Hypocritical, one-sided, biased, mendacious, “tolerance” is on the horizon

Minnesotan readers!   Get out the vote!  Get your like-thinking to the polls and VOTE!

Otherwise, have a taste of Christmas-Yet-To-Come.

Not only is the Obama Administration actively and doggedly undermining our religious freedom, trying to reduce freedom of religion to freedom of worship only, there is a Marriage Amendment on the ballot in Minnesota.  The two issues, religious freedom and defense of marriage come together in the following text.

Over at American Catholic my friend The Motley Monk has this (my emphases and comments):

Intolerant tolerance…
Published Thursday, October 25, 2012 A.D. | By The Motley Monk

While on this side of the pond the nation’s bishops are waging battle against the government’s incursions upon religious freedom, an interesting battle is unfolding on the other side of the pond in Great Britain.

It seems that Susanne and Mike Wilkinson who own Uf Dorf Wilkinson—a Swiss country B&B located in Cookham, Berkshire, which also serves as the couple’s home—believe the precepts of their Christian faith trump the law of the land. [The laws of the land should reflect God's laws, positive and the natural law as well.] In this instance, that precept concerns the sanctity of marriage and the law is the Britain’s Equality Act Regulations of 2007, which outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation when providing goods, facilities, services, education, and other public functions.

According to the UK Daily Mail, Mrs. Wilkinson told Michael Black and his partner John Morgan in March 2010 that they couldn’t sleep in a double bed at Uf Dorf. That allegedly “discriminatory” judgment led to a lawsuit that Black and Morgan have won, with the judge requiring Mrs. Wilkinson to pay Black and Morgan £3,600 in compensatory damages on the grounds of “hurt feelings.

Responding to the judgment, Mrs. Wilkinson to the Daily Mail:

Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration.
We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?  But I am afraid that that is the way we are going.  If we don't stand up, this is what will happen everywhere!]
People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs. I am a Christian, not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life – as Jesus expects from his followers.
That’s all I was trying to do and I think it’s quite wrong to punish me for that, especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats.

In court, Mrs. Wilkinson explained to the judge that she was serious about her Christian beliefs regarding the sanctity of marriage and wasn’t discriminating because Black and Morgan are homosexual. Mrs. Wilkinson explained that she also doesn’t allow unmarried heterosexual couples to share a double bed at Uf Dorf.

That would make Mrs. Wilkinson consistent in her intolerance or, put in another way, consistent in bringing her faith into her workplace.

Mrs. Wilkinson put her finger squarely on the truth when she observed: “We find this a strange justice in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant.”

In the UK, it may very well be the case that the principle of “tolerance” doesn’t extent to being tolerant of traditional Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage.

Is this a ”coming attraction” of what’s soon to transpire in the United States?  [Yes!]

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Hypocritical, one-sided, biased, mendacious, “tolerance” is on the horizon

  1. Pingback: Sexualization of Girls Pro-Life and Social Justice Catholics | Big Pulpit

  2. AvantiBev says:

    My heart goes out to this couple but we started down the road to this in the 60′s with no-fault divorce, then co-ed dorms led to casualness about being seen by the opposite sex without being fully clothed, take a pill, this in turn was followed by living together being no big deal, more pills, free condoms, Anonymous hook-ups? No biggee! Serial shack ups and now in Britain they no longer refer to each other as husband/wife but “my partner”. Geez! Out with romance and the beloved spouse; replace with what sounds like contracting with a partner for a business deal.

    I am NOT defending Same Sex Marriage (nor the bullies of PC enforcement),but it must be seen as the continuation of a long pattern set by we heterosexuals thumbing our noses at God’s loving plans for our sexuality.

  3. Sixupman says:

    The homosexual lobby seek out traders for entrapment. Yet there are homosexual hotels advertising openly as such.

  4. AvantiBev says:

    And yes the bullying and Court enforced “correctness” is here already. From B&B to wedding photographers many have faced fines and public shaming for daring to say no to same sex couples.

