Bishops and priests… pay attention! The persecution is coming.

Bishops and priests… pay attention!

On EWTN I read:

The Oregon state attorney general’s office is investigating a Christian baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Aaron Klein, owner of the Gresham, Ore. bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa, told The Oregonian newspaper he chose not to make the cake because he believes marriage is “a religious institution between a man and woman as stated in the Bible.”

“When someone tells me that their definition is something different, I strongly disagree. I don’t think I should be penalized for that.”

His business, which he co-owns with his wife, could face as much as $50,000 in fines if found guilty of violating the Oregon Equality Act. The law forbids businesses from denying “full and equal accommodations” for customers on the basis of sexual orientation and other protected categories.  [Orwellian.]

Same-sex “marriage” is not recognized in the state, though domestic partnerships are.

The woman who filed the complaint against the bakery said Klein said she and her partner were “abominations to the Lord” and that their money was not equal to others. Klein denied making those statements.  [Gratis asseritur…]

“I apologized for wasting their time and said we don’t do same-sex marriages,” he told the ABC television affiliate KATU. “I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset,” he said.

The couple had previously bought a wedding cake at the store several years before for one of the women’s mothers and her husband.  [I wonder if that piece of information was included to dispel the thought that the shop was purposely targeted.  It still could have been!]

Laura Bowman, whose partner filed the complaint, said her partner was “reduced to tears[puh-leez] when she heard the bakery would not bake the cake.  [Boo hoo!  Let’s play the emotion card.  Why not? There is no reason anymore in these matters.  It’s all tears and appetites now.]

Klein said his bakery sells its pastries and cakes to all customers, but they turn down requests for cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of the owners’ beliefs.

The bakery has crosses on the walls and has the New Testament passage John 3:16 on its website.  [Lesbian 1: “Hey remember that photographer who refused to take that job in New Mexico?  He got his ass fined.  Ha ha.  He’ll never make that mistake again!”  Lesbian 2: “Hey, remember that bakery with the cross on the wall?  Let’s go to that one!”]

The state attorney general’s office will not take action until it receives the business’ official account of the incident. The office could file a discrimination complaint with the state Bureau of Labor and Industries if it finds cause to do so.

State laws, increasing legal recognition for same-sex relationships and pressure from homosexual activists have created legal threats to businesses involved in the wedding industry and to organizations that host weddings.  [And the sodomy-activists know exactly how to hurt those businesses.]

A New Mexico Christian photographer who declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony for two women was fined nearly $7,000 and is taking the case to the state supreme court. A Methodist-associated retreat house in New Jersey is being sued under a state anti-discrimination law after it declined to host a same-sex civil union ceremony.

A cake shop in Lakewood, Colo. faced a petition and a boycott in July 2012 after its owner declined to create a cake for a same-sex male couple, also citing his Christian beliefs. He said the media controversy helped business at the bakery to double.  [Every cloud has a silver lining.  It’s the Chick-fil-A Effect?]

 

Bishops and priests… pay attention! The persecution is coming.
0 votes, 0.00 avg. rating (0% score)
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to Bishops and priests… pay attention! The persecution is coming.

  1. Supertradmum says:

    I am listening to Parliament’s debate on gay marriage. Yes, it is coming and soon.

    Personal holiness is the only way, and community, real community in orthodoxy.

  2. Legisperitus says:

    When the law defines wrongs as rights, real civil rights start getting destroyed.

  3. MattnSue says:

    Living is a free country is not defined as being free to do what you wish. It is now freedom to make others do what you wish. Nothing would have stopped this couple from buying a cake, and putting their own topper on it. But that would not have gotten them the publicity that the fake controversy entails. It is not enough to be respectfully tolerant, if in disagreement. Thought police will now tell us what we must think is right or wrong.
    This is the same problem (albeit in a different direction) as hate crime laws. If attacking someone is wrong, it is wrong because you attack someone. It is not “more wrong” if you attack someone just because (for example) you don’t like people with red hair.

  4. JohnE says:

    I wonder if he might bake a cake that would make the couple think twice about bullying someone. If you’re going to force someone to bake a cake, you might not get the cake you want.

  5. Dr Guinness says:

    Let us, for a moment, consider if “Christian” was replaced with “Moslem”, and his passages of Scripture and crosses were replaced with verses of the Qur’an and crescent moons, while all other details were the same.
    No more news story. No more investigation.

  6. Ralph says:

    Whatever happened to the old, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs that used to be present in many stores and shops? Has this right been abridged?

    Isn’t forcing me to do work that I do not want to do of my own free will a form of slavery? Aren’t we supposed to be opposed to slavery in this country?

    Best prepare folks. I truly believe that a storm is on the way.

    Now is a good time to return to a practice of regular confession if you haven’t already done so. We are really going to need spiritual grace in the times ahead I’m afraid.

  7. JacobWall says:

    Although it’s 10 years back, they didn’t mention the event when The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal forced the Knights of Columbus to pay “damages” to a lesbian couple who were denied use of the KoC hall for their wedding reception.

