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

[havok579257]

18 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

On your "one last point": It doesn't matter.  It is not the place of the government to mandate any particular set of morals.  A business owner can be completely racist in his policies, as long as he's not going out and harming people.  And nobody has the right to force him to provide services for anyone else at gunpoint.  It doesn't matter if he's being hypocritical or not.  It's not the place of the government to force him to not be a hypocrite.

That being said, you really don't understand the REASON that a business owner would decide not to provide services to a particular customer.  The reason is not because they are sinning.  The reason is because they are trying to promote sin as something good.  I would, as a business owner, provide services to someone who is gay, someone who is living in sin (premarital sex, etc...), someone who is racist, someone who is communist, someone who is muslim, but I would not provide services to support a gay wedding.  Do you see the difference?  And the difference is crucial.

Your ignorance in this matter is absolutely astonishing.  You can be sick of the term "liberal media" all you want, that doesn't change the logic of the matter one bit.  

Again, it is not the business of the state or the federal government to mandate any particular set of morals.  It is only the business of the government to apply law to morals that affect the physical safety of groups or individuals from other people (because it is in the best interest of the government to protect citizens so that the country can continue to exist).  

they are refusing services to someone because they are trying to promote something sinful as something good(gay marriage)?  ok i don't disagree.  although if that's the case they how do you provide services to someone who is living together pre marriage which is sinful and trying to passs that off as good?  its the same thing.  both are trying to pass off their sinful behvaiors as something good.  both should then be refused services.  which means the vast majority of people seeking that business should be refused services.

 

so now i am ignorant because i am not far right and believe there is some hidden conspiracy against good conservatives by the evil media?  seriously?  so foxnews and brietbart are two of the most trustworthy news sources?  why, cause they slant right?  show me a news source who is not biased toward their beliefs.   the simple fact is both conservative and liberal media sources disrgard the negatives of their causes and rarely post positives from the other side.  perfect example is the Spicer keeping some media outlets out of the gaggle on friday.  doesn't matter if you agree with him or disagree with it, its still news and should be reported on.  well it was all over the cnn website.  it had a small single video about it on foxnews that was up for a little bit and then taken down.  foxnews did not different than cnn does about things that make their side look bad.  they make a small mention of it and then ignore it.  also this general claim of the media is left wing media doesn't make any sense.  lumping every single news orgianization together as one media outlet is unintelligent.  please exaplin to me who (what organizations, please include them all) the left wing media are.

 

you say its not the business of the government to mandate on morals and only get involved when someones physical saftey is threatened?  so in your mind its not the governments business if all the citizens of a city join together and refuse to serve any black person thus effectively running them out of the city.  i mean they didn't use physical force to get them to leave the city, they just made it impossible for them to buy a house, rent an apartment, buy food or gas or so on.  so that's ok?  only physical violence counts. i guess you would also be ok with a strictly private funded hospital refusing to care for a gunshot victim who came into their hospital just because he was black?   i mean they wouldn't be physically harming him in any way and its not the governments business to force their morality on people so they have to help someone who is dying.  just trying to figure out where this line is with you.  physical violence is the line and anything and everything up until that point is ok?  

[Anomaly]

@fides' Jack I'm pretty sure I do know what freedom is.

You are free to be in a business, or not.  If you choose to be in business, then you are obligated to treat everyone the same.  The US legal system has established certain characteristics as protected classes.  Race, gender, sexual orientation.  The same law that prevents you from charging a girl ten cents more for the icecream bar you sell to her brother (because she is a girl) is why you can't decide not to make a cake for a gay couple.   If you are uncomfortable with that, then don't be in the cake business.  You can have a limited supply of cake toppers to avoid same sex couples, or not choose to advertise in gay wedding magazines, or have a Jesus Loves You sign in your business.   You can't post signs that say no Jews, no Asians, no Arabs, or no Gays.

Get into another business.    The principle is to be nice and tolerate other people's faults.   It's having some weeds grow with the wheat, not mowing down the wheat field to rid the weeds or swallowing the camel to avoid a few gnats. 

Why not make laws to outlaw anything but Catholic Churches and require a letter from a Catholic Priest approving the upcoming nuptials before you accept an order for a wedding cake? 