  5. iowapapist says:

    Welcome to Iowa. Courtesy of our Supreme Court’s decision nullifying a statute defining marriage as being between “one man and one woman”, we have a plethora of lawsuits commencing and in progress concerning “gay rights”. Whether they are suing a baker for refusing to sell a same-sex wedding cake, or suing for the right to have two lesbians listed as the biological parents on birth and death certificates, they are seeking to achieve in court what they cannot through legislative means. These people are aggressive, determined and backed by organizations with lots of money. The camel has his nose in the tent. Once the present homosexual activists achieve their goals, don’t be surprised when the organized pederasts (e.g. “N.A.M.B.L.A”) will be generating support for the repeal of minor consent laws. Ora pro nobis.

  6. JKnott says:

    Already here AvantiBev is certainly correct.
    This media interview about “outdated” religious views being responsible for homosexual teen suicides is scary.
    http://www.therightscoop.com/msnbc-guest-outdated-christianity-causes-gay-people-to-get-depressed-or-commit-suicide/

  7. onosurf says:

    I good and short essay on just this topic: http://cklc.weebly.com/blog.html

  8. bookworm says:

    I guess then if you are an observant Catholic you can forget about working in the hospitality industry or in wedding or special event planning of any kind.

  9. Late for heaven says:

    Or the medical field, or teaching, or social services that involve childrens issues.

  10. JonPatrick says:

    “suing for the right to have two lesbians listed as the *biological* parents on birth and death certificates”.

    Sounds like some people need a lesson in biology!

  11. Paul Lemmen says:

    All part of the incremental institution of socilaism.

  12. Cantor says:

    JonPatrick – That would have been true until this week’s news:

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/26/child-with-three-parents-ethical-concerns-surrounding-3-person-ivf/

    Heaven only knows (and weeps) at what will come along next.

  13. The Masked Chicken says:

    AvantiBev wrote (in part):

    “My heart goes out to this couple but we started down the road to this in the 60?s with no-fault divorce…”

    The sexual revolution did not spring, full-blown, in the 1960′s, like Athena from the head of Zeus. One has to look for the pre-cursors in the unfortunate repercussions of a vaguely defined civil rights movement that started in the post-WWII climate of youthful exuberance. Modern sexual license really began in the post-WWI climate (the Roaring Twenties), but went underground in the Depression Era (amazing how self-control correlates with having to focus on other things). It reared its ugly head in the post-WWII climate for the very same reasons as the 1920′s: the disaffection of youth coupled with a rise in secularism (especially in philosophy). During the Wars, many youth had their faith tested and their faith caved as they watched the horrors of war unfold in front of them. They brought this disaffected mentality back with them. Life became a, “live for today,” proposition instead of a, “plan for the future,” thing – leading to a sort of perpetual neoteny (your new word for the day). The need to expend this energy led to the formation of suburbia for some and a sort of disengagement with society (such as with the Beat movement) for others.

    When the Civil Rights movement began in earnest in the late 1950′s, there were plenty of people willing to take ups its cause, but because many of the people lacked a clear focus for their energy, the movement began to gather momentum in other areas (such as relegating sex to being a civil right to pleasure) – it overrode its initial focus on restoring dignity to Blacks and began to insist on giving “dignity” to any group that claimed oppression .

    …and here we stand – “civil rights” has become a cover for any sort of foolish, childish ranting by anyone who can’t get their own way.

    I say, the couple should throw it back in the judge’s face and tell him that they were only following lawful orders from a higher power than he. They should tell him that If he wants to impose a penalty, let him impose it on their boss. They need to tell the judge, quite frankly, that his is a stooge.

    Now, police may come for their possessions because most judges have no understanding of their own microscopic significance in the moral order and the family then has two lawful options: fire on them, since the police are following an unjust law and taking property not rightfully theirs – there is, after all, a right to property – or they can feed them cookies and milk as they let them move out the furniture. History has recorded both approaches. The first is almost certainly guaranteed to end badly; the second is what Christians used to do in the first-century. It never works to change the situation in the generation in which it is applied, however.

    I know one thing – this will never be solved by a change in laws, but only by a change in men’s hearts. This change in men will not happen until there is a recognition of the supernatural. That will take a power beyond our own. All we can do is hold the primer down and wait for the ignition.

    The Chicken

  14. lucindatcm says:

    It has happened here already, and yes, the good guys lost.
    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfmstoryid=15343&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=928072

    I worry for my kids, and what sort of world they will have to face. The day my oldest turns 12 is the same day I start saying the rosary every day, no matter how busy I am. I’m that scared.