What will the Catholic Church do about homosexuals filing lawsuits against Christian business owners?

[polskieserce]

Here is the latest incident involving the homosexual movement....

 

Supreme Court Rules Florist Discriminated Against Gay Couple

 

It's only a matter of time before this part of the homosexual agenda starts spreading to other states.  Have any Catholic laity or clergy given some thought to how Catholics will cope with this?  I personally feel bad for Christians in those states, especially those in any type of wedding service business.

[CatherineM]

My thoughts are if you're in a public service business, stuff will happen you don't like. How about doing funeral flowers for a dead mobster or pedophile. How about a wedding cake for someone marrying outside the church?  I did wills for gay people and name changes for transsexuals. It didn't kill me. It didn't destroy my faith. Working with death row inmates didn't cause me a near occasion of sin. 

My neighbor smokes pot. I can still be a good neighbor without condoning his lifestyle. I could be nice to a convicted murderer without losing my soul. I attended funerals for people who died of aids without once thinking that their death was God's punishment. Making a cake for a gay couple isn't going to kill you especially when most of the straight people buying them are co-habitating and therefore also in sin. 

[polskieserce]

On 2/16/2017 at 10:07 PM, CatherineM said:

My thoughts are if you're in a public service business, stuff will happen you don't like. How about doing funeral flowers for a dead mobster or pedophile. How about a wedding cake for someone marrying outside the church?  I did wills for gay people and name changes for transsexuals. It didn't kill me. It didn't destroy my faith. Working with death row inmates didn't cause me a near occasion of sin. 

My neighbor smokes pot. I can still be a good neighbor without condoning his lifestyle. I could be nice to a convicted murderer without losing my soul. I attended funerals for people who died of aids without once thinking that their death was God's punishment. Making a cake for a gay couple isn't going to kill you especially when most of the straight people buying them are co-habitating and therefore also in sin. 

But why should the federal government be allowed to force businesses to take unwanted clients?

[havok579257]

33 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

But why should the federal government be allowed to force businesses to take unwanted clients?

should the federal government be allowed to step in if a company refuses to serve someone because they are black or catholic?  what about numerous companies? should an owner be allowed to do whatever they want and discriminate against whomever they want?

[havok579257]

the issue i have with this whole this is similar to what catherine said.  The problem is the christian business is saying that to serve a gay couple goes against their beliefs.  Fine, I get that.  Although are they also refusing care the the majority of couples getting married who are living together and having premarital sex?  I highly doubt they are refusing service to the majority of people(since in this day and age a large majority of people have premarital sex and live together prior to marriage) who do things that goes against their beliefs.  Its hypocritical to say I wont serve a person because they are gay and it goes against my beliefs but I am ok serving this couple who has premarital sex and lives together even though they go against my beliefs also.

 

In my mind, if your going to take a stand a refuse service to any group of people based on your beliefs, then you need to be consistant and refuse service to all groups of people who go against your beliefs.  Which for someone in the wedding business, means rejecting the vast majority of customers.  Either be consistant or deal with it.

[polskieserce]

9 hours ago, havok579257 said:

should the federal government be allowed to step in if a company refuses to serve someone because they are black or catholic?  what about numerous companies? should an owner be allowed to do whatever they want and discriminate against whomever they want?

No, I think businesses should be free to discriminate against blacks, Catholics, disabled people, {insert any group here}, etc.  I wouldn't shop at a business that kicks out people for no good reason, but I wouldn't have a fit over it like some of these hippies protesting Trump's travel ban.  This is one area where I think the individual and not the government should set the standards.  The overwhelming majority of businesses wouldn't do this even if it were legal, because too many people would get pissed and not shop there.  But there would probably be some confederate flag hillbilly gas stations in the middle of nowhere that don't allow non-whites to receive service.

 

5 hours ago, havok579257 said:

the issue i have with this whole this is similar to what catherine said.  The problem is the christian business is saying that to serve a gay couple goes against their beliefs.  Fine, I get that.  Although are they also refusing care the the majority of couples getting married who are living together and having premarital sex?  I highly doubt they are refusing service to the majority of people(since in this day and age a large majority of people have premarital sex and live together prior to marriage) who do things that goes against their beliefs.  Its hypocritical to say I wont serve a person because they are gay and it goes against my beliefs but I am ok serving this couple who has premarital sex and lives together even though they go against my beliefs also.