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

they are refusing services to someone because they are trying to promote something sinful as something good(gay marriage)?  ok i don't disagree.  although if that's the case they how do you provide services to someone who is living together pre marriage which is sinful and trying to passs that off as good?  its the same thing.  both are trying to pass off their sinful behvaiors as something good.  both should then be refused services.  which means the vast majority of people seeking that business should be refused services.

 

so now i am ignorant because i am not far right and believe there is some hidden conspiracy against good conservatives by the evil media?  seriously?  so foxnews and brietbart are two of the most trustworthy news sources?  why, cause they slant right?  show me a news source who is not biased toward their beliefs.   the simple fact is both conservative and liberal media sources disrgard the negatives of their causes and rarely post positives from the other side.  perfect example is the Spicer keeping some media outlets out of the gaggle on friday.  doesn't matter if you agree with him or disagree with it, its still news and should be reported on.  well it was all over the cnn website.  it had a small single video about it on foxnews that was up for a little bit and then taken down.  foxnews did not different than cnn does about things that make their side look bad.  they make a small mention of it and then ignore it.  also this general claim of the media is left wing media doesn't make any sense.  lumping every single news orgianization together as one media outlet is unintelligent.  please exaplin to me who (what organizations, please include them all) the left wing media are.

 

you say its not the business of the government to mandate on morals and only get involved when someones physical saftey is threatened?  so in your mind its not the governments business if all the citizens of a city join together and refuse to serve any black person thus effectively running them out of the city.  i mean they didn't use physical force to get them to leave the city, they just made it impossible for them to buy a house, rent an apartment, buy food or gas or so on.  so that's ok?  only physical violence counts. i guess you would also be ok with a strictly private funded hospital refusing to care for a gunshot victim who came into their hospital just because he was black?   i mean they wouldn't be physically harming him in any way and its not the governments business to force their morality on people so they have to help someone who is dying.  just trying to figure out where this line is with you.  physical violence is the line and anything and everything up until that point is ok?  

First point - it is not the same thing.  It would be wrong to sell sex-related merchandise for the purpose of homosexual behavior (separate from the idea of it being wrong for heterosexual behavior).  It would be wrong to sell a cake for a homosexual wedding.  It would be wrong to sell a "pre-marital sex ring" (if such a thing existed) to people living in sin before getting married, since such a thing, in its very nature, supports sin.  It is not wrong to support a sinner - just the sin itself.  I don't know how much more clearly I can try to express this idea - but you need to understand the difference.

No, actually Polsk mentioned that he's a socialist.  I certainly wouldn't have thought that about him, given this debate thread (and I haven't really payed attention to his posts elsewhere).  That would, de facto, mean that he's not even remotely right-leaning, let alone "far right".  The fact of the matter is that this is an aspect of the workings of this country that he does understand.  You clearly don't.  

50 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

@fides' Jack I'm pretty sure I do know what freedom is.

You are free to be in a business, or not.  If you choose to be in business, then you are obligated to treat everyone the same.  The US legal system has established certain characteristics as protected classes.  Race, gender, sexual orientation.  The same law that prevents you from charging a girl ten cents more for the icecream bar you sell to her brother (because she is a girl) is why you can't decide not to make a cake for a gay couple.   If you are uncomfortable with that, then don't be in the cake business.  You can have a limited supply of cake toppers to avoid same sex couples, or not choose to advertise in gay wedding magazines, or have a Jesus Loves You sign in your business.   You can't post signs that say no Jews, no Asians, no Arabs, or no Gays.

Get into another business.    The principle is to be nice and tolerate other people's faults.   It's having some weeds grow with the wheat, not mowing down the wheat field to rid the weeds or swallowing the camel to avoid a few gnats. 

Why not make laws to outlaw anything but Catholic Churches and require a letter from a Catholic Priest approving the upcoming nuptials before you accept an order for a wedding cake? 

I am under no obligation to treat everyone the same, whether I have a business or not.  The fact that you don't understand this means that clearly you do not understand what freedom means in this country. 

Public institutions, under the law, MUST not discriminate based on certain factors (that you mentioned).  Private institutions, including my privately owned business, are not affected by that in the least (or, rather, should not be).  And the states that would disagree are just plain wrong.  They have bad legislators, bad judges, and bad citizens who, like you, don't understand what freedom in this country means.

