Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polskieserce

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

Recommended Posts

havok579257    259
havok579257
8 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

And none of those amendments authorized the government to give special treatment to certain classes of people.  The 13th amendment abolished slavery.  It did not authorize the government to force business owners to do business with racial minorities, non-heterosexuals, religious minorities, etc.  Face it bro, if you are looking to advance the status of Black people, the Constitution is the last place you should be looking to (unless you are planning to amend it to make these changes).  William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolitionist, said that the Constitution was a pact with the devil.  That guy understood what the deal was.  You, on the other hand, do not.

Here is another point that nobody brought up: despite the fact that there is no constitutional backing for your stances, your side still got its way with the anti-discrimination bans.  And even now, we still continue to talk about the status of colored people 152 years after the end of the civil war.  What the federal government should have done was pass a constitutional amendment to seize land from the slave owners and give them to the newly liberated black slaves.  Given that the Union States were in a vengeful mood, the amendment would have passed.  If that had been done, blacks would be far more integrated into American society than they are now.

Except black suffrage did not suddenly end with the end of the civil war.  Do you not remember "separate but equal"?  It's not like suddenly after the civil war ended blacks were suddenly equal. I don't even have a clue how you can argue that.  I mean just look at the many immoral things done to black people after the civil war by the government and it's people.  Separate but equal is just one example.  Although the way you talk, anything after the civil war was fine and we shouldn't be talking about unequality towards blacks because once they were no longer slaves everything was right in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace    777
Peace
42 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

And none of those amendments authorized the government to give special treatment to certain classes of people.  The 13th amendment abolished slavery.  It did not authorize the government to force business owners to do business with racial minorities, non-heterosexuals, religious minorities, etc. 

I do not particularly desire to spend my time debating the issue with you. To me, it is silly nonsense and it is not worth my time. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

Quote

Face it bro, if you are looking to advance the status of Black people, the Constitution is the last place you should be looking to (unless you are planning to amend it to make these changes).  William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolitionist, said that the Constitution was a pact with the devil.  That guy understood what the deal was.  You, on the other hand, do not.

I am looking to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you think that people should be free to discriminate on the basis of race, then you do not understand the gospel.

Quote

Here is another point that nobody brought up: despite the fact that there is no constitutional backing for your stances, your side still got its way with the anti-discrimination bans.  And even now, we still continue to talk about the status of colored people 152 years after the end of the civil war. 

Yes well my side just so happens to be God's side as well.  Why don't you take it up with God if you are so concerned about it?

Quote

 

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40

 

Quote

What the federal government should have done was pass a constitutional amendment to seize land from the slave owners and give them to the newly liberated black slaves.  Given that the Union States were in a vengeful mood, the amendment would have passed.  If that had been done, blacks would be far more integrated into American society than they are now.

African Americans are doing very well by my account of things. But perhaps we would be doing even better had we received the so-called "40 acres and a mule". Regardless, your argument is silly, because the fact that land may have been beneficial, does not mean that anti-discrimination laws should also not have been enacted.

It is also quite amusing that you refer to hypothetical actions that did not, would not, and will not occur, to attempt to justify removal of laws that were possible and that have achieved good. You are trying to replace a concrete action, with a fairy tale that will never happen.

But on the other hand, if you desire to donate some land or money to me to rectify past injustices to my ancestors, please let me know, and I will send you an address where you can make the donation.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
1 hour ago, havok579257 said:

Except black suffrage did not suddenly end with the end of the civil war.  Do you not remember "separate but equal"?  It's not like suddenly after the civil war ended blacks were suddenly equal. I don't even have a clue how you can argue that.  I mean just look at the many immoral things done to black people after the civil war by the government and it's people.  Separate but equal is just one example.  Although the way you talk, anything after the civil war was fine and we shouldn't be talking about unequality towards blacks because once they were no longer slaves everything was right in this country.

And I never said that blacks were automatically equal after the civil war.  I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion from my last post.  Blacks had it very rough because they had virtually no capital.  And despite their struggles, it still doesn't make the '64 civil rights act constitutional.  If you haven't figured it out by now, the Constitution wasn't exactly written with human suffering in mind.

That being said, if I was running a business, I would serve blacks but I would still want to be able to reject customers I'm not comfortable with for whatever reason I choose.

 

44 minutes ago, Peace said:

I do not particularly desire to spend my time debating the issue with you. To me, it is silly nonsense and it is not worth my time. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

I am looking to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you think that people should be free to discriminate on the basis of race, then you do not understand the gospel.

Yes well my side just so happens to be God's side as well.  Why don't you take it up with God if you are so concerned about it?

 

African Americans are doing very well by my account of things. But perhaps we would be doing even better had we received the so-called "40 acres and a mule". Regardless, your argument is silly, because the fact that land may have been beneficial, does not mean that anti-discrimination laws should also not have been enacted.