 

In my mind, if your going to take a stand a refuse service to any group of people based on your beliefs, then you need to be consistant and refuse service to all groups of people who go against your beliefs.  Which for someone in the wedding business, means rejecting the vast majority of customers.  Either be consistant or deal with it.

I want to make 2 points: first off, the homosexual lifestyle is far more devious than heterosexual cohabitation because it violates God's biological intention.  Heterosexual cohabitators, while in a state of sin, at least have part of the equation correct.  Second, it is exponentially harder to tell if a heterosexual couple is screwing around or not.  On the other hand, if a guy comes in and asks for a wedding cake with "Tom <3 Brad" on it, then that's a dead giveaway.  But if a woman came in an asked for a cake celebrating her 3rd abortion, that would a no-go in my book as well.

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

No, I think businesses should be free to discriminate against blacks, Catholics, disabled people, {insert any group here}, etc.  I wouldn't shop at a business that kicks out people for no good reason, but I wouldn't have a fit over it like some of these hippies protesting Trump's travel ban.  This is one area where I think the individual and not the government should set the standards.  The overwhelming majority of businesses wouldn't do this even if it were legal, because too many people would get pissed and not shop there.  But there would probably be some confederate flag hillbilly gas stations in the middle of nowhere that don't allow non-whites to receive service.

 

I want to make 2 points: first off, the homosexual lifestyle is far more devious than heterosexual cohabitation because it violates God's biological intention.  Heterosexual cohabitators, while in a state of sin, at least have part of the equation correct.  Second, it is exponentially harder to tell if a heterosexual couple is screwing around or not.  On the other hand, if a guy comes in and asks for a wedding cake with "Tom <3 Brad" on it, then that's a dead giveaway.  But if a woman came in an asked for a cake celebrating her 3rd abortion, that would a no-go in my book as well.

you say most businesses wouldn't discriminate but as we have seen throughout world history, they will discriminate against a group of people.  

let's say for instance a handful of black families live in a very small town.  one of those that has one gas station, one grocery store, basically one of everything.  so if a handful of  white owners/family got together and decided they didn't want the black families in their town and decided they would refuse them service, you would be ok with it?  they would essentially be forcing the black families to move since they would be unable to get gas or food or other services in that town.  they would essentially be denying those black families their right to live in that town.  Yes, they would not be physically forcing them out of town but would make it impossible for them to live there.  do those black families not have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

 

as to your second point, yes homosexual unions are worse than heterosexual couple who live together before marriage but both are sinful.  both are against God's law.  By claiming you can not serve one couple because they are commiting a sin but be ok serving another who is also sinning is wrong.  Just because one sin is worse than the other (both being serious sins) does not mean we accept one as ok just because its not as bad.  Its hypocritical of the owners to say they can't serve one group but be ok serving the other when both are in serious sin.  If your against something because it goes against your faith, then you need to be against all things that go against your faith.  Either that, or get out of the business.  I have no problem if these business owners want to refuse service to all who do things against their beliefs.  I have a problem when they pick and choose what beliefs they want to enforce for the sake of money.  Cause that's what it comes down to.  If all these wedding planners against gay marriage also refused to serve all couple who are living together pre marriage then they would be out of business in this day and age.  Its ok to stand on their beliefs when they are only standing against a small group of people.  Its a lot harder and more noble to stand against the vast majority of people who go against your beliefs.

 

also one final point but most of the time when you are talking to a couple it either comes out or is very obvious they are living together.  i think its ridiculous to assume wedding planners who oppose serving gay couples have not been able to tell if "any" heterosexual couples they have served live together. 

