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

[dominicansoul]

Is English your first language?  I'm not trying to be rude, just honestly wondering.

I'm talking about religious liberty.  Either a religious person who owns a business can celebrate his freedom by refusing service when he feels his religious beliefs are violated, or he/she no longer possesses that liberty.  

These recent cases where Christians were forced to comply with servicing homosexual marriages are direct attacks against religious liberty.  The government forced the Christians to violate their consciences.  You don't find this disconcerting?  Especially when the homosexual couple could have easily gone elsewhere for the services they were requesting?  

 

[dominicansoul]

I brought up nurses because i wanted to take your argument and place it on a more serious moral situation.  Using your so called "logic",  religious people should not be nurses if they refuse to assist with abortions.  Using y'alls argument, religious people should just be religious within the confines of their churches and not share their faith anywhere else in the public square or protect their faith or even have a voice against what they deem is immoral and wrong in the public square.  We Christians just need to shut up and put out.  Keep Jesus at home, lock away the Gospel until we get home from our jobs.   This is not the American way.  This isn't freedom, it's allowing the government to force religious individuals to comply with ideologies that are a direct contradiction to everything they believe in.   

And lastly, I don't care if you think baking a cake for a qwerty wedding is no big deal, but for some Christians it is.  You go out and bake the cakes then, but leave the Christians who don't want to alone.  You have your right to do it, they have their right to refuse to do it.  

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

I brought up nurses because i wanted to take your argument and place it on a more serious moral situation.  Using your so called "logic",  religious people should not be nurses if they refuse to assist with abortions.  Using y'alls argument, religious people should just be religious within the confines of their churches and not share their faith anywhere else in the public square or protect their faith or even have a voice against what they deem is immoral and wrong in the public square.  We Christians just need to shut up and put out.  Keep Jesus at home, lock away the Gospel until we get home from our jobs.   This is not the American way.  This isn't freedom, it's allowing the government to force religious individuals to comply with ideologies that are a direct contradiction to everything they believe in.   

And lastly, I don't care if you think baking a cake for a qwerty wedding is no big deal, but for some Christians it is.  You go out and bake the cakes then, but leave the Christians who don't want to alone.  You have your right to do it, they have their right to refuse to do it.  

And now your just trying to be insulting. No where did anyone even come close to arguing that we as Christians can't pray in the public and must keep it locked away.  So your fine with insulting others and claiming we are against spreading our faith in the public just because we don't agree with your point of view.  It's very disheartening you trying to insult others because they don't agree with your point of view.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

Is English your first language?  I'm not trying to be rude, just honestly wondering.

I'm talking about religious liberty.  Either a religious person who owns a business can celebrate his freedom by refusing service when he feels his religious beliefs are violated, or he/she no longer possesses that liberty.  

These recent cases where Christians were forced to comply with servicing homosexual marriages are direct attacks against religious liberty.  The government forced the Christians to violate their consciences.  You don't find this disconcerting?  Especially when the homosexual couple could have easily gone elsewhere for the services they were requesting?  

 

So I see you are still ducking the issue I have brought up all along. That it is hypocritical to pull out your beliefs selectively . If these owners don't want to serve gay couples because it goes against their beliefs then why are they not taking a stand against the majority of the American population who live together pre marriage and treat it as a good and just thing? Why is it OK to be hypocritical in what beliefs you stand up for?

[Norseman82]

Havok,

Unless you're just "getting in touch with your inner Jack McCoy" to prep us against an opposing attorney, I find your repeated assertion that if one does not oppose all sin they can't oppose any sin to be a form of bullying designed to silence us.

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

Havok,

Unless you're just "getting in touch with your inner Jack McCoy" to prep us against an opposing attorney, I find your repeated assertion that if one does not oppose all sin they can't oppose any sin to be a form of bullying designed to silence us.

its not designed to silence anyone.  its pointing out hypocrisy.  its also pointing out how some on here are ok with them refusing gay couples but not hetersexual couples who live in sin and promote it as good and just.  its completely hypocritical to pull out your beliefs for somethings but not for others possibly because if someone did refuse service to all hetersexual couples living in sin, they would go out of business (that's how many people live together these days).  also it comes down to how honest is it to pull out your beliefs for something but then not when something similar goes against it.