It is also quite amusing that you refer to hypothetical actions that did not, would not, and will not occur, to attempt to justify removal of laws that were possible and that have achieved good. You are trying to replace a concrete action, with a fairy tale that will never happen.

But on the other hand, if you desire to donate some land or money to me to rectify past injustices to my ancestors, please let me know, and I will send you an address where you can make the donation.

Very well, we can agree to disagree.  Just a reminder, the Constitution was not designed around the gospel of Jesus.  It was designed with the interests of rich white men in mind.

African Americans are doing very poorly by many of their own accounts and I would agree with them.  The fact that they had no capital after being liberated was a major cause.  I still assert that land should have been seized from slave owners and given to the former slaves.  I am not saying that should be done now.  At this point, it's water under the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    475
little2add
12 hours ago, polskieserce said:

the Constitution was not designed around the gospel of Jesus.  It was designed with the interests of rich white men in mind.

I  beg to differ.  most of the founding fathers were christian and know the bible.  

slavery existed long before (new world)  America.    the practice of christianity was not a right or even permitted in most of the old world. 

Edited by little2add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    475
little2add
23 hours ago, polskieserce said:

it still doesn't make the '64 civil rights act constitutional.

its the law.  do you disagree with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
polskieserce    23
polskieserce
On 3/10/2017 at 8:08 PM, little2add said:

its the law.  do you disagree with it?

There are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court wishes to strike them down.  Some states, including my own state of Pennsylvania, still have unconstitutional anti-flag burning laws on the books.

The Constitution, however antiquated it may be, still trumps the popular opinion of the present generation.  If you feel so strongly about the government forcing people to do business with unwanted clients, then you should be campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that authorizes such action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    475
little2add
6 hours ago, polskieserce said:

unconstitutional anti-flag burning laws on the books

How is anti-flag burning laws unconstitutional.  

6 hours ago, polskieserce said:

There are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional,

Name some,  specifically 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hotpink    97
hotpink
On 3/21/2017 at 11:50 PM, polskieserce said:

There are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court wishes to strike them down.  Some states, including my own state of Pennsylvania, still have unconstitutional anti-flag burning laws on the books.

The Constitution, however antiquated it may be, still trumps the popular opinion of the present generation.  If you feel so strongly about the government forcing people to do business with unwanted clients, then you should be campaigning for a Constitutional amendment that authorizes such action.

Anti-flag burning laws have always perplexed me.  On the first level, we have even ultra-patriots who don't follow a single law regarding outdoor displays of the flag.  It's unlit, tattered, flown lower than the welcome flag they have...because we gotta put the new flag on the nicer pole, duh.  No one bothors those people, except maybe at that Disney village or on a military bas.   We have HOA's who make it illegal to fly any flag smaller than a postage stamp.   Somehow it's freedom of speech--and even patriotic--to wear flag shirts, have flag blankets, have flag hats and mugs and beer steins...even have flag boxers.  I've never really understood how it's freedom of speech and a proud moment to let ol' Glory give you a wedgie up your buttcrack, but if Johnny Q. Punk burns the flag he can be arrested.  I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm trying to make the point that it's highly illogical to have a law that restricts freedom of speech when we allow what, in my opinion, is much more disgusting uses of the flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace    777
Peace
On 3/22/2017 at 6:09 AM, little2add said:

Name some,  specifically 

Whatever he disagrees with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul    4,458
dominicansoul
10 hours ago, hotpink said:

Anti-flag burning laws have always perplexed me.  On the first level, we have even ultra-patriots who don't follow a single law regarding outdoor displays of the flag.  It's unlit, tattered, flown lower than the welcome flag they have...because we gotta put the new flag on the nicer pole, duh.  No one bothors those people, except maybe at that Disney village or on a military bas.   We have HOA's who make it illegal to fly any flag smaller than a postage stamp.   Somehow it's freedom of speech--and even patriotic--to wear flag shirts, have flag blankets, have flag hats and mugs and beer steins...even have flag boxers.  I've never really understood how it's freedom of speech and a proud moment to let ol' Glory give you a wedgie up your buttcrack, but if Johnny Q. Punk burns the flag he can be arrested.  I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm trying to make the point that it's highly illogical to have a law that restricts freedom of speech when we allow what, in my opinion, is much more disgusting uses of the flag.

Because one is an act of hatred against everything the flag stands for, while the other examples are just people being lazy and/or stylish.  

And you know...pretty much anything that is not politically correct is called out as "hate speech," not "someone practicing their freedom of speech."  So...why would another law banning hatred of the American flag bother anybody?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hotpink    97
hotpink
13 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

Because one is an act of hatred against everything the flag stands for, while the other examples are just people being lazy and/or stylish.  

And you know...pretty much anything that is not politically correct is called out as "hate speech," not "someone practicing their freedom of speech."  So...why would another law banning hatred of the American flag bother anybody?  

