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

[dominicansoul]

i dont see where you've written your opinion, just weird accusations.  Which is why I asked if you struggled with English or if you are actually 10 years old.  Not trying to insult you just trying to understand where you're coming from.  

Its like you don't even try to read what we've actually written, but take our words and twist them.  

Its like someone says "I like chocolate milk" and you respond with "why do you hate vanilla?"  

 

Its a a strange way to debate.  sorry if you felt as offended by me as I was frustrated by you 

Edited March 4, 2017 by dominicansoul

[Anomaly]

It's only a cake.  It's not a Divine excuse to be a jerk. 

[Norseman82]

I know this has been posted here before, but it is fitting for this topic: 

[dominicansoul]

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

It's only a cake.  

Tell that to the poor granny who lost her entire livelihood just because she followed her conscience.  Funny how she even considered the gay couple her loyal customers and friends. She just didn't want to bake a cake/provide flowers  for their "marriage".   She was targeted to be made an example for others.

In America we no longer have the right to differences of opinions, especially if those differences go against the liberals' most beloved sacraments:  Abortion and homosexual marriage.  People have lost their positions for voicing opposition to gay marriage.  Do you really want America to become a country where you can no longer have an opinion for fear of losing your life, your job, everything???   At my place of employment, they let men go into the women's restroom and vice versa.  They just installed feminine napkin dispensers in all the men's restrooms on campus.   We can no longer speak in English pronouns of he/she/her/him, because we can no longer presume ones gender. The administration has a department dedicated to enforcing safe spaces and providing workshops where liberal ideology is shoved down our throats.   Everyone gets a little rainbow plaque once you've been through the "training."  Of course everyone eyes me with suspicion because my rainbow isn't hanging proudly in my cube.  That's because I refuse to go.  

There are riots on my campus because all the indoctrinated students get triggered over someone having an opinion that goes against their own.  

Christians on campus have been warned not to be homophobic in our preaching, and most don't have permission to evangelize in the quad anymore.  There was once a student proposition to turn our Catholic Student Center into a bowling alley because it would be "more beneficial" to the entire student body.

And you think it's only a cake?  

 

 

[Anomaly]

The granny was stupid.  (If it is a real story and if the circumstances are what's been alluded too)

  Bake the cake and tell your customer you don't support gay marriage.  Go talk to a priest or preacher about your conscience. 

We have laws to avoid discrimination for valid and moral reasons.  The Church and Christians have supported or have been used to support slavery, segregation, and other prejudices.  Claiming moral rights based on religious grounds isn't the final argument.

You can't choose a course of action without accepting the consequences.   There were many other options available pending a possible change in laws.  She choose one that blew up in her face despite options.  That's was stupid, not saintly.  

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

The granny was stupid.  (If it is a real story and if the circumstances are what's been alluded too)

  Bake the cake and tell your customer you don't support gay marriage.  Go talk to a priest or preacher about your conscience. 

We have laws to avoid discrimination for valid and moral reasons.  The Church and Christians have supported or have been used to support slavery, segregation, and other prejudices.  Claiming moral rights based on religious grounds isn't the final argument.

You can't choose a course of action without accepting the consequences.   There were many other options available pending a possible change in laws.  She choose one that blew up in her face despite options.  That's was stupid, not saintly.  

Of course a "stupid" "bigot" atheist would be in support of suppressing a little old lady's freedom of speech, expression, and religious liberty.

[Anomaly]

Granny can express her beliefs in a manner that doesn't violate existing anti-prejudice laws without losing her business.   If she chooses otherwise and is surprised at the consequences, than she is stupid.  

Civil Rights Laws are generally moral by most standards.  You can't pick and choose what to obey and then be surprised by the consequences.  She doesn't have to like making the cake or solicit gay business.  If she can't avoid it and it is so morally offensive to her, then get out of the business and advocate for changing the law.   That is freedom with protection of rights.   

Edited March 5, 2017 by Anomaly

[Socrates]

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.

 

 

[Socrates]

On 2/26/2017 at 7:45 PM, HisChildForever said:

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

Frankly, it's irrelevant whether you, I, or anyone else understands or agrees with this baker's decision.  If their conscience won't let them supply wedding cakes to a "gay wedding," it's not the place of the federal government to force them to do so.

Why did this homosexual couple feel compelled to seek out a conservative Christian baker to bake their "wedding" cake (while evidently somehow advertising to the baker the intent of the cake)?  And when turned down, why did they feel compelled to turn this into a federal case, rather than simply going to any of umpteen other bakeries that would happily bake the cake for them?

 

But the question we should all be asking is why should the federal government be involved at all in who bakes cakes for what?

And anyone who thinks that the militant "gay" lobby, and their leftist allies in the courts will stop with cakes and flowers is deluding himself.  Churches will be the next target, and there will be demands that churches either perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies, or at least lend out the buildings for such purposes, and stop calling homosexual activity a sin, or else lose tax-exempt status.  

 

[KnightofChrist]

9 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Granny can express her beliefs in a manner that doesn't violate existing anti-prejudice laws without losing her business.   If she chooses otherwise and is surprised at the consequences, than she is stupid.  

Civil Rights Laws are generally moral by most standards.  You can't pick and choose what to obey and then be surprised by the consequences.  She doesn't have to like making the cake or solicit gay business.  If she can't avoid it and it is so morally offensive to her, then get out of the business and advocate for changing the law.   That is freedom with protection of rights.   

Still, to call little old ladies names isn't something a man with respect should be doing.

