Here’s what I’ve learned from the massive kerfluffle over Indiana’s RFRA:
1. Indiana is simply an intolerable (pun intended) place to do business, so mayors and governors from other states have declared Hoosier country off-limits. Bakers, florists, photographers, and restaurateurs in Indiana have apparently had super-secret meetings in which they have solemnly vowed they will never again serve any customer who doesn’t first swear to their heterosexuality. This is a known fact. It says so right there in the Indiana RFRA on page 1,057.
2. The mayors and governors from #1 are joined by Apple, among other companies, in this unqualified condemnation of Indiana and this audacious attempt to preserve freedom for everyone legalize outright discrimination. Meanwhile, Apple’s expansion in the Middle East continues without a word of protest or even a furrowed brow, despite the fact that homosexuals in that region are often flogged. Yes, flogged. We don’t see that word often here in the U.S.A. but it’s what they did to Jesus before they crucified Him. It’s a pretty clear indication of intolerance.
3. Speaking of the RFRA itself, virtually no one in the media or in government cares what it actually says or why. (Or what it said, since it’s been “fixed” now.) They certainly will not be bothered to analyze it honestly or fairly. Facts do not matter. All that matters is that the public be made to hate Indiana and Governor Pence because they are legalizing discrimination against ‘gays’ everywhere! No ‘gay’ person will ever be able to eat out again, or buy flowers or cupcakes ever again. Ever. And they will lose their jobs tomorrow as well. Because that’s what RFRA is secretly designed to do. It says so right there on page 1,058.
4. For some unknown reason, travel to and business with New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, or any of the other states who already have their own RFRA laws on the books is perfectly fine, and the mayors and governors from #1 have not issued any restrictions. As noted above, travel to and business with Saudi Arabia has also not been prohibited.
5. Illinois is on the list of 19 other states that have an RFRA-type law. Then-senator Barack Obama voted for the law in Illinois. And don’t forget, there’s a federal RFRA as well. Bill Clinton signed that one.
6. Baking a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony is surely absolutely no different than making someone a pizza for dinner on Tuesday night, so anyone who says they just don’t want to be involved in same-sex weddings is lying. They’re really saying they hate ‘gays’ and will tell them to get the hell out of their establishment, now that RFRA gives them the legal right (it’s right there on page 1,059). Therefore… such vermin business owners must be slandered and ruined. They must be sued until they’re bankrupt. Tweets about burning their business down are not uncalled for. They deserve it.
7. Hillary Clinton said that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman; that marriage has always been known as such throughout history, and that the primary purpose of marriage was the raising of children. Harry Reid said that no state has the right to force its laws regarding marriage on any other state. Granted, they said these things about 10 years ago, but it sure is remarkable.
Finally, #8. Dan Savage, the foul-mouthed LGBT activist who said (among many other things) that “Carl Romanelli should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope”; and also that Dr. Ben Carson should come perform oral sex on him; and that he thinks about “f***ing the sh** out of” Senator Rick Santorum, has just been given a new Disney show called “Family of the Year”, based on his own life.
The execs at Disney are well aware of Savage’s actions, yet they still deem him worthy of a show on their network aimed at young people. Why?
Why is all of this happening? I think I know why, but it will be most politically incorrect to say so out loud.
I think it’s because Gay is the cause du jour of our time. I’ll go even a step further — Gay is the new (mandatory) ideology and idol of our time. You can be hateful, vile, vulgar, make threats, be vindictive, be dishonest, and seek to ruin anyone – as long as you’re Gay (or at least Gay-supporting).
It’s especially okay to do these things if the target of your outrage is a Christian, or just a conservative in general.
For the sake of Gay, journalists will lie and fabricate stories. For Gay, there is no bothering with facts. To hell with the truth. If the person or business or story doesn’t support the agenda and the propaganda, then it will be altered until it hits all the right buttons and generates the needed gasp of aghast from the ignorant and willing-to-be-deceived masses.
For the sake of Gay, and now for the sake of same-sex “marriage”, politicians will become amnesiacs and forget everything they ever said years ago about the sanctity of marriage and the family. They will denounce anyone who holds the very belief they themselves swore they held not long ago.
They will condemn every attempt to preserve the natural family unit of father, mother, and child, as blatant discrimination with purely hateful intent.
They will deliberately misrepresent legislation, twist the intent of others in government, and purposely brand everyone who resists this social re-engineering as out-of-touch, regressive, wanna-be slave owners looking for poor Gay folks to trample down.
Dan Savage specializes in vulgarity, profanity, threats, insults, intimidation, and hate, and he seems quite proud of it. And this, apparently, is what Disney feels is appropriate for our families today. This is the entertainment we need. Why?
Because Gay.
We have seen how, with lightning speed, the media and the pop culture will pounce on and smack down anyone who speaks what they consider an unflattering or unsupportive word about a Gay person or Gay rights. This person is not defending an ancient truth about marriage, the family, and the human person — No! — he or she is a backwards bigot. End of story.
It is absolutely right that violent remarks, threats and insults are condemned. Nobody should be treated that way. There’s no reason for it, no place for it, and no excuse for it.
So why are Savage’s actions and words excused and tolerated, and now even rewarded? Why? Is it because he’s Gay and he supposedly speaks for the Gay community? Is it because his targets are conservatives, or Christians? It’s pretty hard not to come to that conclusion.
There is no longer any tolerance for anyone who is not in full accord with the Gay agenda. Such a citizen will not be allowed to own a business, hold an office, speak in public, teach at a school, give a sermon, or do much of anything outside their own home, and if they try, they will be swiftly and severely punished.
So, what I’ve really learned this past week is this: We are, in short order, becoming a nation that actually despises freedom. We have come to loathe the truth, and to crave distorted propaganda instead. We have lost the ability, or have forgotten how, to think at all. We can only react with emotion, and rarely at all employ reason and mature judgment.
In our zeal to abolish God and His law, we made government our god and demanded totalitarianism. We no longer allow any dissent from or non-participation in the government-sanctioned idol.
Gay must rule the day now, to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. Gay must be obeyed and worshiped. It has been decided.
So the invented hysteria continues, and the anti-Christian flames are fanned into full roar, and many people will become fearful and quietly fade into the background. Some (most?) politicians who started out strong will cave under pressure and self-preservation. People will be faced with the decision to acquiesce or lose their business. They will be bullied into submission. All this in the name of progress and “freedom.”
There’s much, much more than cake and flowers at stake. And this week I learned that what really matters doesn’t matter at all compared to the witch hunt that must be carried out against Christian business owners or anyone who has the nerve to have a conscience that prompts them differently than Gay says is allowed.