[polskieserce]

10 hours ago, havok579257 said:

you say most businesses wouldn't discriminate but as we have seen throughout world history, they will discriminate against a group of people.  

let's say for instance a handful of black families live in a very small town.  one of those that has one gas station, one grocery store, basically one of everything.  so if a handful of  white owners/family got together and decided they didn't want the black families in their town and decided they would refuse them service, you would be ok with it?  they would essentially be forcing the black families to move since they would be unable to get gas or food or other services in that town.  they would essentially be denying those black families their right to live in that town.  Yes, they would not be physically forcing them out of town but would make it impossible for them to live there.  do those black families not have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

 

as to your second point, yes homosexual unions are worse than heterosexual couple who live together before marriage but both are sinful.  both are against God's law.  By claiming you can not serve one couple because they are commiting a sin but be ok serving another who is also sinning is wrong.  Just because one sin is worse than the other (both being serious sins) does not mean we accept one as ok just because its not as bad.  Its hypocritical of the owners to say they can't serve one group but be ok serving the other when both are in serious sin.  If your against something because it goes against your faith, then you need to be against all things that go against your faith.  Either that, or get out of the business.  I have no problem if these business owners want to refuse service to all who do things against their beliefs.  I have a problem when they pick and choose what beliefs they want to enforce for the sake of money.  Cause that's what it comes down to.  If all these wedding planners against gay marriage also refused to serve all couple who are living together pre marriage then they would be out of business in this day and age.  Its ok to stand on their beliefs when they are only standing against a small group of people.  Its a lot harder and more noble to stand against the vast majority of people who go against your beliefs.

 

also one final point but most of the time when you are talking to a couple it either comes out or is very obvious they are living together.  i think its ridiculous to assume wedding planners who oppose serving gay couples have not been able to tell if "any" heterosexual couples they have served live together. 

I'm talking about in this day and age in America.  Most businesses nowadays would do not do it.  Keep in mind that a lot of small businesses have been killed off by massive firms.  100 years ago, I would agree with you unconditionally that most businesses would do it.  But regardless, the Constitution never granted the government the authority to force people to do business with unpopular groups.

Going to your examples of a small town with white business owners, yes, I do think that those business owners should be able to deny black people service.  It wouldn't be a kind or Christian thing to do, but I would still support their freedom to deny service.  I believe that the freedom to pick your customers is equivalent to freedom of speech.  As soon as you start denying freedom of speech to fringe groups (ie Neo-nazis) then you have basically destroyed that right altogether.  Those black families would not HAVE TO move out of the hypothetical small town, they would just have to drive farther to get those services.  Again, I don't think that's the right thing to do, but then again, neither is holding a neo-nazi rally.  If the white families of that town decided to take things a further and physically drive the black families out with AR15s and molotov cocktails, then their rights would be violated.  But a mere denial of service is not a violation of a person's constitutional rights.

The article I posted was about a florist, not a wedding planner.  How is she going to know if a guy/girl buying flowers is messing around or not?  I agree that a wedding planner works much more closely with the couple and will be far more likely to know that stuff.  But a flower shop or bakery most likely will not.  Also, I agree that it would be hypocritical to pick which sinful groups you deal with (even though the homosexuals are far more devious) but again, it comes down to a business owner being able to pick his customers.  It doesn't matter what either of us think is hypocritical.  Any retail worker will tell you that each customer, especially the old people, thinks that his/her opinion on how the store should run is the uncontested truth.  The business owner should be able to pick his clients and federal civil rights legislation is unconstitutional overreach.

[little2add]

 So long as the activity is legal, the business owner has no right to deny services.   Selling flowers is a business transaction, not an endorsement of a lifestyle.   

 Personally if I was going to spend money I would not want to do business with a hostile  Enterprise.    It is very likely that the lawsuit is just a publicity stunt started only to get attention and notoriety.     After all who was really harmed by this, they are dozens of florist that would happily provide  their services in the area.   I suspect that this florist is a victim of a witchhunt and nothing more 

Edited February 24, 2017 by little2add

[Peace]

@polskieserce

If racism is wrong then a person has no strict right to racially discriminate, because error has no rights.

But if you say that people should have a right to racially discriminate (I suppope based on their natural rights as private citizens) then they should not be allowed to use any public resources or public benefits to conduct their business. That means that they cannot incorporate as a limited liability entity, obtain any business tax breaks, use any publicly provided utilities such as publicly supplied water, gas, electricity, etc.

On the other hand, if they desire to avail themselves of those public resources and benefits, they are subject to public laws and the will of the majority that businesses not discriminate. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Peace

[polskieserce]

On 2/24/2017 at 2:00 PM, Peace said:

@polskieserce

If racism is wrong then a person has no strict right to racially discriminate, because error has no rights.