The constitution was designed to allow capitalism to solve these problems naturally, but the moment you use the government's guns to force your own ideas of what is right and wrong down my business' throat is the moment we have a tyranny.

The truth is that there are laws used against businesses that do help protect against certain forms of discrimination, but those laws should not exist, and are only very recent laws created by those same ignorant lawmakers and ignorant (however well-intentioned) citizens.  

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, havok579257 said:

you say its not the business of the government to mandate on morals and only get involved when someones physical saftey is threatened?  so in your mind its not the governments business if all the citizens of a city join together and refuse to serve any black person thus effectively running them out of the city.  i mean they didn't use physical force to get them to leave the city, they just made it impossible for them to buy a house, rent an apartment, buy food or gas or so on.  so that's ok?  only physical violence counts. i guess you would also be ok with a strictly private funded hospital refusing to care for a gunshot victim who came into their hospital just because he was black?   i mean they wouldn't be physically harming him in any way and its not the governments business to force their morality on people so they have to help someone who is dying.  just trying to figure out where this line is with you.  physical violence is the line and anything and everything up until that point is ok?  

I wanted to respond to this specifically.  In the eyes of government, then yes, that's what I'm saying.  Anything more than is past the government's purview. (I want to add here - I'm talking about businesses specifically, there are areas outside of violence that the government rightly can interfere in, but not in regards to private business)

Morally speaking, we probably view these things the same way.  Of course those things are wrong.  What's more wrong morally is denying the freedom of individuals and their businesses (means of living).  That is evil, period.

What's really ironic is that black slaves understood, perhaps better than anyone, what freedom really meant, and they were willing to suffer and die for it (indicated by the fact that many of them did).  And now we're here arguing because, in their name, you're trying to justify taking away that freedom.  It's absolute, utter nonsense.

Now, find me a single instance of that occurring in the 21st century (people banding together in a city and refusing services to black people).  It's a moot point.  That hypothetical case doesn't exist, and would only exist in a country left to run unimpeded by our current Democratic party, or the same conditions with a Nazi party.

Edited March 1, 2017 by fides' Jack

[Anomaly]

46 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

 

I am under no obligation to treat everyone the same, whether I have a business or not.  The fact that you don't understand this means that clearly you do not understand what freedom means in this country. 

Public institutions, under the law, MUST not discriminate based on certain factors (that you mentioned).  Private institutions, including my privately owned business, are not affected by that in the least (or, rather, should not be).  And the states that would disagree are just plain wrong.  They have bad legislators, bad judges, and bad citizens who, like you, don't understand what freedom in this country means.

The constitution was designed to allow capitalism to solve these problems naturally, but the moment you use the government's guns to force your own ideas of what is right and wrong down my business' throat is the moment we have a tyranny.

The truth is that there are laws used against businesses that do help protect against certain forms of discrimination, but those laws should not exist, and are only very recent laws created by those same ignorant lawmakers and ignorant (however well-intentioned) citizens.  

Obviously you have a higher estimate of your intellectual abilities then you are actually capable of demonstrating. 

The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the legal right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place....without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin ."

Look it up.  Those protected classes have been a bit expanded, but not unreasonably so.   It's all quite Constitutional and legal.   If you have a moral issue with equality, than argue that. Don't flaunt your idiocy with determined ignorance by repeating it isn't "constitutional" or violates the principle of freedom in America.  

Unless you're really not as dumb as your points are and are just trolling for grins...  haha 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Anomaly

[CatherineM]

Businesses aren't free to do anything they want. They can't sell poison milkshakes. They can't dump toxic sludge into the streets. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Morally speaking, we probably view these things the same way.  Of course those things are wrong.  What's more wrong morally is denying the freedom of individuals and their businesses (means of living).  That is evil, period.

You do not have a moral right to sin.

And you go even further and suggest that preventing someone from engaging  in sin is more morally wrong than the sin that is prohibited?

Thanks for the laugh.

 

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

What's really ironic is that black slaves understood, perhaps better than anyone, what freedom really meant, and they were willing to suffer and die for it (indicated by the fact that many of them did).  And now we're here arguing because, in their name, you're trying to justify taking away that freedom.  It's absolute, utter nonsense.