185 thoughts on ““Gay” is the New Anti-Freedom: What I’ve Learned From Indiana’s RFRA”
Personally, I can’t stand queers.
I find them to be annoying, illogical, irrational, childish, & immature. When someone disagrees with them on something, they throw a tamper tantrum. I think they are pathetic. They certainly have a funny way of showing “tolerance”. I have met queers & they all are pathetic, & when they can’t win an argument, they resort to ad hominen attacks. Such irony. They preach tolerance, but they certainly don’t show it or give it. And to make matters worse, they try & FORCE this stuff onto children, sexualizing them. Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do. The fact NAMBLA is one the LGBT’s supporters means their motives are sinister.
There are many things wrong with homosexuality. For starters, 2 people of the same sex can’t procreate, & not to mention the high risks of AIDS/HIV. 76% of STDs come from the LGBT ‘community’ if I recall. That’s what makes it unnatural & NOT normal. The fact these heathens want to donate blood is frightening. HIV+ blood anyone?
BTW I’m not some bible-thumping person who lives in backwood. I happen to be an Athiest who is sick of the LGBTs bullying anyone who disagrees with them.
Fuck the gay rights movement, let it rot in hell where it belongs
I think the description of the gay movement as homofascism is spot on.
Agreed. That’s their ultimate goal: To outlaw Christianity.
Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION - Big Pulpit
Are you Savage’s Mommy, wiping up after him?
I see that Easter grace wore off.
I have a friend was sitting with me on the sofa evening before last. 40 years old with tumours all through his body and obviously dying. He was in a store recently looking to buy some groceries though he cannot swallow much of anything – food ways. After his purchase – the woman at the till threw the money on the floor and said, “Pick it up yourself, you dirty, filthy queer !” This is ‘christianity’ for you.
I am very sure Jesus would kick you out of the money changing markets too – not least some of those you call ‘churches’.
Shame, shame…. shame.
Rik a dying man looking to buy something to eat is not ‘petty BS’ and I bet I spend more time in prayer than you do from the sounds of your post.
Now I am off to confession for the sin of pride.
I am Catholic and don’t ‘kill’ anyone. Your ignorance and hatred does.
God forgive you !!
Marla, your friend’s encounter at the store is not reflective of Christianity at all, and I think you know that. It’s certainly not reflective of Catholic teaching or practice. Any further comments like this will be deleted. My sandbox.
I love intolerance – I’m racist, sexist homophobe (you said so) – come and get me i”m right here and I’m really scared – (I’m home alone). Gay childish idiots get a life. Petty BS while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. And don’t they just love IS killing Catholics.
Discussions with people in different forums have shown me that these people are incapable of making arguments, distinguishing between argument and mere assertion, drawing valid inferences, or or even grasping the plain meaning of language where matters of religious and moral conviction are at issue – whatever the celebrity and money culture tells them is what agitate them, and these are the or fetishes and divinities, and profanity, sneering, and calls for violence are their hymns and prayers- this is what happened as the civil rights movements decayed during and after 1968 -and these laws, legalization of recreational drugs, right to self-murder, sodomite weddings are all the final results of those events – long-delayed events but the disease was never cured.
There’s no such thing as lawful discrimination any more… if you’re a Catholic. This means Catholics must be discriminated against for having a lawful conscience. Lawful conscience in the full meaning of lawful conscience, that is.
The kicker is that absent freedom of conscience, and with that the freedom to legally discriminate between goods, there is only the will of the state. In a well-formed Catholic conscience, the state is to legally and self-responsibly discriminate for the good of the natural human family, from which comes the future of the state.
The state has abolished the state in pursuing the Gay Agenda, much like Gays abolish much of their own life in pursuing their own sexual orientation. This simply follows the natural order of goods, from which no person or no state may exempt themselves.
“In our zeal to abolish God and His law, we made government our god and demanded totalitarianism. We no longer allow any dissent from or non-participation in the government-sanctioned idol.” Strong reminder that more people need to hear and recognize. Well said, Jennifer. And a powerful article. Thank you.
Ugh, I hadn’t heard about #8. How wretched.
It’s interesting reading the endless threads of this subject, one I abstain from based on my belief that some human sexuality is in its psychological infancy and it will be a few centuries
before we see how these issues have all played out. However, as an exercise in discussion it became easy to extrapolate moral consequences based on other goods and services. So, how does the hypothetical reasoning apply to, say a tow truck owner/operator who will not tow
a gay, cohabiting couple, divorced and remarried, abortion activist ect, ad nauseum because it will help them carry on a ‘sinful’ lifestyle ? Also inserted into business, vocation, services, et al. are doctors, plumbers, electricians, snowplowers, carpenters, accountants, gardeners, roofers, computer technicians, … oh you get the idea. How far can you draw the line is my question ? Once more, I am neutral and any reply is strictly an academic exercise far as I’m concerned.
Once again, for the 1000th time… A tow truck driver, etc., isn’t being forced to participate in an immoral event.
Thanks. I’m mixing up facilitate with participate.
Bear with me once more. If the car the couple were driving in broke down and
the tow operator showed up and asked what garage they wanted and they said
drop us and the car off at the wedding chapel and get us to the church on time,
would he then be participating in the immoral event ?
Nope, because dropping someone off at a church isn’t lending creative expression to and therefore participating in the event. If I drop my mother off at a Lutheran Church, my actions don’t therefore imply that I endorse or subscribe to the Lutheran faith. But if I go into the church and decorate it for a same-sex wedding, I’m lending my creative expression to the wedding and therefore participating in it.
Thanks for the clarification
“There is no longer any tolerance for anyone who is not in full accord with the Gay agenda.”
To you, treating people of a different sexual orientation than yours with dignity and respect is the “Gay Agenda”. Then you are right, your intolerance of that “Gay Agenda” is not going to be tolerated anymore.
I can treat an atheist with dignity and respect, even though we have utterly opposing beliefs. What the Gay agenda wants is not dignity and respect for any person, but for me to abandon the truth of human sexuality and instead fully embrace their idea of human sexuality and their complete remodeling of marriage and the family. I will not do that.
I appreciate that you wish to treat me, an atheist, with dignity and respect. In offering goods and services on the open market, it is improper to turn down business from a same sex couple for their wedding. It is discrimination. That is why the Indiana and Arkansas RFRA’s had to be revised.