But if you say that people should have a right to racially discriminate (I suppope based on their natural rights as private citizens) then they should not be allowed to use any public resources or public benefits to conduct their business. That means that they cannot incorporate as a limited liability entity, obtain any business tax breaks, use any publicly provided utilities such as publicly supplied water, gas, electricity, etc.

On the other hand, if they desire to avail themselves of those public resources and benefits, they are subject to public laws and the will of the majority that businesses not discriminate. 

It doesn't work that way.  By your logic, a neo-nazi skinhead would not be entitled to police protection because his views aren't accepted by the rest of society.  Private citizens aren't held to the same standard that the federal government is held to.  Barring discriminatory businesses from certain resources is still a de facto ban on discrimination and a ban on free association.  Under the Constitution, people are permitted to discriminate.  Remember one thing, the US constitution is based on minimal government intervention, not social collectivism.  Now of course, if you throw in judicial activism, then the Constitution can be mangled to be everything it was never meant to be.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It doesn't work that way.  By your logic, a neo-nazi skinhead would not be entitled to police protection because his views aren't accepted by the rest of society. 

A person can have whatever views he wants, but when those views are manifested in concrete action the state may withhold whatever assistance it may have granted him otherwise.

There is no strict right to police protection or to have utilities supplied by the state.

10 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Private citizens aren't held to the same standard that the federal government is held to. 

I never said that they were.

10 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Barring discriminatory businesses from certain resources is still a de facto ban on discrimination and a ban on free association.

No it is not a de facto ban. They can discriminate all they want, but they cannot expect assistance from the state in doing so. They can go pump water out of a well and install a solar panel on their roof for electricity. Other people do such things. 

10 hours ago, polskieserce said:

  Under the Constitution, people are permitted to discriminate. 

They are not entitled to assistance from the state in doing so.

10 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Remember one thing, the US constitution is based on minimal government intervention, not social collectivism.  Now of course, if you throw in judicial activism, then the Constitution can be mangled to be everything it was never meant to be.

Withholding state assistance is not intervention. If you conduct a discriminatory business and I refuse to repair your roof when it has a leak, have I "intervened" in your business? No. You can do whatever you want, but without my help.

Have a nice day.

[polskieserce]

9 hours ago, Peace said:

A person can have whatever views he wants, but when those views are manifested in concrete action the state may withhold whatever assistance it may have granted him otherwise.

There is no strict right to police protection or to have utilities supplied by the state.

I never said that they were.

No it is not a de facto ban. They can discriminate all they want, but they cannot expect assistance from the state in doing so. They can go pump water out of a well and install a solar panel on their roof for electricity. Other people do such things. 

They are not entitled to assistance from the state in doing so.

Withholding state assistance is not intervention. If you conduct a discriminatory business and I refuse to repair your roof when it has a leak, have I "intervened" in your business? No. You can do whatever you want, but without my help.

Have a nice day.

No, the state can't just withhold whatever aid it wants.  Discriminatory businesses would be subject to the same taxes as non-discriminatory businesses, therefore they have every right to expect equal access to state services.  Again, when you call the police to report vandalism to your car, the cops don't ask you about your political views.

That's essentially the conclusion you are leaning towards by saying that discriminatory businesses should be penalized with a denial of state services.

It is indeed a de facto ban because the state would essentially be driving discriminatory firms out of business.  You are basically saying that it would be ok for businesses to discriminate if they get absolutely no tax breaks and get cut off from vital benefits.  That's like saying that it's legal for a 17 year old to drink as long as they can pay underage citations.  All firms, regardless if they are discriminatory or not, are responsible for paying taxes.  Therefore, it is only fair for all firms to expect service from state/federal governments.  That's not the same as a contractor denying service to the hillbilly confederate flag gas station.  The hillbilly gas station isn't being involuntarily forced to give money to the contractor for services they might need down the road, therefore that's why that comparison is off.

Here is the point that some of you completely missed with this thread: IN THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE SEEING THE DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.  Many of you seem to be ok with it as long as it's targeted at a group you don't like.  But I guarantee you that it will become a growing problem for traditional Catholics down the road.

