Christian Baker Fined & Silenced

[Nihil Obstat]

Hmmmm.  I think that online forums are a sort of addiction.  Most people have something other and better to do.  And stuff they ought to do.  I know I do. I always feel guilty about posting, as I do now.  In PhM's previous life, I posted long pieces on this and that.  Now I am much shorter and am trying avoid big debates.  When I look at all those words.  You realize that you aren't going to change anyone's mind?   The most constructive post is a short piece of advice to someone who is asking for it.

Over and out....for now.

Maybe people would pay attention to your longer posts if you were not so aggressively condescending.

[Socrates]

 

If this is the core issue then I think I can put it fairly briefly. I believe that the government does have a right to force people in private business to do things that are contrary to their conscience or beliefs. If you open a MacDonald's and say "serving black people is contrary to my conscience or beliefs" - I believe that the government has a right to levy a hefty fine on your business for discrimination. Apparently so do most of the other people in America - we have laws that prohibit that.

 

First of all, the government doesn't have "rights"; it has powers.  And yes, there is a difference.  

Citizens have rights, which the government is violating in these court decisions.

I don't believe in some all-powerful all-encompassing principle of "equality" (which has gone beyond applying to persons of different races, to demanding that certain behaviors be treated equally), trumping the more fundamental American rights to free practice of religion and of association.

Forcing persons at gunpoint to assist with "gay weddings" is tyranny, pure and simple.

 

Well. I don't think the cake issue will force us back into Jim Crow either.

But if you think that the USA could not slip back into that, I think that would be fairly naive. Societal change can and has happened lightening quick. You see a Hitler rise up out of nowhere in a decade or two. And the vast majority of the history of the USA was marked by slavery and legalized racism. Our history knows much more of that than it does of the tolerance that we have today. I do not think we are at a point where we should cease to be vigilant in those areas.

I don't claim to know what will happen in the future, but it seems we at least agree that the "gay" wedding cake issue won't lead to Jim Crow-style forced  racial segregation, so there's no reason to play the race card on this one.

I do see a more likely and immediate threat of worsening government oppression and aggression against persons whose religious or other practices and beliefs are contrary to the reigning social-left ideology.  Vigilance in the area of religious liberty is also needed.

These days, it's the pc left, rather than the Christian right, that's being intolerant, bigoted, and tyrannical.

[Yaatee]

Maybe people would pay attention to your longer posts if you were not so aggressively condescending.

It's the waste of time I am addressing.  I notice that no one changes anyone's mind. People just keep on posting, with many rants.

[Socrates]

And I would think that you also agree that the government has a right to force people to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

Can a person who objects to his money being taken and used to feed the poor (as you have objected to previously) or a person who objects to various military actions (innocent people killed in wars, by drones, bombs, etc.) refuse to pay his taxes? Can the government force that person to pay taxes and throw him in jail if he refuses? You seem to think so. You already stated that a legitimate purpose of the government is to provide a military. And some people are forced to pay tax who disagree with what our military does. So it would appear that you agree that the government has a right to force people to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

 What if the very act of paying tax itself conflicts with someone's conscience or beliefs? The government has no right to force them to pay tax then?

Again - I agree with a large degree of personal and religious freedom. But it is not an absolute right to do or not do whatever you want under any circumstances.

Again, the government has powers, not rights.

You raise legitimate concerns, which is why I believe taxing and spending of public money should be limited to as little as necessary.

But is making sure everybody must serve "gay weddings" a necessary national concern on the level of national security and defense?

And that it trumps the right to free practice of religion and freedom of association.

Really??  

Seriously.  Please.

Seems someone's priorities are seriously out of whack.  (Particularly for one who claims to always by default side with the Bishops.)

Not forcing people to assist a "gay marriage" with their business is a far cry from letting everyone "do whatever they want under any circumstances."

It's the waste of time I am addressing.  I notice that no one changes anyone's mind. People just keep on posting, with many rants.

Then stop wasting time reading and complaining about them.

Good bye.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

First of all, the government doesn't have "rights"; it has powers.  And yes, there is a difference.  

 

I would have to disagree. At the very least a just government possesses the right to rule.

From Immortale Dei:

"[...]Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."(1)

4. The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government.[...]"

 

It's the waste of time I am addressing.  I notice that no one changes anyone's mind. People just keep on posting, with many rants.

And you are as condescending as ever, so it all evens out. ^_^ 

[veritasluxmea]

Just my two cents... It's true I don't read every long post. It's true I tend to pay attention and spend more time reading more to people I tend to agree with.

However, I actually do pay attention to some debates and discussion on interesting issues, and I do read and think about a good number of people's arguments and opinions. I wouldn't say anything's completely changed my mind overnight, but it has contributed to forming my opinion and making me think carefully about issues and ideas. Yeah, one does have to be careful not to waste to much time on the internet (I'm on summer break and with my siblings gone for the summer, I have a lot of time on my hands even with my prayer, work, and study life taken care of. Unfortunately that's ending soon. Sigh.) Thinking and writing, even on the internet, are very mind forming tools, depending on how an individual person uses it. I wouldn't dismiss invigorating discussions as a complete waste of time, always. The responsibility's on you.

Edited July 11, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[Peace]

Again, the government has powers, not rights.

Whichever word you prefer to use is perfectly fine by me. I think we both know what we are talking about.

You raise legitimate concerns, which is why I believe taxing and spending of public money should be limited to as little as necessary.

Well - which is it? Do you agree that the government has a right/power to force people to do things that conflict with their conscience or beliefs, or don't you?

But is making sure everybody must serve "gay weddings" a necessary national concern on the level of national security and defense?

Not to me it is not. To me national security is a much more important issue.