So, is this similarly improper, in your opinion? http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28160-see-what-happens-when-a-christian-man-asks-gay-bakeries-to-make-gay-marriage-is-wrong-cakes
To turn down a same sex couple is simply to refuse to participate in a lie. The purpose of the institution of marriage within society has always been to regulate the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon procreation. It is an answer to the question, “who is responsible for that child?” Therefore, where procreation is in principle excluded marriage is irrelevant! Your attempt to redefine it is based entirely upon the whims of the moment. The current whim happens to be that Christians are “intolerant”. The next might be that jews are a problem…who knows? But usurping the power of the state in order to force a person to participate in a lie is certainly no kind freedom nor progress, nor enlightenment. It is totalitarianism.
Is it a lie to participate in a wedding between a couple in their 60s? If you are all about marriage being for procreation, you are being hypocritical if you condone the marriage of any couple that can’t conceive and bear a child.
No, procreation is excluded in principle between two males or two females. The institution’s definition is not predicated upon every male female partnership to be fruitful in particular, but only in principle. It is procreation in principle which defines the institution as being exclusively between males and females, whether or not they are fertile. An infertile marriage is valid when it is between a man and a woman because of their complimentary in this regard, not because of the results of their copulation.
This should be obvious to anyone not interested in obfuscation.
I kind of thought you were full of it before. Given that foolish response, I now know you are full of it.
….the enlightened use of ad hominem I’m guessing…
Sorry. Your reasoning as to why an opposite sex couple can marry even if they cannot or will not procreate but a same sex couple can’t is seriously flawed.
Not any more of an argument than “you’re full of it”…
Swing and a miss…strike two!
I would say that this issue will be settled for good in the coming months.
I believe SCOTUS–by the narrowest margin–will endorse marriage is between
a man and a woman. When that happens, will you still say that the issue is settled for good? I doubt it.
Liberals are never satified, even when they “win”.
If I recall, I remember reading somewhere online where gay activists stated, “Gay marriage is only the beginning”
I fear what they really mean by that
It is not discrimination if delivering the service includes celebrating the event. Suppose, for example, a convention of atheists wants to celebrate a Jubilee or some other event and the decide to order a big cake decorated with a blasphemous representation of the Crucifixion, or of the Holy Virgin as a prostitute, on top of it. They order this cake at the local Catholic baker. After he refuses they accuse him of discrimination and through legal procedures destroy his business and livelihood.
Who is discriminated here? Anyone who hasn’t completely lost his mind would say the Catholic baker. The case is similar when gays order a cake for a wedding with on top a representation of two bridegrooms. It is an attempt to force Christians to commit an act of mockery against Christ, against their most sacred beliefs. Homosexual “marriage” is not marriage at all. At best it is a parody on marriage with the intention of destroying it.
Nobody knows how far the secularist elites and the totalitarian gay mob is prepared to go with this madness. But one thing is sure. There will be corner of Christian resistance against it of persons who are willing to accept martyrdom as the price of their faith. And that is the ultimate backbone no one can break. The moment that Christians are outlawed, persecuted, reviled, and murdered for their convictions, their victory is near.
“It is not discrimination if delivering the service includes celebrating the event.”
Who says you have to celebrate? All you have to do is your job. I have no pity for such fools.
It certainly implies celebrating the ideology, as is explained in another article of this site: https://catholicstand.com/radical-homosexuals-want-to-have-their-ideological-cake-and-make-you-eat-it-too/
Generally, businesses do not involve themselves in the ideologies of their clients and customers. They provide their goods and services and do not discriminate.
We have no obligation to tolerate your disrespect in these comment boxes, yet we have.
Tolerance of my opinions is appreciated. You are not obligated to accept them. We tolerate differences so as to make this world a better place to live. Sometimes we come around to the opposite point of view.
This woman has the right idea. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/06/gay-woman-who-donated-20-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-reveals-why-she-took-bold-stand/
“My girlfriend and I are small business owners, and we think there is a difference between operating in a public market space and then attaching the name of your business to a private event,” she said. “Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”
Reasonable people get that.
” But more than anything, Hoffman said she’d like to see people become more tolerant in general.”
That is something we all need to do.
You don’t seem to be very tolerant toward the beliefs of Catholics.
Sorry. I’m really not. I dislike the intolerance of the Catholic Church. You could say I have no tolerance for other people’s intolerance. And they have none for mine.
So then you don’t believe we should all become more tolerant in general? You just said the opposite.
My idea of what should be tolerated and what should not is just different and more mainstream than yours.
What the Church is intolerant of is sin. I suspect that is what you find unacceptable. There is such a thing as a moral law, and there is such a thing as natural law. The Church proclaims what God has said, and what He has done. The Church is not swayed by the popular opinion of the age, or by the whims of any particular society. Truth doesn’t change.
The Church’s idea of sin and that of modern, progressive human beings are very different.
Thank God for that.
True. Who gets to decide what sin is? A holy and perfect God, or flawed and fickle human beings?
There is legal and illegal. Sin is a personal matter between you and your conscience.
And what to do when the government tries to force us to violate our conscience? What then?
I suppose it depends on what kind of conscience you have. It is hard to empathize with a baker who feels it is against his conscience to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask. Certainly not government oppression to prohibit discrimination.
Hm, I didn’t realize that empathizing with a person’s religious beliefs was a prerequisite for the government allowing freedom of religious exercise. Where is that found in the Constitution?
Discrimination against gays is not a religious exercise. It is a crime.
But declining to participate in someone’s event is not discrimination against gays.
I have previously declined to participate in heterosexual weddings that I considered immoral (e.g., a divorced Catholic remarrying without first obtaining an annulment).
Was I discriminating against those people when I declined to participate in their wedding? Was that a crime too?
You didn’t discriminate against gays by not providing your goods and services to them because you find them to be “sinners”. Do you even understand what discrimination is?
Read my comment again; I think you missed a crucial word.
What I mean is that your choice was not discrimination. To refuse to provide your goods and services based on the sexuality of the customers is discrimination. You’re not even close to being right about this.
But no one is refusing to provide goods and services based on the sexuality of the customers. If two straight women or two straight men chose to get married in order to reap the tax and insurance benefits of being a same-sex couple, a Catholic baker would still decline to participate in it.
Some Catholic bakers might decline to participate in a wedding in which a Catholic was marrying outside the Church without a dispensation (which would render the marriage invalid in the eyes of the Church) while happily serving the participants at other times.
It’s the *event* itself that is the problem, not the people involved.
Bakers should not be making moral judgments. They should be making cakes and selling them to people. They are not responsible for the moral uprightness of their customers. This is a silly discussion and a silly problem for a baker to have. The world is moving in a direction where people recognize and refuse to play along with these silly people.