 

in my mind, if you want to refuse services to someone because it goes against you beliefs, then fine, go for it.  although you then should not be able to serve other people who go against your belief.  i think it should be all or nothing.  either be forced to stand up for all your beliefs or serve whomever.  in this day and age, it would be near impossible for anyone in the wedding business for years to not come across a single hetersexual couple living in sin that they knew about.  that comes off as the army unwritten rule of years ago "don't ask, don't tell".  its one thing to give a couple the benefit of the doubt.  its an entirely different thing to claim the possible hundreads of clients you served either 

a. were not living in sin

or

b. you were completely unaware that "any" couple ever were living together pre marriage.

 

cause it comes down to this.  if your selectively enforcing your beliefs, realy, how strong are your beliefs?

[KnightofChrist]

42 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

in my mind, if you want to refuse services to someone because it goes against you beliefs, then fine, go for it.  although you then should not be able to serve other people who go against your belief.  i think it should be all or nothing.  either be forced to stand up for all your beliefs or serve whomever.

Is this is your actual position though? If someone denied both would you really be ok with that? I agree that if someone is going to deny making a wedding cake for a homosexual union they should also deny making a wedding cake for a couple living in sin before marriage. However even if someone takes the hypocritical position "Because Hypocrite" isn't good reasoning for the person to allow both. That sounds a lot like temptations that sound like "you've already committed a similar sin, why not commit this one too... you hypocrite"

[havok579257]

7 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Is this is your actual position though? If someone denied both would you really be ok with that? I agree that if someone is going to deny making a wedding cake for a homosexual union they should also deny making a wedding cake for a couple living in sin before marriage. However even if someone takes the hypocritical position "Because Hypocrite" isn't good reasoning for the person to allow both. That sounds a lot like temptations that sound like "you've already committed a similar sin, why not commit this one too... you hypocrite"

i think if something violates your beliefs, you should not be able to do it.  i believe there should be exemptions for faith.  i don't believe a business owner should be allowed to refuse anyone on any grounds just because he doesn't like black or hispanac people.  someone earlier in the thread mentioned if you could prove providing this service would go against your faith then you should be exempt.  this would be a good solution.  i am not infavor of making people of faith having to do something against their beliefs.  

 

although i question someone who pulls out their beliefs as why they can't do something if they are being honest why they don't want to provide services.  i think its an honest question to ask.  why are these so called people be hypocritical with their beliefs? why are they not consistant?  

 

 

 

 

ok, honest question here.  has the catholic church come out and said anything on this type of matter?  how about the usscb?  i would like to know if anyone knows if they have said something about this type of of thing?  

Edited March 4, 2017 by havok579257

[dominicansoul]

You keep bringing up hetero couples living in sin, we keep telling you they are fixing it by getting married which is something to be celebrated, unlike homosexuals getting married, which is nothing to celebrate.  And how do you know Christians don't say no to other sinful situations?  How do you know there haven't been Christian bakeries or other business owners who said no to a hetero couple because they found their wedding to be sinful?    Or oddly as you think, their wedding glorifies living in sin?  

i work with some fundies, I'm telling you they don't participate in ANYTHING  that violates their Christian consciences.  I'm sure they are not alone in this regard.  I can't imagine a fundamentalist baker, photographer, florist participating in any event that they don't believe is right.  They are scrupulous in this manner.  

So call people hypocrites all you want, you don't know what's in the heart of these Christians who are persecuted for not wanting to provide for gay weddings.  I still believe it's unamerican to force Christians to violate their consciences.  

[havok579257]

22 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

You keep bringing up hetero couples living in sin, we keep telling you they are fixing it by getting married which is something to be celebrated, unlike homosexuals getting married, which is nothing to celebrate.  And how do you know Christians don't say no to other sinful situations?  How do you know there haven't been Christian bakeries or other business owners who said no to a hetero couple because they found their wedding to be sinful?    Or oddly as you think, their wedding glorifies living in sin?  

i work with some fundies, I'm telling you they don't participate in ANYTHING  that violates their Christian consciences.  I'm sure they are not alone in this regard.  I can't imagine a fundamentalist baker, photographer, florist participating in any event that they don't believe is right.  They are scrupulous in this manner.  