    In the same incident, a KoC member was fired from his job at Costco, where the same lesbian couple worked. The sad part is that in this case, the Chick-fil-A effect couldn’t help this man and the family he had to feed. He was simply out of a job that he had held for 14 years, and not a damn thing he could do about it. At first, he was even denied employment insurance payments. It makes you wonder where the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal was when all this happened to him?

    (See http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/nov/05113006 and http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/dec/05121302)

    It’s not just the government that’s closing in to justify persecution. Do you think the “catholic” Melinda Gates is going to use the billions in her “charity foundation” to protect Christians, their businesses and godliness when things start getting messy? I doubt it. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me to see those billions being dedicated to “protecting human rights,” i.e. systematic suppression of businesses and groups that do not share her progressive view of the world.

  8. monmir says:

    Baker targeted obviously. If I were a judge I would not hear a case unless the person could prove there is no other baker less than 200 miles around. I think it would be a discrimination case if all the bakers in the state would refuse to make wedding cake for homosexuals.
    We have to think strategy and fast.

  9. pmullane says:

    For as long as I have been alive we have been praying for things, personal holiness, holy priests, Holy Mother Church, etc etc. More and more with items like this and the one above, about the govenment report labeling pro-lifers as domestic terrorists, I think God is now answering our prayers, but not perhaps in the way we would have liked. God gave us a long period of safety and peace in the West, and we gave him back a lukewarm Church that was way too worldly. Well the Church isn’t going to be worldly much longer. It looks like the only way we are going to get Holy is through persecution and suffering.

    Lord make us worthy to suffer for you, and make us pure by the fire of suffering.

  10. JacobWall says:

    And for those who appose abortion? In British Columbia, it seems that pro-life groups are loosing their rights to exist on university campuses:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/university-of-victoria-abruptly-cancels-pro-life-event-one-day-before
    This stuff is coming from all sides.

  11. pmullane says:

    “The state attorney general’s office will not take action until it receives the business’ official account of the incident.”

    Dear the Government,

    I have a business, and who I choose to serve is no concern of yours. Please feel free to go away and leave me, my family, my freedom, my wallet, my religion, and my arms alone.

    Love

    The Baker.

  12. New Sister says:

    Business owners should have the right to decline support to things objectively immoral. Need a lawyer here, but could not a Catholic baker to refuse to support an invalid “wedding” of an othewise natural pairing? e.g., if he knew a man & woman were ineligable for marriage (like the late Sen Kennedy was with Miss Vicky), certainly he should have the right to refuse them buiness… no?

    Plus it’s absurd that lesbians end up at *this* Christian bakery in what is statistically the most un-churched area in America (the PNW), and in a metro area that is saturated with high-end, European style bakeries and delis… so obvious – anti-Christian bigotry in action, which this “equality” law enables & protects.

  13. mschu528 says:

    “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.”

    – Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen

    These words are even more true these days than they were when the dear bishop wrote them 60 years ago. Venerable Fulton Sheen, pray for us!

  14. aviva meriam says:

    Here’s one….
    What if I went to Kosher Bakery to order a cake celebrating a baptism or confirmation…. and I specifically asked the bakery to decorate the cake for the occasion ….. Would it be permissible for the bakery to decline?

    Can a place of business decline service to a potential customer on the basis of their not wearing shoes or a shit? Or whatever is defined as appropriate clothing of the business?

    How does one quantify the damages of being reduced to tears and having to find another bakery from whom to order a cake? This baker didn’t prevent the participants from having the event. This baker didn’t prevent the participants from going to another bakery. They didn’t charge them more for the same service/product.

  15. wmeyer says:

    Our right to serve whomever we please was eradicated decades ago, in civil rights legislation. The more activities are declared rights, the more rights are lost to state control.

  16. aviva meriam says:

    OOOPPPS.

    Shoes or a SHIRT.

  17. The Masked Chicken says:

    “His business, which he co-owns with his wife, could face as much as $50,000 in fines if found guilty of violating the Oregon Equality Act.”

    We are going to have to start refusing to pay any such fines and even acknowledge the law. Immoral laws cannot be either recognized nor supported. I know it may be passé to say, but the old Catholic adage that, “Error has no rights,” has got to shouted fom the hilltops. They will call us terrorists and that is very true – the truth is alway a source of terror to evil.

    We haven’t lived in a representative democracy or republic or years. We, technically, live in a benign oligarchy, which is fast becoming a malicious one. We must pray for a modern Constantine.

    The Chicken

  18. The Masked Chicken says:

    This is like the HHS mandate written in frosting and fudge.

    The Chicken

  19. Angie Mcs says:

    The pride and satisfaction that comes from creating a successful business, doing something one loves and is skilled at, must be amazing, to build something up from nothing, to employ people, giving them jobs to support their families. Think of the long hours, hard work and commitment that goes into each small business. And customers develop a relationship with these business owners, knowing they are getting a product made with pride and satisfaction. Is this what it’s coming to, that these dreams are going to be replaced by fear? Will owners now be bullied out of existence, as certain groups become giddy with power and run to the nearest lawyer or whines loudly enough so that our government hits them with fines? We can support these companies, but cant possibly buy enough crafts at HobbybLobby, chicken sandwiches at Chick Fil A, etc . This is most troubling, as people, who need to support themselves, will have to keep their mouths shut in order to survive, or shut their doors and walk away. Nobody wins here except the companies who have the money to stay afloat or lack the conviction to care with whom they’re dealing. In the end, we all lose and are left with mediocrity, in our products as well as our society’s moral values.