Business ethics shouldn’t exist? No one should make moral decisions in the course of their professional career? Lying, cheating, etc. are all okay in the workplace?
Are you employed? If so, is your boss aware that you oppose acting morally and ethically while at work?
Once again… my religious freedom is not predicated upon what you think of my beliefs. You may think people shouldn’t exercise their religion in all aspects of their lives. But the Constitution says otherwise.
Now you are just being obnoxious. This has nothing to do with business ethics or anything else you are throwing against the wall to see what sticks. You need to stop.
How about a print shop run by a lesbian couple which is requested to print a banner saying “Gay marriage is wrong” — are *they* allowed to make a moral judgment?
Back to your comment about Bakers that shouldn’t make moral judgments. What about Cooks? One Tim Cook, specifically. Did he have the right to make a moral judgment and have his company boycott Indiana over its RFRA?
I’m done playing “How ’bout this, how ’bout that?” You are not raising any hypotheticals that are analogous to refusing to service LGBT’s. It is a very specific form of discrimination that misguided lawmakers tried to legalize in the name of religion. The law has been revised and specifically states that it is not intended to do what it was originally intended to do and what you would like it to do. I really don’t see much purpose in it now and don’t really see how it will be implemented.
It’s THEIR business. They are free to run it as they like.
You they refuse, go elsewhere.
Politely refusing to participate in an event that one believes is sinful is discrimination? I thought it was called having integrity. Now it’s a crime to live the Catholic Faith in America?
“Politely refusing to participate in an event that one believes is sinful is discrimination?”
It is very problematic that Catholics believe gay marriage is “sinful”. They have been led astray by the Bible and the Church. And providing a service is very mercenary. It is not “participating”.
Some practices being conducted by Catholics in accordance with their faith are illegal according to some laws on discrimination. The Church is going to have to guide its members on how to reconcile their desire to be obedient to the Church and the state at the same time.
Not in my state.
No it’s not. We have freedom of association back up by the Constitution.
Go elsewhere to your sorry-ass fag cake
So if you’re intolerant of Catholics, you can’t really call yourself a tolerant person, can you?
My tolerance of others is not unlimited. I can’t tolerate those who are wrongfully intolerant of others. The Catholic Church is wrongfully (IMHO) intolerant of many things that others in society have no trouble tolerating and even embracing such as gay marriage.
And what gives you the right to force your personal opinions and beliefs on others?
Other than in online discussions that all agree to enter into, I tend not to force my opinions on others unless it is really important that I do.
Ah, so you only force your beliefs on others if you “have” to. How do you decide if you “have” to, and what makes your judgement infallible?
I have confidence in my value system. ISIS has a dysfunctional value system based on religious fanaticism.
Members of ISIS have confidence in their value system as well. Who are you to judge them?
Your arguments on this issue are a real stretch. Who am I to judge ISIS? You really mean to ask that question? It is pretty easy to judge ISIS. Isn’t it?
As I said, members of ISIS have confidence in their value system as well. Why is your confidence better than their confidence? Whose criteria should we use? By their criteria, they are right. How do we know which one to use?
The problem with ISIS, and, to a much lesser extent, people like you, is their willingness to allow themselves to be led to believe that there is a god who actually wants them to do exactly what they are doing. All reason and logic is set aside and replaced by literal understanding of scripture and religious leaders with their own agenda. I can’t deal with people like that. They defy reason and logic.
I think my religion is eminently reasonable and logical. But it is interesting that you think the free exercise of religion should be eliminated/eradicated based on your personal beliefs and feelings about it. Where is that in the Constitution?
You know, you are coming across as an anti-religious bigot. I really hope that isn’t your intent. I’m sure you’d hate to be labeled a bigot.
No one is trying to prevent anyone from exercising their religion. You can go to mass everyday if you want and say as many rosaries as you want.
And I can’t tolerate the wrongful intoleration of God’s law and commands.
There are no gods, angels, demons, etc. There are laws made by humans based on education, reason and logic. There are no “God’s Laws”. Those have been made up by humans and are superseded by more current and meaningful secular laws and social norms.
You are a corrupted & confused individual. No wonder why you’re a queer
Shall we also embrace pedophilia? Bestiality? Necrophilia? Adultery? If our society deems all these good and appropriate and worthy of legal protection, does that mean they are suddenly morally correct?
There is no need to bring into question all other kinds of activities in order to know that homosexuals deserve fair and equitable treatment including marriage equality.
But lots of advocates for those things are already bringing those into question. Why shouldn’t we?
When discussing the rights of a specific group such as LGBTs, there is no need to expand the discussion in a way that begs the question: if we allow them to marry, what about them, then and them. They are separate considerations and should be argued independent of one another. I would never say that we shouldn’t allow gays to marry because then we will have to allow polygamists to marry. They are separate issues.
Actually, even people on your side of the issue are confessing that despite what they have said before, there is definitely a slippery slope regarding marriage ‘equality’ and that your side should fess up to it. Here is a Boston College Law professor and gay right activist on that:
https://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-polygamy-and-incest
Why does allowing gays to marry open the door to polygamy any more than allowing people who have multiple ex spouses to marry does? It seems to me that is closer to polygamy. Gay marriage is monagomous.
They’re not separate issues at all. One is the logical continuation of the other. If “this” relationship and group has the right to the status of marriage, then why not ‘that” relationship and group? How can you consent to give rights to one and not the other? By what reasoning and authority?
” If “this” relationship and group has the right to the status of marriage, then why not ‘that” relationship and group?”
That is exactly what gays do not want to hear. You can’t deny them their right to marry because you will have to allow other groups to marry. That is faulty reasoning. Why should gays suffer because someone is going to want to marry his dog if they are allowed to marry?
I hope you realize that when “gay marriage” becomes the law of the land, that we will put the blame on the LGBTs for opening up the floodgates for polygamists, pedophiles, & zoophiles.
‘The Catholic Church is wrongfully (IMHO) intolerant of many things that others in society have no trouble tolerating and even embracing such as gay marriage. ‘
.
– Emperor Nero (twice ‘married’ to another man)
I’m an Athiest, & I think homosexuality is wrong. Guess that make me intolerant too.
You try & force me to agree with something against my will, & there will be hell to be pay. Because you already violating my rights as a citizen.
He’s pathetic sissy who got his fudge packed to the brim. It has left him retarded
I think that is a ridiculous and uncharitable assertion. Moreover, please don’t use the term “retarded” as a slur. People with Downs are lovely individuals.