So call people hypocrites all you want, you don't know what's in the heart of these Christians who are persecuted for not wanting to provide for gay weddings.  I still believe it's unamerican to force Christians to violate their consciences.  

what are you not understanding?  all hetero couples getting married who promote living together as a good and just thing are sinning.  no matter if you are married or not, you can not promote that people should live together pre marriage and have sexual relations and advocate for that.

 

well there has not been a single lawsuit that i know about that involves someone refusing to provide a service because a couple was living together pre marriage.  if there has been a lawsuit then please bring it to my attention and i will gladly eat crow.  i have not read every court briefing on this matter and if i am mistake, please correct me.

 

the couples wedding could be glorifying sin if one or both are divorced and are remarrying.  to say no baker has ever had to deal with a divorced and re-married couple is far fetched.  although the point is not about the marriage being sinful.  its about advocating that a sinful lifestyle like living together pre marriage is good and just.

 

should people be allowed to refuse services based on their beliefs? yes, they should.  although if your going to refuse services because of your beliefs, you should do the same for all your beliefs.  i don't understand what is so hard to understand.  i think if your going to pull out your beliefs about why you can't do something, then fine, do it.  although that should also mean you have to refuse services to all who go against your beliefs.  if i tell the government i am catholic and can not serve as a wedding planner for this gay marriage, then I should be exempt.  although the government then has a right to ask me as a business owner and as a catholic why I am providing services for this divorced and re-marrying couple since that also goes against catholic teaching.  if i have no legit answer, then the government has a right to ask me if I am refusing services because of my beliefs or just because I don't like gay people.  to me, there is a world of difference.  one should be allowed and one shouldn't.  i don't agree with someone refusing services to someone else based off of their race, sex, nationality, sexual orientation just because they are bigoted against that group of people.  if its because of a relgious belief, then ok.  which comes back to the point of being selective with enforcing your faith.  

 

i guess i am just not understanding why people on here defend the owners right to be selective in enforcing their beliefs?  i would think everyone would advocate that if you believe something is sinful, then to not advocate and provide services for it.

[dominicansoul]

I'm not sure why you keep insisting heterosexual marriage =glorifying  cohabitation.

 Thats very odd to me.   

i think you might be saying why do Christian business owners cater to sinners, but not to homosexual couplings.  Somewhere in all the posts I presume you didn't read, that's already been addressed.  Back to the original court case:   The Christian business owner enjoyed the patronage of this homosexual couple and did business with them for years.  It was only when they wanted her services for their wedding she declined.  She was never against the homosexual persons but against their marriage.  Marriage is an event.  An event is not a person.  She was against an action not the people doing the action.  Now a heterosexual couple cohabitating wants her business for their marriage.  She gladly agrees.  Why?  Because their action actually takes them out of sin!  The marriage is an event that should be celebrated.  

Wow I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.  Bury the horse already... lol

[Norseman82]

Havok,

At first I thought dominicansoul was being snarky when she asked you if English was your first language, but the more you keep on bringing up the example of heterosexual couples who are living in sin getting married in comparison even after we have shown you over and over and over again that this comparison is not equivalent I also have to join the chorus and ask "Nie rozumiesz Ingles?".  After all, the Church performs marriages to hetero couples who have previously lived in sin (some clergy, such as Fr. Pfleger, require them to live separately once they find out their living arrangements, and since I think they are required to be in a state of grace to receive the sacrament, they will need to go to confession, which is why I've always qualified my remarks with the assumption that other sacramental requirements are fulfilled), unless you are advocating the Church change their policy and not marry such couples. 

The divorced/remarriage situation is more of an apt comparison and will bring about fruitful discussion. 