[HisChildForever]

On February 16, 2017 at 10:07 PM, CatherineM said:

My thoughts are if you're in a public service business, stuff will happen you don't like. How about doing funeral flowers for a dead mobster or pedophile. How about a wedding cake for someone marrying outside the church?  I did wills for gay people and name changes for transsexuals. It didn't kill me. It didn't destroy my faith. Working with death row inmates didn't cause me a near occasion of sin. 

My neighbor smokes pot. I can still be a good neighbor without condoning his lifestyle. I could be nice to a convicted murderer without losing my soul. I attended funerals for people who died of aids without once thinking that their death was God's punishment. Making a cake for a gay couple isn't going to kill you especially when most of the straight people buying them are co-habitating and therefore also in sin. 

Yes, exactly this. I don't understand why some businesses make a fuss over a gay couple's wedding cake. It's like, well then the business owners better ask every client to complete a morality checklist before providing them service. 

[havok579257]

3 hours ago, polskieserce said:

No, the state can't just withhold whatever aid it wants.  Discriminatory businesses would be subject to the same taxes as non-discriminatory businesses, therefore they have every right to expect equal access to state services.  Again, when you call the police to report vandalism to your car, the cops don't ask you about your political views.

That's essentially the conclusion you are leaning towards by saying that discriminatory businesses should be penalized with a denial of state services.

It is indeed a de facto ban because the state would essentially be driving discriminatory firms out of business.  You are basically saying that it would be ok for businesses to discriminate if they get absolutely no tax breaks and get cut off from vital benefits.  That's like saying that it's legal for a 17 year old to drink as long as they can pay underage citations.  All firms, regardless if they are discriminatory or not, are responsible for paying taxes.  Therefore, it is only fair for all firms to expect service from state/federal governments.  That's not the same as a contractor denying service to the hillbilly confederate flag gas station.  The hillbilly gas station isn't being involuntarily forced to give money to the contractor for services they might need down the road, therefore that's why that comparison is off.

Here is the point that some of you completely missed with this thread: IN THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE SEEING THE DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.  Many of you seem to be ok with it as long as it's targeted at a group you don't like.  But I guarantee you that it will become a growing problem for traditional Catholics down the road.

but your also saying the same thing about a group of white people running out all the blacks from their small town by refusing all services to them.  they would not be physically beating them out of town but essentially doing that by baring them from getting any food, gas, services in that town.  they are denying them God given rights to food and other essentials.  

let's follow your logic for a minute and say a law is passed that says your personal business is allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason.  how soon do you think until there are major issues in this country? its not out of the realm of possibility to see very liberal or conservative cities or states have the vast majority of businesses refuse to serve the other political affiliation. i would not be at all suprised to see some conservative leaders who are not politicians tell everyone who is a conservative to ask everyone's political affiliation before rendering any services and if they are liberal, refuse to serve them at all.  Or the opposite from liberal leaders.  so enough your going to have California de facto refusing to serve anyone who is a conservative or Texas de facto refusing to serve anyone who is liberal.  sure they are not physically forcing them to not live in those states but physical violence is not the only way to deny someone their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

also your not talking about just freedom of association, your talking about discriminating against one group of people based on faulty logic.  i disagree with the logic being i don't want to serve you because it goes against my beliefs but i only enforce my beliefs at certain times and not others.  again i say, if your going to tout being unable to serve a group of people because it goes against your beliefs, then use that same logic against everyone.  don't selectivly enforce your beliefs.  if your a flourist who works on weddings and refuse to work for gay couples becuase of your beliefs, then extend that same train of thought to all couple living together before marriage.  i think its a faulty excuse to say, well i couldn't tell if they are living together so i won't ask and just pretend they are not living together so i can get their business.  in society today, the normal is for couples to be living together before marriage.  the vast majority.  obviously those couples who don't live together before marriage are doing the right thing but they are not in the majority.  so for a flourist who has done hundreads of flowers for weddings not refuse anyone on the baisis of premarital cohabitation is just an example of not applying your beliefs to the whole of humanity.  which means i personally don't support your right to refuse services to a certain group of people.  either be consistant or don't use your beliefs as an excuse.