  20. Joseph-Mary says:

    In speaking with the director of a Christian adoption agency, she voiced her concern that a new civil union law will force adoption agencies to let children go to singles and gays. That is child abuse! Not that sodomites will be lining up at the door but she expressly voiced concern that they would be made an example of. See what happens when you refuse to bow to a gay agenda item: they will put you out of business and bankrupt you and laugh about it. Let that be an example to others who oppose the perversion. Or perhaps more examples could be made of priests who will not give Holy Communion to those who strut their active homosexuality in his face. See what happens to those who refuse to bow to them to dishonor the Lord? The bishop will get rid of such a one…

  21. Gratias says:

    They will come to Catholic Churches and demand homosexual weddings. Then they will close is down in the name of equality.

  22. disco says:

    So does this mean they found a place to get the pastries for Archbishop Sample’s welcome reception?

  23. RichR says:

    Same Sex Marriage Advocate: “Gay marriage won’t affect you, so why are you so against it?”

    Yeah, tell that to the baker.

  24. As long as clergy continue to operate as ministers of the gospel, and act with reference to the state, that is signing the civil license, we will be in peril. Frankly I am considering having all prospective persons, wanting to have an Orthodox Wedding, have a civil union before the magistrate, and then come for the Sacrament afterwards. Render to Caesar….

  25. StJude says:

    this happened here .. a cookie store refused to make cupcakes for ‘national coming out day’… (they were targeted too). they said the gays could buy anything on the shelf but they would not use their talent to help promote sinful acts. Not good enough.. of course.
    Because the company leased a space in a govt building.. the mayor took the side of the gays.
    But the City showed up to support the company.. with lines out the door to buy cookies.

    What ever happened to “we reserve the right to deny service”…??

    Christians are being targeted.

  26. NescioDomine says:

    What happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? I remember seeing signs like this in many businesses. The masked Chicken is absolutely correct. Error has no rights!

  27. JacobWall says:

    @RichR – I believed that lie for many years. Even in the years I was farthest from the faith, I still believed abortion and gay marriage were wrong. However, I had bought into that idea – “What they do doesn’t effect me or the choices I make in my life.” Liberals do a very nice job of selling this idea – “if you’re conservative, that’s fine; just keep quiet and keep it to yourself. It’s none of your business what others do.” I believed it.

    Fortunately, I’ve now come to see that this is truly one of the biggest (and worst) lies sold to people with values. Encountering people with a clear and active agenda on these issues was a shocking moment in my life, but it woke me up; people promoting this stuff are not just “letting everyone do their own thing.” They certainly don’t mind their own business or let anyone who disagrees with them just “do their own thing.” Yet they do a great job of convincing many people who are otherwise conservative that they should.

  28. Phil_NL says:

    Hieromonk Gregory,

    That looks like a good idea. Also, do not forget that in many European countries, that is actually standing practice – in some cases required by law even, as Church weddings do not have civil effect in every country. That separation, while strange for countries with a common law tradition, at least has shielded our Churches here from having to perform same-sex non-marriages based on equality laws. And as ‘equality laws’ tend to be a lot more stringently enforced than those protecting freedom of religion, it’s probably best to withdraw from the cross-hairs altogether.

    All:
    It’s remarkable that every time there is some ‘equality’ or ‘non-discrimination’ law, it is sold as making the position of the state neutral (the state allows…..), and then all of a sudden, every single individual has to adjust his position as well? ‘Rights’ do not exist in a vacuum, there is always a corresponding obligation – if only to tolerate something. And it is one thing that the state takes on that obligation, but it is truely abhorrent that these obligations are then also enforced on the people – often without any debate whatsoever. It’s high time that legislation would made clear to whom it applies; too often entrepreneurs end up being the victim if they have different beliefs than the state, but this is rarely adressed or realised when those laws get passed.

  29. APX says:

    “I apologized for wasting their time and said we don’t do same-sex marriages,”
    While I commend him for openly sticking to his beliefs, we are coming to a point where prudence in greatly needed. A $50,000 fine for a family-owned bakery is going to do a lot more damage than say a $50,000 fine for Wal*Mart. I dare to say it could put the company’s livelihood at risk.

    When the early Christians were under persecution, it is my understanding they weren’t holding Mass out in public, but rather in the catacombs. A company is free to serve and not serve whomever they want… provided it doesn’t violate the law. Furthermore, the onus isn’t on the company who refuses service to prove that they didn’t break the law in their refusal of service, but on the person filing the complaint.