How else do you want me to describe the fruitcake thinking he can push others around?
A self-absorbed sissy with narcassitic personality disorder? One of the reasons I can’t stand queers is because of they are self-absorbed narcissists who think they can push anyone who disagrees with them around. And I quite frankly have had enough!
I’ve had my experience with the LGBTWHATEVER aka Pervert crowd, & quite frankly I don’t like them. Who died & made them King?
When LGBT-whatever-sexuals start forcing me to celebrate something against my conscience, they are in violation of my rights. Also it takes a entire level stupid not recognize homosexuality is a unnatural lifestyle with dangerous consequences (let me remind you it was a queer that started AIDS in this country).
I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, nor do I want to care, the LGBTABCXYZ crowd has another thing coming if they expect me to celebrate their devious behavior
You can think sin is wrong and advocate against it without being a jerk. And it’s wholly unacceptable to use the word “retarded” as a slur.
I think homosexuals are pathetic because (1) they don’t understand basic human anatomy (the anus is not a reproductive organ), & (2) the homosexual lifestyle is one with many disease. During the 80s many people died of AIDS when the disease first surface. The fact the disease appeared in the queer community proves it is unnatural.
What makes him think he push others around? He has no conscience. He doesn’t care. He, like all the other homofacists, want to push others around without facing the consequences. He is a retard.
PS: I’m a Atheist.
All human beings are beloved children of God. Perhaps your words should reflect that.
Then by your logic, you are also intolerant
No one here, and no Catholic I know, would demand that two homosexual women set up a rally to support ideas they opposed. Okay, that’s tolerance.
You can’t say the same of yourself or the activists you’re defending.
Stacy, exactly! I would not demand that anyone participate in a Catholic wedding if they were opposed to Catholicism. That’s part of being grown up, and allowing for differences, even if we disagree. That is tolerance.
I’ve noticed that the more accepting America becomes of gay rights and gay marriage, etc., the more violent and loud and bullying and intolerant the gay activists become. Something’s not quite right here….
Unlawful discrimination should not be tolerated by anyone.
It’s only recently been made “unlawful” to live my Catholic Faith fully. It never was “unlawful” before. So when someone gets into power who hates Catholicism, that means I have to change my faith and violate my conscience? That makes no sense. I asked before (and forgive me if you answered), what makes a law just or unjust?
People have a way of differentiating between just and unjust laws. Most of our laws are just. Some are a matter of opinion. I have mine. You have yours.
Do we have to follow unjust laws? And again, what is your criteria for what is just or unjust?
Over many years, I have developed my own sense of right and wrong, just and unjust, etc. That’s what I go by.
Yes, but the law of the land should be based on what “you go by”? Says who? What about what I go by? Why don’t we determine just or unjust laws based on my sense of right and wrong?
Here’s what MLK said about just vs. unjust laws, in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, and I agree with him:
The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
That is why the Civil Rights movement was good and true. It was based on Natural Law, i.e., the universal moral law. The Civil Rights movement, like abolition, was a religious movement, by the way.
“Like, if we were asked to set up at an anti-gay marriage rally, I mean, we would have to decline.”
She is being far too understanding. Refusing to get involved with anti gay protesters is not unlawful discrimination.
But depending on who has the power and who makes the laws, it could be, right? Doesn’t it all depend on who is in power? And isn’t that the very reason to protect the rights of those with unpopular opinions?
I suppose.
We finally agree! I am glad.
Yet you think Christian business owners should be forced to get involved with gay marriage activists. What is the difference?
You just can’t discriminate against certain segments of society, LGBT included.
I agree that unjust discrimination against a person or people is wrong. But how is declining to participate in someone’s wedding discrimination?
Because if your business is providing goods and services for weddings, that is what you should do and not worry about who is marrying whom. It’s not your responsibility. Just do your job.
You didn’t answer my question. How is it discrimination to decline to participate in someone’s wedding?
It’s not “participation”. It is providing goods and services. Only in a dumb religion would it be a “sin” to provide a cake for a gay wedding. A very dumb religion.
Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/participate?s=t
to take or have a part or share, as with others; partake; share (usually followed by in):
I would say a baker does indeed have a part in a wedding when he makes a cake for it, as does a florist have a part in a wedding when she creates a bouquet for it.
You may think it’s a dumb religion. But whether or not my religion is “dumb” has no bearing whatsoever as to my right to practice it as I see fit. You are not required to like my religion on in order for me to have the right to exercise it.
This country is going to have to draw a line as to what can be considered to be “exercising a religion”. I think your right to call something an exercise of your religion ends where someone else’s rights begin.
So you think people have the right to force others to participate in their weddings? What is the precedent for that?
My only answer to this question is to state again that the people who work weddings in no way participate in the exchange of vows and the subsequent sexual act that you and your ilk believe to be a gravely immoral act. They are just there (if they are even there) to do what they do for a living. No one is depriving them of their religious freedom. They are just doing what they are paid to do. They are not performing the ceremony or condoning it by there presence. If the minister asks if anyone knows of any reason why the couple should not be married, their religion doesn’t require them to stop serving, or playing music or anything else and state their objection. That is not what they are there for. They are there to do a job and to do it well.
Your answer is incorrect. It’s not just the exchange of vows – it’s participating in the entire *event.* That’s what a wedding is – it’s a celebration of the union itself, a union that many Christians consider to be inherently invalid and immoral and have no desire in which to participate.
Once again – our right to freedom of religious exercise is not predicated upon how *you think* we should or should not exercise our religion. You don’t get to dictate how others practice their religion.
“You don’t get to dictate how others practice their religion.”
You’re right. I don’t.
And yet, you are trying to do so.
Not anymore. I give up.
Good! Thank you for recognizing our right to the free exercise of our religion.
Knock yourself out. Exercise your religion to your heart’s content. Just keep it away from the rest of us. Peace.
As Leila pointed out, it’s never been a problem before to exercise our religion until recently. We never wanted this to happen. We wanted to be left alone.
Some gay advocates have been special pleading. They want those who object to being associated with an event to suddenly make an exception. This has opened up a can of worms now that I think even gay advocates would object to like a bakery having to provide a cake for a KKK birthday. Our concern is that 1) you don’t see the distinction between people, events, or free speech and free exercise of religion and 2) you aren’t drawing lines in the sand. Gay advocates are going to find themselves being put in positions where their own consciences are being violated. I can’t imagine the day when Westboro sues a printer because that printer refuses to serve them (believe me they’ve tried to get their signs printed). Is that really what you want? Or am I correct that what you’re looking for is in fact special pleading?
