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

[Norseman82]

17 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

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.

First, as was pointed out earlier, a congratulatory message to "Adam and Steve" is a dead giveaway, whereas with "Adam and Eve" it is generally not. 

Second, regarding serving a wedding for someone who is living together in sin before marriage, such a couple does not sin by getting married (other things being equal such as eligibility requirements and other sacramental requirements); if anything, they are "getting right in the eyes of God". 

Now, your turn.  Regarding the link I posted earlier in this thread:  was it wrong for the baker to refuse to decorate the cake with the happy birthday greeting to Adolph Hitler Campbell?

[havok579257]

Just now, Norseman82 said:

First, as was pointed out earlier, a congratulatory message to "Adam and Steve" is a dead giveaway, whereas with "Adam and Eve" it is generally not. 

Second, regarding serving a wedding for someone who is living together in sin before marriage, such a couple does not sin by getting married (other things being equal such as eligibility requirements and other sacramental requirements); if anything, they are "getting right in the eyes of God". 

Now, your turn.  Regarding the link I posted earlier in this thread:  was it wrong for the baker to refuse to decorate the cake with the happy birthday greeting to Adolph Hitler Campbell?

as i pointed out earlier, its near impossible to believe that a wedding cake maker, wedding planner or someone else has "NEVER" come across any heterosexual couple who lived together pre marriage that they new about.  not once has anyone ever talked about living together in front of a wedding cake baker?  i find that near impossible to believe.  do you concede the point that this wedding baker is selectively enforcing their beliefs?

 

the couple is not sinning by getting married but they are sinning by promoting living together pre marriage as a good and just thing.  i also find it near impossible that everyone they dealt with who lived together were now suddenly against living together pre marriage.  as american society shows, the majority of people support living togteher pre marriage and dont see anything wrong with it.

 

i understand where you are coming from that a business owner should be able to refuse to serve someone just because since it is his own business.  part of me agree's with this idea.  although the problem is, as history has shown us numerous times, that people will discriminate against other because of their sex or race or religion.  all things i view as evil and the church agrees with me.  this idea can easily turn to state wide or country wide discrimination against blacks, conservatives, liberals, hispanics, catholics or so on.  i have an issue supporting something that is could turn into rampant discrimination and its not unlikely to happen.  

 

i guess i would ask how do you ensure a group of people does not become discriminated against in this senario?  if this would go into effect and let's say in 5 years every extremly liberal town in California refused to serve anyone who is catholic who opposes abortion or any black person who is a conservative, what do you do?  what do you do if 3 or 4 towns band together to drive out all of the black people from this towns by refusing them services such as food, gas, shelter?  i mean its not realistic to tell the black family to drive 100 miles to buy food and gas.  so they are being forced against their will out of a town.  how do you ensure this does not happen?

[dominicansoul]

Why do you guys equate a Hetero couple living in sin who are making their lives right by marrying each other to homosexual couples getting "married" and making their abominable sin even worse?   I would definitely bake a cake for a male/female couple who were finally getting married and ending their life of sin in the eyes of God.  

 

Being against gay marriage is NOT discrimination.  The case discussed in the original post is about an old granny baker who for at least a dozen years made cakes for the homosexual couple involved.  They'd come in to her shop and she didn't chase them away with a broom!  She did not discriminate against their persons.  It was only until they wanted her to bake them their wedding cake that she politely refused.  She wasn't discriminating against them, she was recusing her bakery  from providing for an event she believes is morally wrong!  HELLO, how many liberal owned businesses are dumping trump products because their ideology forces them to attack the orange man and his family?  How many singers didn't provide their services when he asked them to sing at his inauguration???  You all are proving the point I make on a continual basis:  liberals in the media have easily brainwashed knowledgeable Christians.  

Whats next?  you guys are gonna say a baker should bake a cake for a man and his dog's marriage?  Or a man and his daughter?  How about for a Nambla event?  Would you guys bake a cake for a black mass after party for satanists? 

I sure as heck wouldn't and I'm not discriminating if I refuse!!!