    What does that mean? It means rather than flat out saying, “We don’t do contrary to nature homosexual unions, which you think is a ‘marriage'”, get as much information as you can about what they’re wanting and when, etc, and then say something like, “I’ll have to check my calendar to see if we are able to fulfill your order.” Go “check your calendar” for the sake of checking your calendar, and then tell them that you are unable to accommodate their event.
    The woman who filed the complaint against the bakery said Klein said […]
    No hearsay there. *eye roll* Such a statement won’t stand up in court. It even sounds over-exaggerated.

  30. PA mom says:

    Monmir-our case needs to be that EVEN if all of the bakers decline, that still those bakers cannot be forced to bake, or fined for declining.
    This is ridiculous.

  31. Glen M says:

    Here’s an idea for those in the wedding industry and opposed to same-sex ‘marriage': take their order (cake, photographs, hall rental, etc) and then do a lousy job. First tell them you’d rather not have their business and kindly tell them why. However, do state that due to the law you can’t refuse. If at that point they insist you bake their cake (for example) then deliver the driest, most bland tasting, poor excuse of a wedding cake ever known.

  32. NBW says:

    Sounds like the beginning of Kristallnacht to me.

  33. Peggy R says:

    Just two thoughts:
    1. These Christian (and other) defendants who don’t serve homosexuals out of moral conviction should not say explicitly why they can’t do a job. Do not say it outright. Just say, once they realize the customers want a service for a homosexual “wedding,” that they are sorry, they will not be able to do that. And stick with that. Don’t give them evidence or ammunition. “I just can’t.”
    2. These defendants also need economic theory defense. In an unregulated competitive industry where firms differentiate themselves in many ways including along religious and cultural differences (wedding vendors often specialize in Catholic, Jewish or Islamic nuptials and traditions), firms should not have to serve “all comers” as a common carrier would. Further, no specific customer group should be singled out for such a common carrier benefit unavailable to other groups. A defendant should provide evidence in the record that there is an industry segment that caters to or is at least willing to serve homosexual nuptials.
    –I have worked in anti-trust and utility regulation for 20 years. You’ve got to go beyond religious freedom to win, I think.

  34. wmeyer says:

    And on a similar note, my local priest was banished from FB a few days ago, “for security reasons.” Uh-huh, being true to Church teaching is most assuredly a security risk!

  35. acardnal says:

    Well, I guess the baker could always make them a Devil’s Food cake.

  36. StJude says:

    @acardinal LOL!

  37. aviva meriam says:

    Thanks for the practical advice Peggy.

    Discretion is always the better part of economic valor. Never ever give people the amunition to file suit against you.

    @ NBW…. we may not be at Kristallnacht yet…. more like 1935 in terms of the ramping up of the legal structures that made Kristallnacht possible (and there is evidence that one of the motivations for Kristallnact was to disarm Jews and Politcal enemies of the Nazi state).

  38. JacobWall says:

    @Peggy R,
    There might be something to what you said. In the countryside where I live, there’s an Amish group that sells an alternative to home and business insurance called “Storm and fire coverage.” (Since their church prohibits insurance, it functions along the lines of a non-profit community cash pool rather than a profitable insurance company.) For this reason, the also only sell to people who adhere to and are in good standing with a Mennonite church (although I was born Mennonite, unfortunately this excludes me – their prices and service are superb!) It’s stated clearly to all who inquire that if you don’t meet this condition, you will not be sold this coverage under any circumstances. I don’t think anyone would have a legal case against them since this is made clear, and providing a service to that community is the sole purpose of the business’s existence.

    On the other hand, it will be sad when the day comes that people selling cakes have to function in the same way; “We only sell cakes to Christians in good standing. Please provide a letter from your pastor.” Unfortunately, though, with the Episcopalians and similar groups these days, not even that would work. You’d have to make a list of denominations and ask your clients to register. I’m not sure how feasible this would be for a baker.

    Finally, I think it’s becoming quite clear that these are “targeted actions.” In these cases, I don’t think protective measures are going to help much. They’re choosing their targets, and they have the courts on their side. Who knows – they might even target the Amish house coverage some day. So far, gay pride activism doesn’t really exist in the countryside where I live. (There are gay people, but not gay activism. The two items are fairly distinct.) When these groups see how they can destroy businesses, and get nice cash settlements for damages, they may start looking this way. (Mennonites might live simple lives, but they sure aren’t short on cash.)

  39. Gail F says:

    I do’nt think the baker had the right to decline that order. What if the couple were of a different religion? What if they were from a different political party? A different race or nationality? A restaurant can’t deny gay people a meal. Of course that is not a wedding-related industry, but a jewelry store can’t refuse to sell two women who walk in the door matching diamond rings and a bridal store can’t refuse to allow a woman to buy a gown.

    I know this is a contentious issue and I agree 100% that homosexual people cannot marry. But no one who buys a wedding cake has to be getting married — I am married, and I could go into a bakery and order a wedding cake tomorrow, and say it was for me and whoever else I wanted to say it was for. It’s not the baker’s business whether or not I’m really marrying that person, or marrying anyone at all.