They may have understood freedom but you certainly do not.

1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.

[dominicansoul]

5 hours ago, havok579257 said:

so because musilms will resort to violence that makes them strong and because christians don't resort to violence then we are a doormat?  following that logic, Jesus was a doormat also.  i highly doubt your saying that.

 

its really simple, has anyone been refused service at a musilm store for being gay AND have they filed a lawsuit?  has the courts ruled in favor of the musilm businesses being allowed to discrimminate?  if these are no, then you have no leg to stand on.  if people choose to not sue the musilm bakery then that is their choice.  unless you have proof of actual court cases, your just making things up

That's my point, there are no court cases involving other religions, only Christianity.  Until I see other groups being persecuted by the Supreme Court, I'm not gonna believe this has anything to do with civil rights.  It's all about silencing Christianity's condemnation of homosexual marriage.  

Our Christian beliefs on marriage should not be condemned by our government as discriminatory.  And Christians who own businesses shouldn't have to compromise their beliefs in their own business practices.  This isn't like racism, this isn't like Jim Crow laws, this is our Christian belief.  Christians believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman.   Our government has boldly changed that definition and now tries to enforce it upon the populace.  (Well, at least it's forcing Christians to accept this new definition.)   Quit getting brainwashed by the world.  NOT supporting/favoring/loving/agreeing with/gay-pride- parading/participating/showcasing/celebrating homosexual marriage is not discriminatory and does not make us BIGOTS.      

    

 

 

[Anomaly]

Sorry, but there is a huge difference between tolerance and celebration of an act. 

First and foremost you have to treat those you disagree with respectfully as you would want to be respected if they disagree with you.   It's when you over react that you then get an over reaction in response.   Even as an atheist I can understand the point of loving the sinner, not the sin.  It's idiot bigots like you guys that think making a cake as personally and significantly promoting something you disagree with. 

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

That's my point, there are no court cases involving other religions, only Christianity.  Until I see other groups being persecuted by the Supreme Court, I'm not gonna believe this has anything to do with civil rights.  It's all about silencing Christianity's condemnation of homosexual marriage.  

Our Christian beliefs on marriage should not be condemned by our government as discriminatory.  And Christians who own businesses shouldn't have to compromise their beliefs in their own business practices.  This isn't like racism, this isn't like Jim Crow laws, this is our Christian belief.  Christians believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman.   Our government has boldly changed that definition and now tries to enforce it upon the populace.  (Well, at least it's forcing Christians to accept this new definition.)   Quit getting brainwashed by the world.  NOT supporting/favoring/loving/agreeing with/gay-pride- parading/participating/showcasing/celebrating homosexual marriage is not discriminatory and does not make us BIGOTS.      

    

 

 

the supreme court can not go make up cases when no one has brought them to their attention.  you can't claim right now they are just persecuting christians since they have only ruled on christian cases because no one has brought other cases to their attention.  the supreme court can only rule on cases before them.  so until someone brings a musilm case before them, they cant do anything about it.  if you have any issue with someone, have an issue with the american people for not bringing a case to the supreme court.  as of right now you have no facts to claim only christians are being persecuted by this.  you have no leg to stand on.  now if in the future someone brings a case to the supreme court about a muslim baker and they side with his right to refuse service to anyone, then you have a legit claim about christian persecution.  although until we actually have something else to gauge it against, you can't claim only christians are being persecuted.  its just factually inaccurate.

  also for a case to get to the supreme court it has to have gone through numerous court cases first.  

 

christians who own a business shouldn't have to comprimise their beliefs in their own practices?  which beliefs are those?  would thta involve being morally opposed to making a wedding cake, being a flourist, being a wedding planner and have to serve a heterosexual couple who live together pre marriage and pass this off as good?  oh wait, those sins are ok to support because it would cut to much into their profits.  its ok to refuse homosexuals service because they are a tiny percent of the population.  these owners are hypocrits, plain and simple.  they have no problem serving those who are divorced and are remarrying or those who live together before marriage and pass it off as good.  if they really claimed they were standing up for their beliefs, then they would refuse to serve all who try to pass off sinfulness and goodness.  they don't do that because with society the way it is now, they would be turning away the vast majority of people in this country.  i don't have respect for someone who selectively uses their faith.  i don't respect nancy pelosi when she is ok pulling out a catholic social teaching here or there in defense of her policies but then has no problem with allowing abortion on demand.  