[Norseman82]

3 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

as i pointed out earlier, its near impossible to believe that a wedding cake maker, wedding planner or someone else has "NEVER" come across any heterosexual couple who lived together pre marriage that they new about.  not once has anyone ever talked about living together in front of a wedding cake baker?  i find that near impossible to believe.  do you concede the point that this wedding baker is selectively enforcing their beliefs?

 

the couple is not sinning by getting married but they are sinning by promoting living together pre marriage as a good and just thing.  i also find it near impossible that everyone they dealt with who lived together were now suddenly against living together pre marriage.  as american society shows, the majority of people support living togteher pre marriage and dont see anything wrong with it.

 

i understand where you are coming from that a business owner should be able to refuse to serve someone just because since it is his own business.  part of me agree's with this idea.  although the problem is, as history has shown us numerous times, that people will discriminate against other because of their sex or race or religion.  all things i view as evil and the church agrees with me.  this idea can easily turn to state wide or country wide discrimination against blacks, conservatives, liberals, hispanics, catholics or so on.  i have an issue supporting something that is could turn into rampant discrimination and its not unlikely to happen.  

 

i guess i would ask how do you ensure a group of people does not become discriminated against in this senario?  if this would go into effect and let's say in 5 years every extremly liberal town in California refused to serve anyone who is catholic who opposes abortion or any black person who is a conservative, what do you do?  what do you do if 3 or 4 towns band together to drive out all of the black people from this towns by refusing them services such as food, gas, shelter?  i mean its not realistic to tell the black family to drive 100 miles to buy food and gas.  so they are being forced against their will out of a town.  how do you ensure this does not happen?

Paragraph 1:  people may not know that the heterosexual couple is living in sin. 

Paragraph 2:  in a heterosexual marriage, the wedding cake with the congratulatory message would be celebrating them getting married and "right in the eyes of God", not in the previous cohabitation. 

Paragraph 3:  what I'm referring to is not "I can discriminate because I can do what I want with my own business", it is "I refuse to be bullied into committing a sin". 

Paragraph 4:  the way that you ensure that this does not become an excuse for unjust discrimination is that the person who does not wish to provide the sinful service shows that the action is a sin in his religion's eyes, and once that is shown, the matter is dropped.  After all, we allow exceptions for conscientious objectors in wartime based on religious views, and we allow violation of drug laws (for example, usage of peyote) in certain rare religions in the name of religious freedom, so why not here?  With the first amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, the cases against these businesses should have been dismissed before the government lawyers made their opening arguments. 

[havok579257]

8 minutes ago, Norseman82 said:

Paragraph 1:  people may not know that the heterosexual couple is living in sin. 

Paragraph 2:  in a heterosexual marriage, the wedding cake with the congratulatory message would be celebrating them getting married and "right in the eyes of God", not in the previous cohabitation. 

Paragraph 3:  what I'm referring to is not "I can discriminate because I can do what I want with my own business", it is "I refuse to be bullied into committing a sin". 

Paragraph 4:  the way that you ensure that this does not become an excuse for unjust discrimination is that the person who does not wish to provide the sinful service shows that the action is a sin in his religion's eyes, and once that is shown, the matter is dropped.  After all, we allow exceptions for conscientious objectors in wartime based on religious views, and we allow violation of drug laws (for example, usage of peyote) in certain rare religions in the name of religious freedom, so why not here?  With the first amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, the cases against these businesses should have been dismissed before the government lawyers made their opening arguments. 

to point number one, are you trying to claim that these wedding cake makers in all of their business transactions have been unable to tell if one single couple is living together pre marriage?  can anyone honestly claim that?  

 

point number two goes back to point number one.  are you claiming that they are completely ignorant of every single couple who they have served who lives together pre marriage?

 

i have no issues with your points 3 and 4.  i would support them.  i don't think people should have to go against their beliefs to serve someone a service.  we agree on this.  what i don't agree with are the other people on here who advocate a business owner can refuse anyone service for any reason.  which has been said in this topic.  if we are talking strictly about refusing services because of ones beliefs, then that is a different story.