    There is a difference between targeting a group for your services (taking out ads in gay publications, showing photos of gay “weddings” in your store window) and providing your business service to whoever walks in the door. I’m not a lawyer but I do own a business, and I don’t think the baker has a legal right to do that. He was not providing the location (they weren’t using his property for the ceremony) and he was not endorsing the “wedding” (as he would be if they were a targeted customer group or he provided a service essential to the wedding itself — notarizing a document, say). Maybe if he had a sign in the window saying “we reserve the right to refuse anyone for any reason,” or if the cake were obscene or had “F— straight people” written on it or something, he could refuse. If there is a legal way to get around that, someone post it. Because a lot of people are going to want to do the same thing.

  40. Gail F says:

    Peggy R: That first bit of advice (just say you can’t do it) works if the person or group is not looking to sue. If they are, that could be bad unless you had proof that you couldn’t do it. Even a suit-happy person might be put off by that, thinking it would be more trouble than it was worth, but someone out to sue will still sue, and they will use the fact that you originally said yes against you — because you did originally say yes, and you did cancel the job.

  41. frjim4321 says:

    In one is to reap the rewards of engaging in commerce, he or she must operate according to the established rules of the marketplace.

    For example one must collect and remit sales tax, one must operate in conformity with rules governing safety and health. One must follow all of the ADA rules with respect to accessibility and so forth.

    This state and many others require those who wish to benefit from engaging in acts of commerce must also provide full and equal accommodation for all parties. Those who would tend to discriminate against people who are left-handed, blonde, Jewish, Black, bald, fat or gay are totally free to find some other means of employment which do not deny others full and equal accommodation. It’s very simple. Either follow the rules of the marketplace or find some other means of income.

    I have no problem whatsoever with the State of Oregon enforcing universal accommodation rules. And just as it was suggest that perhaps the couple in question was “cherry picking” a likely victim in order to force a court fight this could be just as true for the vendor.

  42. frjim4321 says:

    Is one = If one

  43. pmullane says:

    Nonsense on stilts Fr Jim. How about when two ‘catholic’ men turn up at your Church and demand that you marry them? Will the ‘rules of the marketplace’ be followed then? What about when they want to have their reception in the Church Hall? What about when the ‘rules of the marketplace’ dictate that shopkeepers are not allowed to serve Jews or Blacks? How’s about when the ‘rules of the marketplace’ state that catholic doctors have to kill a baby, or experiment on an embryo, or bump off aunt Gladys before her medical costs eat up all our lovely inheritance. The moral law supersedes the civil law, and it’s no excuse to violate a properly formed conscience because the government says you have to. It’s sad that a priest would entertain such ideas.

  44. My personal opinion is that any business should be able to reserve the right to refuse service without explanation – but the way the law is going in the developed world, GailF’s arguments will prevail. There was the case of the Berkshire B&B owners who turned away a gay couple – the law ruled against them, too, even though the B&B was their home, i.e. by giving the gay couple a room they would have consented to sin under their own roof.

    I wonder if the bakery could get away with not offering wedding cakes at all. Then whenever there is a wedding, the bakery could donate a cake to the church where the wedding takes place (in which case I believe it would not fall under legislation; you can hardly oblige a business to donate “equally”). And then the couple in turn could give a donation to the church, which after the nuptial Mass would give them the cake as a gift. You get the idea. Matthew 10,16 says “be as shrewd as snakes”. ;)

  45. Ralph says:

    Father Jim,

    Allowing the state to dictate the terms of business transaction can be a slippery slope.

    I can see the state making rules to protect against theft, fraudulent activities etc. I can see the state establishing rules of taxation. I can even see the state establishing rules as to how the state will purchase goods or services or establishing behaviors of people who will accept state monies (such as food stamps, government contracts, etc.)

    But private persons engaged in commerce should be able to decide with whom they wish to trade. Government intervention should not be allowed. Part of being free is freedom of commerce. If I don’t want to trade with you I shouldn’t have to. Not trading with a person because they are black, white, handicapped, able bodied, gay, straight etc is stupid and likely bad business. But it should be your right, in my opinion. Not engaging in a transaction that you believe to be sinful should also be your right.

  46. Peggy R says:

    Gail F: You have a point. One might just want to hedge until one has all the facts. So, now, businesses will have to sound like they don’t really want to sell stuff until they know what it’s for. I guess use the old calendar defense, but don’t give them the explicit reason that it is because the couple is homosexual. That’s an easy lawsuit apparently.
    Fr Jim: The marketplace doesn’t require any firm to serve any customer it does not want to. Regulated utilities that are considered monopolies are required by law to serve all comers since there are no alternatives in the market and their services are considered necessities (water, power). Otherwise, if a business owner wants the revenue regardless of source, he can and will accept the business of homosexuals. The marketplace allows him that freedom. It also allows him to refuse. The state of Oregon will not allow him his choice.

  47. frjim4321 says:

    But private persons engaged in commerce should be able to decide with whom they wish to trade. Government intervention should not be allowed. Ralph

    The horse is well out of the barn and into the next county on that one, Ralph. Isn’t there quite of bit of constitutional jurisprudence on this already?

  48. wmeyer says:

    frjim said: …he or she must operate according to the established rules of the marketplace.