We still punish crimes by the intent of the person doing them.  It's the difference between manslaughter and homicide....intent.  However, we punish both.

It's extremely ridiculous that we punish burning of the flag because it degrades it (because of the intent of hate) but we do not punish those who degrade the flag by being lazy, stupid or self righteous.    That's the point I'm trying to make.  It is all repulsive.  I find someone making an angry statement way, way, less disgusting than someone trying to make a "patriotic" statement especially in the use of flag apparel. 

If you go the "hate speech" route you're saying to someone that "you cannot say you hate America."  However, unlike any other hate crime, the burning of a flag that you rightfully own affects no one--except maybe the carbon emissions folks.

This is a highly charged subject, rightly so.  I'm not saying people should burn flags.  What I am saying is that there needs to be a logical progression of consequences if you're going to punish degrading the flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    475
little2add
On 3/21/2017 at 11:50 PM, polskieserce said:

There are plenty of laws on the books that are unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court wishes to strike them down. 

Like this:   

The Supreme Court said it won't consider reviving the Child Online Protection Act, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional.

The law has been embroiled in court challenges since it passed in 1998 and never took effect. It would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.

Edited by little2add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedictus    364
Benedictus

You can't have phatmass without at least one thread moaning about homosexuals :rolleyes::sleep2:

Edited by Benedictus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257    259
havok579257
On 3/5/2017 at 6:28 PM, Socrates said:

Oddly enough, I'm with Comrade Polski on this one, at least as regards the federal government forcing private businesses to cater to homosexual "weddings" against their conscience.  (This has already been argued to death before on these forums, but I'll repeat for the newbies.)

It's a blatant violation of not only the right to free practice of religion, but of basic freedom of association.  Frankly, I find the fact that so many self-identified Catholics are defending this blatant  abuse of government power to be extremely troubling.

Should the federal government force a black caterer (or any caterer, for that matter) against his conscience to cater a KKK meeting?  Force a feminist or Christian photographer to do promotional photography for a strip club?  Force a graphic designer with strong vegan/animal-rights beliefs against her conscience to do work promoting the beef industry?

One thing folks are missing here this isn't about arbitrarily denying persons some goods or services (such as refusing a restaurant patron a beer and burger because he's gay), but about specifically refusing to supply or cater an event which is inherently immoral (a homosexual "marriage").  To grant the federal government the power to  do so is wrong, and it is foolish for any person concerned about basic liberties in this country to support it.

 

 

I retract my personal opinion from earlier that a business owner should not be able to deny someone services if it goes against their religious beliefs.

 

Although I do still hold to the fact that if a hypothetical business owner is going to refuse services to someone because of their beliefs its hypocritical to be selective about what beliefs they enforce and don't enforce.  Cause in the end if your ok serving someone who goes against your beliefs but then refusing a gay person because of your belief it makes it look like your using your beliefs to not serve gays because you don't like them.  Not saying that is what would happen.  Although  to refuse to serve a gay couple but be willing to serve a anti-relgious or pro-abortion couple makes it seem like you just don't like gay people and are using your beliefs as a cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HopefulBride    901
HopefulBride

At the risk of starting a storm I'm going to try and defend the Church's stand by explaining how I understand it.  I could, of course be way wrong as I am no scholar.  A Catholic Parish refusing to "marry" a gay couple or a Catholic adoption agency refusing to work with a gay couple is different than a Catholic pharmacist choosing not to help someone because they are attracted to and are with someone of the same sex.  That is just plain unchristian and not what our faith teaches.  To be a witness at someone's wedding is in essence saying amen to their union, that yes you stand behind them etc... However, the same church who will not stand as a witness to that union will not say no to helping someone because of an orientation.  This is where Papa Francisco's "who am I to judge" statement which was so taken out of context a few years back comes into play.  Just because we cannot endorse the lifestyle and choose not to in whatever ways we can does not mean we will not see and love the individual.  

One of my best friends from college is gay and is married.  This man has been in the wedding of all of my siblings and has cried with me when I'm in pain.  He also knows and respect me enough not have asked me to be there at his union ceremony.  He also knows me well enough and know that I love him and will not choose not to be there for him in time of need for this reason.  My sister who also feels the same way will not choose not to clean his teeth because he is gay.  Often when we talk about Pastors saying no to performing gay weddings I find that there tends to be this generalization to everything.  I mean if someone asked me to join them in doing recreational drugs I would say no but it doesn't mean that I love them any less.  I am just refusing to do something that is agains my morals.  It's time we try and start being objective about the way we respond to how Holy Mother Church choosing to uphold her beliefs.

...drops mic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,205
Nihil Obstat

The serving of a homosexual qua homosexuality is wrong precisely inasmuch as that service is directly related to, supports, or enables the practice of his homosexuality.

Edited by Nihil Obstat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×