Artists should not be forced by the State to make forms of expression or speech that violate religious beliefs. Civil Rights also protect religious persons, such as Jewish people. But that doesn't give a Jewish person the right or the State on his behalf to force a Muslim person to commission a painting of Mohammed, even if it is tasteful. A wedding cake is as much a work of art as a painting. Having rights doesn't give us the right to violate the rights of others, forcing them to violate their rights in the name of our rights. We cannot force someone to make a form of speech or expression that they do not want to speak or express.

 

[polskieserce]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to force businesses to cater to unwanted clients.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional.  That law, along with Roe vs. Wade, was allowed to stand because of judicial activism by an overzealous judicial branch.  When the Constitution was written, it was designed to serve the interests of the land owning class that the Founding Fathers belonged to.  I agree that that Founding Fathers were brilliant men.  They were such cunning charlatans that to this very day, people actually believe the Constitution was designed for the common man when reality could not be further from the truth.  Although I'm not a fan of the Constitution, it does have its perks (freedom of association, right to bear arms, free speech, etc).  The Constitution did nothing for Blacks, Native Americans, women, the poor, etc.  The trans-Atlantic slave trade was Constitutional when our nation was founded.  You have to be a fool to think that the Constitution, which permitted the slave trade and genocide of Native Americans, somehow allows the federal government to force business owners to  serve people they don't like.

[little2add]

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. 

Why?

[polskieserce]

5 hours ago, little2add said:

Why?

It was never authorized by the Constitution.

[little2add]

who?

[little2add]

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It was never authorized by the Constitution.

 Not sure what you mean by that    

[havok579257]

18 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It was never authorized by the Constitution.

Are only things authorized by the constitution good? Is that what your trying to get at?

[Peace]

On 3/7/2017 at 10:30 PM, polskieserce said:

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to force businesses to cater to unwanted clients.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional.  That law, along with Roe vs. Wade, was allowed to stand because of judicial activism by an overzealous judicial branch.  When the Constitution was written, it was designed to serve the interests of the land owning class that the Founding Fathers belonged to.  I agree that that Founding Fathers were brilliant men.  They were such cunning charlatans that to this very day, people actually believe the Constitution was designed for the common man when reality could not be further from the truth.  Although I'm not a fan of the Constitution, it does have its perks (freedom of association, right to bear arms, free speech, etc).  The Constitution did nothing for Blacks, Native Americans, women, the poor, etc.  The trans-Atlantic slave trade was Constitutional when our nation was founded.  You have to be a fool to think that the Constitution, which permitted the slave trade and genocide of Native Americans, somehow allows the federal government to force business owners to  serve people they don't like.

You are living in La-La Land. The Constitution has been amended many times since it's original ratification. And hardly anyone thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional except for you and Rand Paul. The rest of the universe disagrees with you, and you have absolutely no authority to impose these silly views on anyone. So get over it.

[little2add]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Polski, 

the first amendment  guarantees  your right free speech .  It ( in my opinion ) also Implies that  discrimination is illegal based on solely  on your personal  religious or otherwise beliefs.  

  A florist who refuses to provide flowers  to a group of people because you don't like their lifestyle is  also unconstitutional 

[Peace]

On 3/5/2017 at 10:01 PM, KnightofChrist said:

Still, to call little old ladies names isn't something a man with respect should be doing.

Artists should not be forced by the State to make forms of expression or speech that violate religious beliefs. Civil Rights also protect religious persons, such as Jewish people. But that doesn't give a Jewish person the right or the State on his behalf to force a Muslim person to commission a painting of Mohammed, even if it is tasteful. A wedding cake is as much a work of art as a painting. Having rights doesn't give us the right to violate the rights of others, forcing them to violate their rights in the name of our rights. We cannot force someone to make a form of speech or expression that they do not want to speak or express.

 

 

On 3/5/2017 at 7:53 PM, Socrates said:

Frankly, it's irrelevant whether you, I, or anyone else understands or agrees with this baker's decision.  If their conscience won't let them supply wedding cakes to a "gay wedding," it's not the place of the federal government to force them to do so.

Why did this homosexual couple feel compelled to seek out a conservative Christian baker to bake their "wedding" cake (while evidently somehow advertising to the baker the intent of the cake)?  And when turned down, why did they feel compelled to turn this into a federal case, rather than simply going to any of umpteen other bakeries that would happily bake the cake for them?

 

But the question we should all be asking is why should the federal government be involved at all in who bakes cakes for what?

And anyone who thinks that the militant "gay" lobby, and their leftist allies in the courts will stop with cakes and flowers is deluding himself.  Churches will be the next target, and there will be demands that churches either perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies, or at least lend out the buildings for such purposes, and stop calling homosexual activity a sin, or else lose tax-exempt status.  

 

I generally don't have a problem with them refusing to bake the cake, but I have trouble articulating a proper rationale for that conclusion.

Where do you draw the line?

Let's say you went to a local restaurant. The owner sees you make the sign of the cross before eating and says "My Religion X tells me that all Christians are dogs that should not be served. Therefore, I refuse to serve you. Get up and leave my restaurant."

Let's say that the State of Texas enacted a law that imposed a fine on any restaurants that engaged in that type of discrimination against Christians. Would the Texas law violate the person's religious freedom, by forcing him to serve people who his religion dictates that he should not serve?

I am not really sure how the situation with the cake is much different.

[polskieserce]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

You are living in La-La Land. The Constitution has been amended many times since it's original ratification. And hardly anyone thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional except for you and Rand Paul. The rest of the universe disagrees with you, and you have absolutely no authority to impose these silly views on anyone. So get over it.

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.