    Quite true. It’s essential to being competitive. But then you define the “marketplace” rules, as you understand them:

    For example one must collect and remit sales tax, one must operate in conformity with rules governing safety and health. One must follow all of the ADA rules with respect to accessibility and so forth.

    Unfortunately, these are matters of compliance with law, and not factors of the marketplace. The actual marketplace comprises the collection of potential and actual customers, as well as your competitors. If you elect not to trade with a particular group of people, you constrain yourself in terms of making sales, as in the case of a wholesaler who sells only to other businesses. The wholesaler elects not to trade with consumers, as a matter of his business model. Your next assertion:

    This state and many others require those who wish to benefit from engaging in acts of commerce must also provide full and equal accommodation for all parties.

    This would ultimately make it impossible for a wholesaler to turn away business from consumers. That may seem a small matter, but it’s not. The requirements for a place of business open to the general public are significantly different than for one open only to tradespeople.

    The matter of discrimination has been abused beyond all belief. We all discriminate, in our every action. The notion of discrimination as something to be eliminated is utter nonsense. I am lactose intolerant, and must, therefore, discriminate against milk products. When we allow language to be perverted by (usually ignorant or narrow-minded) special interest groups, the resulting snarl benefits no one but litigators.

    What next? Must we allow for the Church to be required to perform marriages for Jews and Muslims? Or for Catholic hospitals to perform genital mutilation, in accord with the desires of some who reside in this country?

    One of the most excellent reasons to limit the intrusion of government in our daily lives is that by and large, government does a stunningly shoddy job of creating and enforcing rules. They also add costs for their interference, and increase the degree to which they hobble the economy. I will allow, however, that these objections apply most generously at the Federal level. But then, we know well the benefits of practicing subsidiarity, do we not?

  49. MichaelJ says:

    ” full and equal accommodation “? Seriously? This is a cake. Since when does an individual have a right to demand a cake (or any service, for that matter) from another. This is slavery, pure and simple.

  50. fib09002 says:

    Soon enough, the sodomites will have their “marriages” recognized by the government. Anyone who thinks the Supreme Court will uphold the Defense of Marriage Act is crazy. Immediately after that law is repealed, sodomites will suddenly appear at our Churches all over the country, demanding that the priests there marry them. When they are refused, they will sue–and, truth be told, they will probably win. I am especially fearful about what will assuredly occur in San Francisco: For, I am not too optimistic that the sodomites there will deal too kindly–or, I should say, tolerantly–with Archbishop Cordileone.

  51. Peggy R says:

    RE: FrJim’s comments about the horse being out of the barn on “discrimination.”

    WMeyer has made several good comments in this regard.

    There is case law as it pertains to individual customers and “civil rights.” There is also much case law having to do with matters related to WMeyer’s comments and the rights of businesses to choose with whom they’d do business. Those rights remain largely in tact with some exceptions. When there are disputes, anti-trust or economic discrimination cases may take place. In the law and economics there is the idea of “undue discrimination.” It involves concepts beyond what we are discussing here perhaps, but we may do well to utilize that qualifier “undue” when talking about discrimination of individuals.

    For example, we can discriminate between heterosexual and same-sex couples because two men or two women are NOT “similarly situated” as a man and a woman. The same-sex couples cannot accidentally or on purpose produce a child on their own, but the heterosexual couple can and usually will. This is why the state should not care about same-sex relationships. The state has an interest, however, in registering male-female marriages to ensure that men provide for and are committed to that mother and the children they create. There is a practical state interest in traditional marriage that does not arise for same-sex unions.

  52. wmeyer says:

    Another point to consider is that discrimination often is simply discernment of differences between cases. There is nothing inherently evil, nor even undesirable, in discrimination or discernment. We must routinely apply discrimination and discernment in attending to safety issues, for example. As George Chapman apparently said first: “The law is an ass.” And that is precisely why it so often creates more and larger problems than it is purported to remedy.

  53. Ralph says:

    Father Jim,
    “But private persons engaged in commerce should be able to decide with whom they wish to trade. Government intervention should not be allowed. Ralph

    The horse is well out of the barn and into the next county on that one, Ralph. Isn’t there quite of bit of constitutional jurisprudence on this already?”

    Well, perhaps I am uneducated on this, or perhaps my state is different, or perhaps I just haven’t been called on it. But in our business, we have enforced the “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” a few times. (It was never based on a moral or ethical question, just an unreasonable character!)

    If there has been legal precedent, then I must argue the precedent is wrong. We should have the right to chose our trade partners. Yes, I know that even our own group (Roman Catholics) have been discriminated against in the past, but I still think people have the right to not trade with us if they don’t want to. We simply need to take our trade to someone else.

  54. acardnal says:

    Speaking of persecution and martyrdom, this is from Monday’s readings at Mass:

    They have “endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword’s point” (Heb 11:36-37).

    Get ready Christians.

  55. wmeyer says:

    “Get ready Christians.” Indeed. And persecution breeds persecution. We can see quite clearly in the progress made by the same-sex marriage people, the more they gain ground, the harder they push for more. It will be the same with their attacks on us, which have barely begun.