 

although i will still call out these business for selectivly enforcing their beliefs because of profits.  they should have the courage to also deny services to anyone who's lifestyle or support of a lifestyle goes against their beliefs.  be consistant or stop complaining.  either refuse to serve all who go against your beliefs or your have no leg to stand on.   

18 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

Why do you guys equate a Hetero couple living in sin who are making their lives right by marrying each other to homosexual couples getting "married" and making their abominable sin even worse?   I would definitely bake a cake for a male/female couple who were finally getting married and ending their life of sin in the eyes of God.  

 

Being against gay marriage is NOT discrimination.  The case discussed in the original post is about an old granny baker who for at least a dozen years made cakes for the homosexual couple involved.  They'd come in to her shop and she didn't chase them away with a broom!  She did not discriminate against their persons.  It was only until they wanted her to bake them their wedding cake that she politely refused.  She wasn't discriminating against them, she was recusing her bakery  from providing for an event she believes is morally wrong!  HELLO, how many liberal owned businesses are dumping trump products because their ideology forces them to attack the orange man and his family?  How many singers didn't provide their services when he asked them to sing at his inauguration???  You all are proving the point I make on a continual basis:  liberals in the media have easily brainwashed knowledgeable Christians.  

Whats next?  you guys are gonna say a baker should bake a cake for a man and his dog's marriage?  Or a man and his daughter?  How about for a Nambla event?  Would you guys bake a cake for a black mass after party for satanists? 

I sure as heck wouldn't and I'm not discriminating if I refuse!!!

why is ok to refuse service of of the homosexual couple based on someone's beliefs but its fine to serve the heterosexual couple who is getting married who advocates and promotes living together being a good and just thing?  both are sinful behaviors.  why is one ok to support and one not?  should they not both be refused service?  why is it ok to support someone's sinful behaviors because profit is involved?

 

who ever said being against gay marriage was discrimmination on here?  where are you getting this from?  how in the word does your logic follow that providing a service such as baking a cake is equal to someone asking someone to sing for them?  i can not even fathom how your rationalizing this comparison in your head.  

 

so who is the liberal media that is brainwashing everyone?  please inform me who all these media outlets are.  i would honestly like to know who is contained in this "liberal media"?  you use the term, so it would be nice to know who you are talking about.  also who is not the liberal media?  who is completely trustworthy with their coverage of news events? 

 

are you in support of refusing those groups of people because it goes against you relgious beliefs or because you believe a business owner can refuse to serve anyone no matter what?

[Norseman82]

8 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

to point number one, are you trying to claim that these wedding cake makers in all of their business transactions have been unable to tell if one single couple is living together pre marriage?  can anyone honestly claim that?  

 

point number two goes back to point number one.  are you claiming that they are completely ignorant of every single couple who they have served who lives together pre marriage?

 

i have no issues with your points 3 and 4.  i would support them.  i don't think people should have to go against their beliefs to serve someone a service.  we agree on this.  what i don't agree with are the other people on here who advocate a business owner can refuse anyone service for any reason.  which has been said in this topic.  if we are talking strictly about refusing services because of ones beliefs, then that is a different story.

 

although i will still call out these business for selectivly enforcing their beliefs because of profits.  they should have the courage to also deny services to anyone who's lifestyle or support of a lifestyle goes against their beliefs.  be consistant or stop complaining.  either refuse to serve all who go against your beliefs or your have no leg to stand on.   

I don't see how your premise in point#2 is valid.  A heterosexual couple who cohabitates before marriage is not sinning by getting married (if anything, they are stopping their sin, assuming they are free to marry and do not violate other sacramental requirements), whereas as Dominicansoul pointed out, a same-sex "marriage" formalizes the sin.  Big difference. 

I cannot comment on whether a wedding cake maker knows or doesn't know whether their clients are living in sin.  I know cohabitation is now more of a sad norm than an exception, but I need more than just statistical probability to accuse a specific "Adam and Eve" of living in sin, whereas with "Adam and Steve" it is obvious.

[dominicansoul]

23 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

  why is it ok to support someone's sinful behaviors because profit is involved?