 

finally supporting the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone based off of religion, race or sex does not mean we support gay lifestyles.  i don't support the gay lifestyle but i understand they have a right to use a public/private business in the united states.  it was not to long ago thtat blacks were being denied the right to use any public/private business in the united states.  should that still be allowed?   

[HisChildForever]

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

 

 

 

 

 

Holy cow!  I had no idea that there were so many people here who have no idea what freedom is.  This is America, people!

Polskieserce is absolutely right on this.  People arguing against him are extremely ignorant.  For the state to rule against the business owner goes against absolutely EVERYTHING this country stands for.  And it's really, really sad for me to see comments like this on Phatmass of all places.  But the fact that it is here only shows why it is such an issue right now, because so, so many people are ignorant and take for granted what they don't understand.  If people actually had a clue, then the state would have ruled otherwise.

I've never used such harsh language on this site before, but it's really needed right now.  Everyone above really needs to spend some time researching the other side to try to understand it.  If you don't, you're doing yourself a disservice and everyone else that you talk to about this issue.

Nobody has a right to force me, at gunpoint, to do anything with my business that I don't want to do.

Perhaps you are the one who needs to consider the other side, at least before you begin spouting insults. You can express disagreement or even call someone wrong without being so rude about it.

[havok579257]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

 

Now, find me a single instance of that occurring in the 21st century (people banding together in a city and refusing services to black people).  It's a moot point.  That hypothetical case doesn't exist, and would only exist in a country left to run unimpeded by our current Democratic party, or the same conditions with a Nazi party.

so because it has not happened yet suddenly means its not possible to happen in the future.  how many people said that it would be impossible for a women to ever have the right to vote or blacks to not be slaves or christians not to be feed to the lions?  just because someone is short sighted and can not see the possibility of what can happen in the future, does not mean its not possible.  with hos partisan this country is, it is very possible something like this could happen in a small town if business owners were allowed to discriminate against anyone and everyone they choose.  

 

also you do understand the republican party has many, many faults as evidence by not only bishops but popes speaking out agains some of their policies.  also the democratic party is not all evil.  they are all not evil and only want to push someone evil agenda against the world.  honestly, you do understand that right?  that all democrats are not evil and all repbilcans are not good. 

[Norseman82]

The point was best expressed by Sen. Marco Rubio when he once said that government should not force people to sin.  So if we look at it from that angle, if you write on the frosting "Congratulations Adam and Steve" and put a "groom and groom" figurine on top, you are sinning because you are offering congratulations to a sinful act (see the CCC section on when we share in the sins of others). 

[havok579257]

38 minutes ago, Norseman82 said:

The point was best expressed by Sen. Marco Rubio when he once said that government should not force people to sin.  So if we look at it from that angle, if you write on the frosting "Congratulations Adam and Steve" and put a "groom and groom" figurine on top, you are sinning because you are offering congratulations to a sinful act (see the CCC section on when we share in the sins of others). 

and i still come back to why is it a sin to serve a homosexual couple and not a sin to serve a couple who is living together pre marriage?  if your going to pull your beliefs out as to why you can't serve someone, then be consistant.  don't enforce some of your beliefs and not others because of profits.  this is what gets to me about these business owners claiming they can't serve homosexual couples because it goes against their beliefs.  they choose to be selective about what beliefs they will stand up for.  if a business owner comes out and wants to refuse serves to all homosexual couples getting married along with all couple who live together pre marriage, then fine, we can talk then.  i have no problem talking about this and possibly supporting their claims. i just take issue when someone wants to enforce some of their beliefs but not others because of profits.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

The point was best expressed by Sen. Marco Rubio when he once said that government should not force people to sin.  So if we look at it from that angle, if you write on the frosting "Congratulations Adam and Steve" and put a "groom and groom" figurine on top, you are sinning because you are offering congratulations to a sinful act (see the CCC section on when we share in the sins of others). 

Nah. You are not offering a congratulations. You got paid money to put the words on the cake, it is a business transaction. A person might sin for making the cake, but not under that rationale.