  56. Michelle F says:

    I think I’m on the verge of tipping over into Future Shock.

  57. eulogos says:

    As far as “We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason,” that went out with civil rights legislation. Those who argued against it were considered to be Troglodytes and Racists. I believe that Senator Sam Erwin (whom you might remember for his conduct of the Watergate hearings, where he appeared gracious, witty, and erudite) was one who argued against the civil rights laws requiring businesses to serve anyone because they diminished the rights of private property and free association. While one cannot disagree that the purpose and immediate effect of the civil rights laws were good, we see now what Senator Erwin and others like him were talking about when he opposed them. While we may believe that there is a significant difference between refusing to sell to a black man and refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, there is no difference in law, since “sexual preference” is a protected category.

    If people start using excuses, such as “our schedule is too full that week” we will certainly be tested by sting operations. The next straight couple who come in to order a wedding cake will be undercover government officials. Susan Peterson

  58. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    This state and many others require those who wish to benefit from engaging in acts of commerce must also provide full and equal accommodation for all parties. Those who would tend to discriminate against people who are left-handed, blonde, Jewish, Black, bald, fat or gay are totally free to find some other means of employment which do not deny others full and equal accommodation. It’s very simple. Either follow the rules of the marketplace or find some other means of income.

    You seem more than willing to ignore the Free Exercise Clause.

  59. wmeyer says:

    So, frjim, what will you do when our beneficent rulers decree that you cannot withhold the Eucharist from non-Catholics? That is, after all, a discrimination.

  60. dominic1955 says:

    It is completely irrelevant how much “constitutional jurisprudence” is out their on something-what is true is true. There can be papers piled to the moon issued by the Supreme Court ruling in favor of citizens being forced to “accomodate” immorality-its still wrong and all the paper ever made cannot change this. This country was founded at a time when even the deists and Christians could agree on natural law good and evil, virtue and vice. Now, we have Statists in power who try to legislate evil as good and good as evil. They are like that English king who stood out on the beach yelling at the tide. No matter how much power they have, they do nothing but prove to anyone who bothers to think anymore how stupid and full of hubris they are.

  61. fib09002 says:

    When the laws are made to say that the sodomites must be allowed to get married in Catholic Churches, or that women must be allowed ordination to the priesthood, or that Catholic school students must not be taught that abortion is wrong, the government will argue that they are not infringing on the religious freedom of Catholics at all. By way of justifying itself, the government will say that Catholics don’t believe, for example, that sodomy is a sin, because even some Catholic priests–such as frjim–disagree with that. And, because there isn’t even a consensus on these matters among the clergy, the government will say that obviously it is not a Catholic doctrine that sodomy is an abomination, but rather just an innovation of those “bigoted” and “intolerant” and “homophobic” bishops.

    People like frjim do far more damage than I think they themselves realize.

  62. frjim4321 says:

    “You seem more than willing to ignore the Free Exercise Clause.” rb

    Not really, but it seem pretty clear that no rights are absolute, they are all in a sense correlative. If I am a religiously observant member of the KKK do I have the right to lynch a black boy for looking at a white girl?

    . . . well, that’s it for now . . . sick call

  63. Southern Catholic says:

    @Gail F, I agree with you.

    A Methodist-associated retreat house in New Jersey is being sued under a state anti-discrimination law after it declined to host a same-sex civil union ceremony.

    That bit of the story is the concerning part of the whole article, and it is a story have not read about.

  64. frjim4321 says:

    Please say a prayer for a dear woman who is leaving this earth immanently.

    A very faithful weekly communicant for many years until just a couple weeks ago. Very strong, courageous and committed.

    Anyway, back to the Free Exercise Clause. It’s not an absolute right, it’s contingent. A person could theoretically have religious beliefs that conflict with another person’s rights. Thus the Amish are required, against their religious preference, to have orange reflectors on their buggies in order not to pose a danger to motorists, for example.

  65. Cantor says:

    FrJim,

    Much of the fallout you refer to dates back to Greensboro in which the people insisted on equal service. And rightly, blacks and whites should be offered the same service. BUT, the customers could not go into Woolworth’s and demand the right for lobster tail if it wasn’t on the menu. Neither should these folks be entitled to demand a service not provided to others. “Sorry sirs, but we don’t sell gay wedding cakes to our straight customers either.”

    You speak of market forces? Well most of the wedding cake market is straight. That’s the force. Somebody wants to compete in that marketplace? That’s their decision. These people have decided what they will sell. Not cakes that require them to use their artistic talents in ways that contradict their beliefs. Fair enough.

  66. Charivari Rob says:

    If it is simply a matter of them selling cakes and refusing to sell a cake to this couple, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t have a leg to stand on.

    If, however, it is a matter of them refusing to provide a cake-decorating service or catering service (setup/presentation/serving) or some sort of custom-ordered cake because doing so would involve the proprietors in professing, whether explicitly or implicitly, something* in contradiction of their profession of Faith – that is defensible.

    * In this case, professing that marriage is something other than the union of one man and one woman.