However, keep in mind that there is a matter of logistics as well in this matter.  As pointed out before, if "Adam and Steve" were to ask for a fully decorated wedding cake, it is glaringly obvious that this would violate my religious beliefs.  If "Adam and Eve" were to ask for a fully decorated wedding cake, and one or both of them were previously divorced and remarried, however, there are factors that may cause this situation to "slip through the cracks": 

1)  Unless one or both were regular customers whose situation I was familiar with, I may not know that one or both of them were previously married/divorced.  And quoting statistics that a certain percentage of the public have been divorced is not enough to level that accusation on a specific couple; in fact, it could be the sin of "rash judgment" or "calumny".  And this would be more of a situation that might manifest itself if I were the owner/manager of the neighborhood bakery around the corner rather than an employee at the bakery department at Jewel, Mariano's, or Wal-Mart. 

2)  Even if they were divorced/remarried, they may have an annulment. 

3)  Some protestant denominations are lax on divorce/remarriage (even the Eastern Orthodox allow a certain number of remarriages after divorce), so this would apply mostly to Catholic and those protestant/evangelical denominations that share the Catholic view on divorce/remarriage. 

Then there is the question of Catholics that are eligible to marry in the Catholic Church but do not.  They could have received a dispensation, or they could be getting a civil marriage first before the Church wedding (I know that occurs in Hispanic cultures due to the anti-clericalism that forced people in Latin America to have civil marriages regardless of whether they are getting married in the Church). 

So, I guess for hetero couples, in order for me not to be a hypocrite in your eyes, I would need to create the following questionnaire:  

1)  What religion are you? 

2)  Where is your ceremony going to be?

3)  If either of you are Catholic and not getting married in a Catholic Church, please specify:

a)  I am thumbing my nose at the Church.  (please find another establishment)

b)  I have a dispensation (please attach dispensation that has been notarized by an appropriate authority).

4)  Have either of you been previously divorced/remarried?

a)  Former spouse is now deceased.  (please attach notarized death certificate)

b)  Annulment has been granted.  (please attach notarized annulment decree)

c)  I don't care, I'm a proud adulterer/adulteress (please find another establishment)

5)  Are you currently or previously cohabitating? 

a)  No.  (please specify form of payment - cash, check, American Express, MasterCard, Visa, Discover, PayPal, Manna gift card, other). 

b)  Yes.  (If the requirements 3b and/or 4a-b above fulfilled and you are getting married in a Catholic Church, please attach notarized certificate of completion of marriage preparation requirements.  Due to sacramental confidentialities and seals, we will assume on an "honor basis" that you have been truthful and have made a good confession so that you are receiving the sacrament of matrimony in a state of grace, otherwise we must point out that if you die in a plane crash en route to your honeymoon you will be going to hell for the sin of sacrilege). 

Whereas in  the case of a same-sex marriage, I do not need to take the above steps to see that it violates my religious beliefs.  

 

[havok579257]

42 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

I'm not sure why you keep insisting heterosexual marriage =glorifying  cohabitation.

 Thats very odd to me.   

i think you might be saying why do Christian business owners cater to sinners, but not to homosexual couplings.  Somewhere in all the posts I presume you didn't read, that's already been addressed.  Back to the original court case:   The Christian business owner enjoyed the patronage of this homosexual couple and did business with them for years.  It was only when they wanted her services for their wedding she declined.  She was never against the homosexual persons but against their marriage.  Marriage is an event.  An event is not a person.  She was against an action not the people doing the action.  Now a heterosexual couple cohabitating wants her business for their marriage.  She gladly agrees.  Why?  Because their action actually takes them out of sin!  The marriage is an event that should be celebrated.  

Wow I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.  Bury the horse already... lol

so anyone one who gets married takes them out of sin?  so God's law has now changed and divorced people can remarry and it is not a sin?

[KnightofChrist]

11 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

so anyone one who gets married takes them out of sin?  so God's law has now changed and divorced people can remarry and it is not a sin?

If we're going to be playing "Jump to Conclusions" we need to get the mat to jump on.

[dominicansoul]

34 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

so anyone one who gets married takes them out of sin?  so God's law has now changed and divorced people can remarry and it is not a sin?

Now you're just being ridiculous lol

 

 

[havok579257]

1 minute ago, dominicansoul said:

Now you're just being ridiculous lol

 

 

your the one who keeps saying those getting married are getting out of sin and a business owner should have no reason to take issue supporting any hetersexual marriage.