” I can’t imagine the day when Westboro sues a printer because that printer refuses to serve them ”
There are very few analogies being used about this that are in any way equal to refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation. It is most analogous to doing the same based on race. Just as you shouldn’t turn down business from blacks, you shouldn’t turn it down from gays and can’t if the civil rights and discrimination laws in the state cover sexual orientation (they don’t in Indiana so the was no need for the law anyway).
“There are very few analogies being used about this that are in any way equal to refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation.”
Okay. So let’s use Westboro. They are a religious group who believes that God hates gay people and that as part of their religion they are compelled to declare it as being so. To not produce a sign for a member of Westboro, would be discrimination against a religious group yes?
Unless you are going to say, that printer doesn’t have a problem with members of Westboro per se. The problem is that they don’t want to print a sign that is associated with Westboro protesting/proselytizing. It’s akin to a baseball field declining a contract with a strip club (for advertizing or whatever) because they are a family-friendly business. It makes sense for a printer to not want to associate themselves with a group’s activities (religious or not).
It is the same for the florist, bakery, photographer. They will take arrange flowers, bake cakes, and photograph gay persons, but they don’t want their business to be perceived as endorsing gay marriage. They are a Christian business.
“It is most analogous to doing the same based on race. Just as you shouldn’t turn down business from blacks, you shouldn’t turn it down from gays….”
Hi! I’m from Mississippi. I probably know a lot about the Civil Rights movement and discrimination. The biggest difference is that the laws in Mississippi prevented people from integrating. You could not sell certain houses to black people. Black people were obligated to sit in certain spots on the bus or make room. You could not attend certain schools.
Post integration for schools involved public schools. This did not apply to private run schools which is why there are so many of them in Mississippi. White people didn’t like integrating so they left and started their own schools barring black people from attending.
Nobody is saying a gay person can’t attend school, ride a bus, or use the same facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, or movie theater per Titles I, II, and IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which actually applies only to racial minorities.
No where in the Civil Rights Act does it say that a person must make a contract with everyone who walks into a person’s private business. It would be absurd. This would legalize things like making contracts with minors which you can’t do without parental or guardian consent. At some point, businesses will turn down business from blacks, Jews, gays, etc for a variety of reasons none of which includes the fact that they are black, Jews, or gay.
You think that these businesses are turning down business as a means of discrimination of gay persons when really it’s about them not wanting to be associated with or participating with a gay marriage ceremony. If you cannot simply believe their sincerity, than you are going to have a hard time in life. You have to trust people. Nobody cares if these people are gay.
“To not produce a sign for a member of Westboro, would be discrimination against a religious group yes?”
I don’t know what the laws are that require a printer to print something that is offensive. I’ve said enough about this. You can’t discriminate against gays and use your religion as an excuse. That’s all I have to say.
Okay just to clarify. You believe in fact that it’s not discriminating against Westboro because their language is “offensive” to the printer. The printer is exercising their conscience to not print something they deem as “offensive.”
And just for further clarification. Can we agree that what is deemed “offensive” is going to be different for different people? I may not view a depiction of Mohammad as offensive, but a Muslim would. Likewise the people of Westboro don’t view what they doing or saying as offensive, whereas the printers in their area do. In other words, we can agree that what is “offensive” is actually subjective. Yes?
There are no laws that require a printer (or a florist, or baker, or photographer, etc) to do something that they deem offensive until recently….I used the bakery making a cake for a KKK birthday cake as an example. Recently it was ruled that the bakery in question had to produce the cake even though the cake was “offensive” to the baker. Contrastingly in Colorado, a baker did not have to produce a cake because it was “offensive” to the baker. So far there is no clear cut understanding of how to deal with “offensive” situations.
Which do you think is right? The ruling over the KKK birthday cake or the one in Colorado? Do you think a person is obligated to produce a service or good for a client even if it’s offensive to the business owner?
“Recently it was ruled that the bakery in question had to produce the cake even though the cake was “offensive” to the baker. ”
Why? It’s not illegal to discriminate against the KKK.
http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery-for-discrimination/
According to Georgia courts it is illegal to discriminate against the KKK. I’m not sure the details. You will have to look up the court case.
You don’t say! Just when I was thinking this was becoming a useless conversation, you come up with a tibit like that! Go figure!
So you agree then that a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a KKK birthday or a printer cannot refuse to print signs for Westboro? The court in Colorado ruled incorrectly, the baker was obligated to bake the cake for the Christian? Even though in all three cases the two bakers and the printers believe that the requests were offensive.
It’s perfectly fine for me to request a Jesus cake from a Muslim or ask a gay caterer to cater a anti-gay marriage rally? They are obligated to do so correct?
No. I’m not being sidetracked. As for the issue we are discussing, you can’t discriminate against gays by refusing their patronage. I don’t care about Muslims baking a Jesus cake or the KKK. Those are diversions from the main issue.
I’m sorry if you think we’re being side tracked. I’m trying to establish what you mean by “offensive” and how that is different from these other cases of “offensive” versus discrimination.
The issue isn’t whether a bakery or printer is refusing patronage. In all of the cases that have occurred so far the bakers et al have never refused patronage. They refused to perform a particular service because they felt that service to be offensive or did not wish to be associated with the particular event.
So is it wrong to refuse baking a KKK birthday cake, printing a Westboro sign, or refusing to provide a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony? In every case, a baker or printer is refusing to be indirectly/directly part of an event (a KKK birthday, a Westboro protest/proselytizing, or a gay marriage ceremony).
Is it safe to assume that you believe that the KKK, Westboro Baptist believers, or a gay couple are being discriminated against? And how do you come to that conclusion?
I’m earnestly trying to understand how refusing to do one thing/event is discriminating against an entire group of people.
You have to understand in Mississippi black people were not served anything. They weren’t even allowed to walk into an establishment and sit down. During the protests they were beaten and accosted. I fail to see how not printing a Westboro Baptist sign is refusing to allow a Westboro believer from entering an establishment, printing other unrelated materials, or beating and accosting said members.
You heard the guy. You can’t discriminate against Gays (or LGBT in general). It’s perfectly fine to discriminate against religious people (whether christians, muslims, jews, hindus, etc.), blacks, hispanics, asians, indians, whites, I dare say, Women, just so long as they’re not L, G, B, T, Q, A, C, D, E, F, G, or any other protected letter of the alphabet.
As an aside, my spell checker discriminates against Gays, because it apparently thinks it’s all right to spell them with a lowercase letter, whereas it underlines religious denominations and ethnic adjectives. The nerve of that wretched thing! Somebody should sue Mozilla, Firefox, and the author of that spellchecker for a bajillion dollars!
