateful that you chose to come to our Christian catering business.  We just want to be of help.”

Then tell them that you will take out an ad in the paper to let everyone know what you did with their money, thanking them by name for their business so that you could make the contribution. (via wdtprs)

 

[superblue]

smh, fyi this topic has already been beaten to death, I was hoping for something towards the other links I posted, but it is what it is.

One thing I would pose for anyone, in this Indiana law, and that is,  why is this issue of religious freedom or beliefs an not wanting to serve those who are homosexual; being brought up in the year 2015 ?

Homosexuals have been around for a very long time, so has businesses ... more over does anyone ever take into consideration the amount of research that has to be done to actually find a business owner, who is first off, Catholic, and not just Catholic but a practicing one that holds firm to this idea that they must not provide their serves to people who are " living in sin "; and then second for a homosexual couple to then actually find said Catholic business owner.

Yet all of a sudden we are to believe this is some epidemic that must be addressed, which all of a sudden has better odds of happening than any of us being hit by lightening or winning the lotto.

This smells nothing different than shady people who find shadier lawyers, who literally go into business of any kind with a tape measure in their pocket, looking for handicap accessible issues in the smallest of measurement errors, and then taking that establishment, {usually a very small one that really can not afford to be tied up in a lawsuit}; to court suing that establishment for their " rights being violated " and demanding justice.

people with nothing better to do making a mountain out of a mole hill, while others seize the opportunity to get something past the publics nose.

 

[Ice_nine]

Superblue, I don't think there is an epidemic, but there is a precedent for suing the hell out of businesses that don't bend to the will of the gay agenda/are discriminatory and anti-gay (whichever way you look at it). Just because it's not directly affecting millions of people doesn't mean those thousands or maybe even hundreds shouldn't have legal recourse to uphold their religious beliefs. As for making a mountain out of a molehill, well isn't suing a small bakery (did this even happen in real life I feel like the Christian Bakery thing has reached mythological status) when you likely have dozens of other options, overreacting?

And why in 2015 do you expect certain issues to be resolved? Humans will muck things up forever. It is not as though we evolve morally as a species in an upward direction. Also "homosexuals" have not been around forever. I think many qwerty theorists would even tell you that sexual orientation is a social construct maybe a few hundred years old at most.