And that it trumps the right to free practice of religion and freedom of association.

Really??  

Seriously.  Please.

Seems someone's priorities are seriously out of whack.  (Particularly for one who claims to always by default side with the Bishops.)

I never said that it trumps the right to free practice of religion. I already wrote in this thread that freedom of religion is important to me, and that I think the bakers should not be forced to make a gay wedding cake. I wrote that not making the cake in this situation is discrimination, but it is a justifiable discrimination because it is done for religious reasons.

But coming up with a logical reason why they should be allowed to discriminate, and distinguishing that from other cases (such as racial discrimination) that (most of us at least) know are wrong is difficult. That is what I have been attempting to discuss here. To come up with good reasons why that position is right.

And I am not aware of anything the Catholic Bishops in the USA have written concerning the cake case. If you have something specific for me to look at please post the link and I will have a look at it. Otherwise I do not see how what you wrote would be relevant.

Not forcing people to assist a "gay marriage" with their business is a far cry from letting everyone "do whatever they want under any circumstances."

Agreed. In this thread we have been attempting to discuss the balance between religious/personal freedom and our obligations toward others as citizens in a democracy.

[Yaatee]

I would have to disagree. At the very least a just government possesses the right to rule.

From Immortale Dei:

"[...]Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."(1)

4. The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government.[...]"

 

 

 

And you are as condescending as ever, so it all evens out. ^_^ 

It's not condescension.   It's just my observation about the long debates. That they are a waste of time.  No one's minds are changed.  For students like lux, it's a different matter.  But for working people with families, obligations, a house, chores, errands, professional studies--it's a waste of time.

You are making an observation regarding me, because I refuse to cave.

[Nihil Obstat]

Interestingly I also have a family for whom I am responsible, such as it is, a demanding job, errands and chores, an apartment to take care of, and full time post secondary studies. Yet I do not find online discussions to he a waste of time. 

[veritasluxmea]

This is ridiculous. How does anyone evaluate whether someone participating in an internet discussion is a waste of time? Does someone have to be convinced for it to be valuable? What about lurkers? Organizing your thoughts? learning more about your subject? Entertainment? 

Look, the responsibility of using your time is on you. If you have evaluated yourself and find it an addiction that is a waste of time, then get off. But don't expect that to be the same story for everyone. 

[Peace]

This is ridiculous. How does anyone evaluate whether someone participating in an internet discussion is a waste of time? Does someone have to be convinced for it to be valuable? What about lurkers? Organizing your thoughts? learning more about your subject? Entertainment? 

Look, the responsibility of using your time is on you. If you have evaluated yourself and find it an addiction that is a waste of time, then get off. But don't expect that to be the same story for everyone. 

I think she just got a little frustrated. It happens to all of us.

[dUSt]

When I look at all those words.  You realize that you aren't going to change anyone's mind?  

You might want to ask the Vice President and Program Director of St Paul Street Evangelization about that. He came to phatmass as a Baptist.

http://streetevangelization.com/

 

[Yaatee]

I think she just got a little frustrated. It happens to all of us.

Peace, you're so nice.  Always making Peace.

Interestingly I also have a family for whom I am responsible, such as it is, a demanding job, errands and chores, an apartment to take care of, and full time post secondary studies. Yet I do not find online discussions to he a waste of time. 

Apartment?!  Not a house?  (Just joking).  Seriously, houses eat up time AND money!

I think that the real time wasters, for me anyway, are the lo-o-ng posts. There's always that editing, spelling, typos, etc. 

 

[Socrates]

 . . . 

I never said that it trumps the right to free practice of religion. I already wrote in this thread that freedom of religion is important to me, and that I think the bakers should not be forced to make a gay wedding cake. I wrote that not making the cake in this situation is discrimination, but it is a justifiable discrimination because it is done for religious reasons.

But coming up with a logical reason why they should be allowed to discriminate, and distinguishing that from other cases (such as racial discrimination) that (most of us at least) know are wrong is difficult. That is what I have been attempting to discuss here. To come up with good reasons why that position is right.

I apologize if I misunderstood, but it looked to me like you were tying yourself in knots trying to defend the decision against the bakery owners.

I (and others) have already made the point that persons should be free to avoid providing their services for any event they choose not to support, but at this point, the debate is just going in circles.

Of course, it would help if judges stuck to simply upholding the law as it exists, rather than making wild extrapolations based on "emanations" and "penumbras" to essentially create new laws to their liking.

 

And I am not aware of anything the Catholic Bishops in the USA have written concerning the cake case. If you have something specific for me to look at please post the link and I will have a look at it. Otherwise I do not see how what you wrote would be relevant.

I don't know if they said anything specifically about the cake issue, but the Bishops have been pretty consistent in upholding religious freedom in similar issues, including opposing the contraception mandate of Obamacare, so I'll let you connect the dots.  The Church has also always opposed the whole idea of legal "gay marriage," so if the Bishops are opposed to "gay marriage," it would make little sense for them to support people being forced against their wills to bake cakes for said "marriages."

 

Agreed. In this thread we have been attempting to discuss the balance between religious/personal freedom and our obligations toward others as citizens in a democracy.

We have absolutely no obligations to give any kind of support to "gay marriages" or other immoral activities of others.

[Peace]

We have absolutely no obligations to give any kind of support to "gay marriages" or other immoral activities of others.

But therein lies the question I think. Selling someone a cake (or paper towels or cups) need not be seen as supporting the purpose for which the cake (or paper towels or cups) are ultimately used.

You could deny a gay couple the right to sit down and eat at your restaurant if you take the above principal to an extreme. I think the question we have been trying to figure out is - where is an appropriate place to draw the line?