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

im thinking if u own a bakery or flower shop or photo studio, ur making the big bucks if you provide for gay weddings.  In the case of the granny florist/baker she lost all her livelihood and money.  

I'm not sure if she can even own that business anymore.

 

...it's pretty sad... Not even cohabitating heterosexuals looking for redemption can help her now...

 

 

 

[Anastasia13]

Well, we can call take solace in the fact that Adam and Eve are going to be happily remarried in a proper his, hers, and theirs household during the school year and applicable ex-spouses taking summers.

[havok579257]

8 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

im thinking if u own a bakery or flower shop or photo studio, ur making the big bucks if you provide for gay weddings.  In the case of the granny florist/baker she lost all her livelihood and money.  

I'm not sure if she can even own that business anymore.

 

...it's pretty sad... Not even cohabitating heterosexuals looking for redemption can help her now...

 

 

 

Gay couples make up a fraction of the population compared to heterosexual couples who are getting married.  So again I ask, why is it OK to refuse one set people because of your beliefs but be ok serving another set who promote sin as good.  Unless your trying to argue every single couple who lives together pre marriage is getting married to try and get right with God?

 

It comes down this.  It's hypocritical for someone to refuse to serve a gay couple getting married while at the same time be more than willing to serve the heterosexual couple living in and promoting their sin as good and just.  If your going to stand up and use your beliefs then be consistant. Don't be selective about what sinful behaviors you condemn and which ones you are ok supporting.

[Anomaly]

There is a difference between actively soliciting for gay wedding marriage business by advertising in gay magazine and promoting same sex cake toppers versus being respectful of someone coming in for a cake and telling them you don't have same sex toppers.  

Also, if a heterosexual couple comes in, do you check to see if this is their second or fifth marriage?   Do you ask for documents proving divorce or annulment if you suspect they are Catholic?

I am personally uncomfortable with legal loopholes that will allow people to actively withhold services based an race, gender, ethnicity.   Sexual orientation has been legally grouped with those as a protected class.  The CCC and the Catholic Church has directed Catholics to treat homosexuals with kindness but without promoting their sin.  

Sorry, but you can't force gays to be homeless because you won't rent to them, and you can't refuse to make them cakes.   It still doesn't mean you have to solicit their business or advocate for the Catholic Church to wed them. 

[KnightofChrist]

A wedding cake isn't a basic life requirement, it's a luxury item. There is no moral duty to provide someone with a wedding cake comparable to the moral duty provide shelter if possible. 

 

 

[fides' Jack]

 

On 3/1/2017 at 5:14 PM, CatherineM said:

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

Obviously nobody is saying that.  And those specific examples obviously fall within the realm of physical violence.

On 3/1/2017 at 5:58 PM, Peace said:

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.

 

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.

[...]

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.

Nobody said that a person has a moral right to sin.  However, it is my opinion that the US government violating a person's individual freedom and civil rights is much worse than homosexual behavior.  That's just an opinion, and you're free to disagree there.

Why are you arguing with the Catechism?  Nobody is taking a side contrary to what the Catechism teaches.  Do you not understand moral vs civil rights?

On 3/1/2017 at 7:50 PM, HisChildForever said:

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.

I have considered the other side.  15 years ago I was on the other side, and would have advocated for governmental control of morals, as long as they were Catholic morals.  Now I know better, and am better-informed.

I'm not trying to be rude, just very firm and consistent, because that is what's needed here.  I'm not being rude to my kids when I punish them, either, but they still need the discipline.  Throwing around the word "ignorant" might be rude, but truth is more important than "nice".

On 3/1/2017 at 7:53 PM, havok579257 said:

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. 

Business owners ARE allowed to discriminate against anyone they choose, and have been for decades.  It's only very recently that the law in certain states decided that privately owned businesses can't do that.  

Of course I don't think every member of the Democratic party is evil.  I'm just saying the party is itself evil, and has always been, since the days of Andrew Jackson.  But you can be a member without being part of that evil.  In fact you can register to be a Democrat without agreeing on a single party platform point.