“So is it wrong to refuse baking a KKK birthday cake, printing a Westboro sign, or refusing to provide a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony?”
It is not wrong to bake the KKK or gay wedding cake or print the WBC sign because that’s what you do if that is your business or profession. It doesn’t mean you agree with what your customers are doing or what they stand for. Business is business.
Is it wrong to turn down their business? Perhaps. Should it be illegal? I’m not sure. All I know is that there are laws in some states that prohibit discrimination based on certain criteria. You can’t deny a permit for a KKK demonstration or March on the basis of what they say because free speech is protected under the First Amendment. Same goes for the WBC. A private citizen has the right to refuse to support the KKK or WBC but a business might not have that right. I concede that you have a point. Now I don’t know what business should have what rights. When in doubt, see what the law says.
“it doesn’t mean you agree with what your customers are doing or what they stand for. Business is business.”
So the customer is always “right?” A business can’t conduct itself in a certain manner? The ball park who wishes to remain family-friendly must host “Stripper Nights at the Park?”
So are you saying that the law supersedes everything? The KKK can’t be denied a permit to march because permits come from public government. The businesses we’re talking about are privately owned entities. They are owned by private citizens. Generally speaking owners are allowed to use their property and conduct their own affairs as they see fit. In fact some people move to the country so they don’t have to worry over city-zoning laws.
What I think most of us here are arguing is that we are able to conduct our private businesses according to the tenets of our faith ie our own business ethics. You don’t seem sure about how much the government should or can intrude on those ethics. That’s the fundamental difference between conservatives, who want fewer government intrusions, and liberals, who want more for the sake of the customers.
Some conservatives are actually seeking to illuminate all discrimination laws because they are becoming so intrusive. I don’t fall into that camp. I just want RFRA laws in place.
“The ball park who wishes to remain family-friendly must host “Stripper Nights at the Park?””
Other than your hyperboles, you do make some sense. But, crazy analogies aside, I think the question of whether a same sex couple should have to keep searching for businesses that will accept them for who they are and provide what is needed for their wedding deserves simple rational consideration and should not be muddied by religious issues.
I wish these things were hyperboles, but if a ball field can host a Christian family night what’s to stop other types of nights that aren’t in keeping with their business practices. It used to be that businesses could say no, but now….
Growing up in Mississippi a lot of people didn’t like the Beer Nights (like 1/2 off beer at the ball field) because they felt drinking was wrong and definitely not family friendly. That was the business owner’s decision. They wouldn’t go there even though it’s the only professional ball field in the state. In the 1990s the Southern Baptist Convention called for a boycott of all Disney products because of the gay weeks at Disney world. But those were the customers upset with business practices.
Why can’t a business wish to target a certain type of clientele? Isn’t that good business practice? Look at Apple appealing to YAs. I mean I get that gay people may never want to use those bakeries, florists, printers, etc again. But to prosecute the business because it targets a different demographic and follows a set of business practices just seems extreme. I certainly wouldn’t get bent out of shape if a gay printer refused to print my pro-traditional marriage sign or a pro-abortion printer refuse my pro-life pamphlet. I’d find someone else. Let the market balance things out like it did in the 90s.
It isn’t just religious issues. If it was why target Christians? Orthodox Jews and Muslims don’t recognize gay marriages either. It’s bigger than that. What’s really at issue is ethics and Christians are one of the easiest groups to target. If an Orthodox Jewish baker were targeted it would be anti-Semitic. Nope. Ethics. Private business ethics are being challenged. Look at Hobby Lobby. Look at the KKK birthday cake situation. Next it will be Tyson Chicken when it’s discovered that they have pastors on staff. There will be push back on gay owned business too.
And we all have to decide on where we stand on business ethics. Do we have to serve all requests or can a business say no?
Sure, as long as you don’t try to force me to violate my conscience.
And lookee here. According to the Colorado Civil Rights Division, bakers can’t be forced to provide goods and services to any person for any reason. This lady is being allowed to discriminate! What do you think about that? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/06/azucar-bakery-anti-gay-message_n_7011202.html
“This lady is being allowed to discriminate!”
Not really. Discriminating against LGBTs is different than refusing to write hateful messages. Let’s just agree to disagree and let the lawmakers and courts worry about this issue. There’s no sense in beating a dead horse.
Wait a sec! You’ve said in previous comments that choosing to deny goods or services for ANY REASON is discrimination. So how is this not discrimination?
For ANY reason? No. I am very specifically saying that turning down business based on sexual orientation is discrimination. I don’t have a dog in this fight so I am bowing out of further discussion on this. Take it up with the courts.
Nobody is turning down business based on sexual orientation, as I’ve already explained (bakers would refuse to participate in marriages between two heterosexual women too).
I can see you’re stooping to ad hominems, so once again. How exactly is it not participation if you’re attaching your name to the service you provide?
You are greatly exaggerating the role of people providing goods and services for a wedding. Do you think anyone cares who made the cake or who photographed the wedding or who catered it or provided the transportation. This is becoming a ridiculous discussion.
If nobody cares who made the cake, photographed the wedding or provided transportation, why would gay couples go to Christian establishments for these services?
I am against gays intentionally seeking out Christians knowing they will likely decline and then suing them. But if a gay just randomly chooses a vendor for a service and is refused, I am against that form of discrimination.
What’s stopping the gay from randomly choosing a different vendor? What if the vendor refuses because he’s busy on that date? Throw a fit and sue?
You know the answers to these questions.
One more comment in reply to yours:
“You just can’t discriminate against certain segments of society, LGBT included.”
Let me fix that for you: “You just can’t discriminate against certain segments of society, anti-LGBT included.” — or KKK, or Muslim terrorists, etc. See the point? Yet you have no problem discriminating against choice groups:
“My tolerance of others is not unlimited. I can’t tolerate those who are wrongfully intolerant of others.”
In other words, you cannot tolerate yourself, since it appears you are intolerant of a lot of people here. That is, unless you’re not wrongfully intolerant of us.
I’m not wrongfully intolerant of your position on this matter. You want to deny LGBTs their civil rights and you are going through all kinds of machinations to justify doing so.
Oh for pity’s sake, it’s not a civil right to have a cake, photographer or any other services at a wedding!
It is a civil right that people not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation. Withholding goods and services for a gay wedding is discrimination. Ironically, Indiana still does not list sexual orientation as being protected from discrimination. The matter would have to be judicated in a civil suit.