I agree that the Republican party has many, many faults.  And it definitely has some members who have evil purposes.  But that's the difference in my opinion between the 2 major parties - one has evil purposes (run by some evil members) and the other has evil members.  Clearly one is better, morally.

18 hours ago, havok579257 said:

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.

And I've offered arguments to show you how the two are different.  Just because you don't understand why doesn't make anybody else inconsistent.  

You can't force me, at gunpoint, to do anything with my business that I don't want to do.

17 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

Paragraph 3:  what I'm referring to is not "I can discriminate because I can do what I want with my own business", it is "I refuse to be bullied into committing a sin". 

Paragraph 4:  the way that you ensure that this does not become an excuse for unjust discrimination is that the person who does not wish to provide the sinful service shows that the action is a sin in his religion's eyes, and once that is shown, the matter is dropped.  After all, we allow exceptions for conscientious objectors in wartime based on religious views, and we allow violation of drug laws (for example, usage of peyote) in certain rare religions in the name of religious freedom, so why not here?  With the first amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, the cases against these businesses should have been dismissed before the government lawyers made their opening arguments. 

I completely agree with you, Norseman.

My point with the discussion on what you referred to in paragraph 3 doesn't imply or insinuate that business owners have a moral right to do what they want with their business.  But it's not up to the government to decide that.  Like you, "I refuse to be bullied into committing a sin".  At the same time, I will fight against any law that says that anyone can be bullied into committing a sin as they see it, even if they don't share my moral beliefs.

Edited March 3, 2017 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

7 hours ago, Anomaly said:

There is a difference between actively soliciting for gay wedding marriage business by advertising in gay magazine and promoting same sex cake toppers versus being respectful of someone coming in for a cake and telling them you don't have same sex toppers.  

Also, if a heterosexual couple comes in, do you check to see if this is their second or fifth marriage?   Do you ask for documents proving divorce or annulment if you suspect they are Catholic?

I am personally uncomfortable with legal loopholes that will allow people to actively withhold services based an race, gender, ethnicity.   Sexual orientation has been legally grouped with those as a protected class.  The CCC and the Catholic Church has directed Catholics to treat homosexuals with kindness but without promoting their sin.  

Sorry, but you can't force gays to be homeless because you won't rent to them, and you can't refuse to make them cakes.   It still doesn't mean you have to solicit their business or advocate for the Catholic Church to wed them. 

Me renting rooms to gays doesn't force them to be homeless.  As long as business owners are free, there will always be someone with opposing viewpoints to take them in.  The only problem comes in when people, such as yourself, start taking away those freedoms.  Take the opposite case: let's say the government decides that it's illegal to be gay, and outlaws any services provided to them.  Then they really will be forced into homelessness.  Now, we can fight the symptoms of this problem all we want, but the same issues will keep coming up unless we take care of the root of the problem: the government should not be deciding these things.

[dominicansoul]

 I'm sticking to my point of view guys.  Big difference between the civil rights of the 1960s and the so called "civil rights" of the gay movement.  People aren't discriminating against their persons, only against their actions.  

If you guys are right, then Catholic nurses should be forced to assist in abortions.  Or, better yet, Catholics shouldn't even be nurses.  

I just can't follow that "logic."  It's Un-American. 

[havok579257]

37 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

 I'm sticking to my point of view guys.  Big difference between the civil rights of the 1960s and the so called "civil rights" of the gay movement.  People aren't discriminating against their persons, only against their actions.  

If you guys are right, then Catholic nurses should be forced to assist in abortions.  Or, better yet, Catholics shouldn't even be nurses.  

I just can't follow that "logic."  It's Un-American. 

are you honestly trying to compare baking a cake to the killing of unborn children?  this is why our pro life movement has issues.  its not even funny to compare murder of unborn children to baking a cake for a homosexual couple.

 

also last i checked catholic nurses are not railing against having to perform abortions but are all in support of handing out contraceptives to anyone.  they unlike these so called bakers are consistant.  if they view something as morally wrong then they condemn it.  these so called bakers condemn somethings as morally wrong but doesn't speak up against all morally evil things against their beliefs.