A gay is a person. A gay wedding is not a person. If you’re not providing services to a gay, you’re discriminating. You cannot talk of discrimination if you’re not providing services to a gay wedding, since this is not a person.
I can imagine that the bakery/photographer/etc. in question would deny their services at a gay wedding to a heterosexual person as well. Is that discrimination, too?
“A gay is a person. A gay wedding is not a person. If you’re not providing services to a gay, you’re discriminating.”
That’s good enough for me. If you are ever in the position of having to defend the rest of what you said before a judge, good luck.
Getting a wedding cake isn’t a “right”. It’s a privilege. You don’t need it to survive.
Agreed. Queers have the same rights as the rest of us!
It’s not about “equality” for the LGBTetc. crowd, it’s about supremacy! They want special rights, special rights to destroy anyone who doesn’t approve or is not like them
I’ve been saying this for years!
One more observation: Suppose somebody wants to hold a private wedding ceremony with his sister, pet dog or a 10-year old child and goes to a bakery and request a cake or to a photographer and asks for pictures.
Is denying them this service discrimination?
Suppose incest, zoophilia or pedophilia becomes legal. Is denying them this service discrimination at that point?
If it is, then was denying services to gays 10 years ago discrimination?
If it was, we’re back to square one. How is not providing services to the first groups not discrimination?
If it wasn’t, I understand that denying services to blacks or to slaves was perfectly fine until it was deemed illegal?
—
At which point do you draw the line? If a photographer refuses to take pictures of a couple’s wedding night citing religious reasons, is this wrongful discrimination?
Does it make any difference to you that the opinions I am stating to you on this matter are consistent with recent court decisions? I am just going by what has already been established as case law.
How very convenient. So as things change, we are all forced to accept and adopt these changes as soon as they happen? In other words, do you claim people have no right to hold on to their beliefs because they may get overthrown at any point?
What about war crimes? Accused and convicted war criminals acted fully in accordance with their national law. Suppose the country is not a signatory of the Geneva conventions. Why can they be judged before an international tribunal?
Going further, if you go by recent court decisions, I understand you fully support Saudi Arabian courts handing out death penalties to homosexuals, correct? Or do you only give *some* courts this privilege, and others not? By what measure? By whether these courts agree with you or not?
Mind you, in the case of USA at least, judges are appointed outside of the democratic process, so when this becomes law, it goes completely against your Constitution.
What about unappealed conflicting rulings — which one is the correct one? The one that’s more convenient to you?
I am just providing a rationale for my opinion that refusing to provide to a person or persons what one provides to the general public because of the person(s) sexual orientation has been ruled as discrimination by those whose job it is to protect people’s civil rights. That’s my opinion and the rationale for my opinion.
As a baker, photographer, etc., I would not refuse to provide services to a heterosexual wedding regardless of whether the person requesting these services was straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Conversely, I would refuse to provide services to a homosexual wedding regardless of whether the person requesting these services was straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Does that work for you?
I think if you did what you are saying you would do, you could be sued or fined. We’re not going to agree that people have a right to use religion as an excuse for discriminating against gays. Indiana and Arkansas have made that clear in their revisions.
Okay, how about the services provider asks some details, finds out it’s a gay wedding, then asks about the date, and says: “Aw, shucks, I’m booked for that day, sorry.”
Is that okay, or grounds for a lawsuit because he might secretly be discriminating?
As for your “civil right” — is it okay to discriminate against the poor, too? Suppose I’m broke and ask for services at a wedding. When they decline, can I sue because they refused to provide service for a dime?
Your questions are getting pretty ridiculous. It is getting plain to see that your argument in favor of using religion as an excuse to discriminate is very weak. Religion is no excuse.
That’s called reductio ad absurdum and I wanted to underscore your willingness to draw the line arbitratily. And you still haven’t replied to my earlier questions.
“Using religion as an excuse to discriminate?” How about: “Using ideology to discriminate against religious people by limiting their freedom to express their beliefs?” That’s your line: “Discrimination against gays is not a religious exercise. It is a crime.”
You’re not the authority to say what consitutes expressing religion to a religious person.
How about a gay couple goes to a Halal butcher and asks them to prepare a roast piglet for their wedding? While the butcher may be dragged to provide services against his will for a gay wedding, would he have the right to refuse based on his belief that pigs are unclean?
Looking at this from the outside, it looks to me like gays are doing precisely what you proscribed:
“I am against gays intentionally seeking out Christians knowing they will likely decline and then suing them.”
So far, the only two examples of this (Sweet Cakes in Oregon and that pizza parlor somewhere in Indiana) were cherry picked based precisely on the owner’s religion. To the outside observer, it looks like there is a witch hunt going on in the US against Christian business owners, forcing them to either fall in line or be eliminated.
All this in the country established by people fleeing from religious persecution in England…
Homosexuality is no excuse.
Homosexuals do not have a right to discriminate against others based upon religious beliefs.
You don’t think homosexuals are being discriminated against in the name of religion? Look again.
So, if a citizen thinks he is not being treated with “dignity and respect”, the government needs to take punitive action? Wow. Have you always lived in America, or are you from North Korea?
If that lack of dignity and respect includes unlawful discrimination, yes. It should not have to come to that.
What is the difference between a just law and an unjust law in your mind? Or between just discrimination and unjust discrimination?
Treating people of a different sexual orientation with dignity and respect is Catholic teaching.
What is NOT Catholic teaching is openly participating in and celebrating events that are immoral, such as same-sex marriages. Yet you want to force business owners to participate in events that they consider to be immoral. Why?
When we marry and have a fancy wedding reception, the vendors that we hire to provide flowers, catering, a cake, limousine, etc. are not participating or celebrating anything. Their doing what they have been hired to do. They have to have a bizarre religion for them to think they are doing something against it by doing their job.
That’s absolutely false. Bakers, florists, and photographers (among others) are artists. When they lend their creative expression to an event, they are participating in that event. They are saying, “I believe this event is worthy of celebration, and as such I am lending my creative expression to it, and doing my utmost to create something beautiful in celebration of the event.”
What if the Westboro Baptist Church went to a gay bakery and requested an elaborate celebratory cake for the baptism of one of their members, adorned with “God hates fags” and similar motifs?
If we go by your stance, those gay bakers are not only obligated to make such a cake, but they are also obligated make it as beautiful as possible.
Why do you want to force people to use their creative expression to celebrate something they consider wrong, or immoral?
As to the teaching in question, I can’t speak for other Christian denominations, but here is the relevant Catholic teaching:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1868
I’m not going to treat a misguided man as if he were my Mom.