    “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” is a phrase with ugly associations – particularly if someone forgets that there is some degree of moral obligation that the refusal must have some just cause

  67. Dr. Eric says:

    So, move to Chile, Argentina, Brazil? Where’s a good country to relocate?

  68. Gail F says:

    Folks, it’s not “my reasoning” it’s how our country works. If you think businesses have the right to turn away people they don’t happen to like for some reason, you’re wrong. There is case law regarding obscenity and things like the KKK, but I am not familiar with it enough to comment on. The only thing I know is that if doing a service for someone would create a hostile work environment for employees (such as producing a pornographic product that workers object to making), a business doesn’t have to do it — however, I don’t know any details. But in general, if a business provides a service it must do so for all comers. And if anyone knows any FACTS otherwise, please say so. “It ought to be a different way” is not a fact, it’s an opinion.

  69. JacobWall says:

    @Dr. Eric,

    There are states in Mexico where Catholic influence on gov. policies has actually been increasing over the past decade or two. Generally, people are fairly free to live and carry out business as they please as well. The downside is that most of Mexico has problems with corruption and bureaucracy. I’ve read good things about Chile.

  70. robtbrown says:

    Gail F says:
    Folks, it’s not “my reasoning” it’s how our country works. If you think businesses have the right to turn away people they don’t happen to like for some reason, you’re wrong.

    There are restaurants that have dress codes (coat and tie). Are you saying that they must seat customers who show up in running shorts and a singlet?

  71. frjim4321 says:

    There are restaurants that have dress codes (coat and tie). Are you saying that they must seat customers who show up in running shorts and a singlet?

    Have there been any tests of this?

    I know a country club can do this because members have signed a membership agreement.

    Have courts upheld restaurant dress codes?

  72. Peggy R says:

    –As a general matter, high end establishments have been able to keep out the “riff-raff”. You have to wear a jacket and tie at The Prime Rib in DC for example.
    –I understand that objectors to same-sex nuptials will have to be careful, but if they do come out and say they are not going to cater a same-sex nuptial, they’re definitely in trouble. They’ll have to get creative and perhaps snooty. They may have to say, I only do Catholic or Jewish Orthodox weddings, or evangelical weddings…at certain congregations. This type of regulation has a way of reducing economic activity and lots of peoples’ choices. Just some brainstorming.
    –Catholic clergy would do well to point out that they discriminate against a lot of people who are not in a position to be married in the church, not just same-sex pairs.

  73. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    Please say a prayer for a dear woman who is leaving this earth immanently.

    I think you mean imminently. Leaving this earth immanently is a contradiction.

    Anyway, back to the Free Exercise Clause. It’s not an absolute right, it’s contingent. A person could theoretically have religious beliefs that conflict with another person’s rights. Thus the Amish are required, against their religious preference, to have orange reflectors on their buggies in order not to pose a danger to motorists, for example.

    You’re assuming that homosexuals are protected by US non discrimination laws. Except for the US Civil Service they are not.

    And you’re confusing the preference of people who may or may not be religious with religious belief. Saying that someone should serve homosexuals in a restaurant is not the same as saying that a wedding business should extend its services to homosexuals. In so far as marriage is a Sacrament, forcing believers to do the latter directly interferes with the practice of their religion.

  74. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    There are restaurants that have dress codes (coat and tie). Are you saying that they must seat customers who show up in running shorts and a singlet?

    Have there been any tests of this?

    Have courts upheld restaurant dress codes?

    What law would they have broken?

  75. Adam Welp says:

    The same situation happened in Kentucky last year. A gay pride group asked a local t-shirt printer to print shirts for a local gay pride event. The company respectfully declined the job and went as far as lining up another company that was willing to print the shirts for the same price, and yet the gay pride group still filed suit against the company.

  76. Adam Welp says:

    Oh, forgot to mention that they then lost contracts with local school districts over their “discrimination”.

  77. maryh says:

    Hmm. It occurs to me that none of these are cases of discrimination against SSA people, not even the photographer.

    They are not refusing to serve SSA people – they are refusing to provide services for certain SSA events. In other words, the baker would have refused to bake the wedding/commitment/whatever cake for anyone who had ordered it, whatever their sexual preferences – say the non-SSA best friend of one of the women.

    Also, the baker would not have refused to bake other kinds of cakes for the SSA people – birthday cakes, retirement cakes, superbowl cakes.

    Same with the photographer. They are refusing services for certain kinds of events they don’t believe in. Maybe it’s time for us to target some “gay run” T-shirt printer to print T-shirts for Courage or Encourage groups.

  78. PA mom says:

    I am hearing the variety of thoughts on this.
    So, would it be a good argument to say that there is always a pre made cake in the display, available without any further alteration, available for all persons.
    If the people choose to eat it after their “ceremony” so be it, but any further efforts on the part of the baker should fall under his right not to actively participate in activities against his religion.
    This could be so for many people who participate selling goods for weddings.

  79. The Masked Chicken says:

    Just a point from someone who has studied both history and science.

    Everyone, here, seems to be treating the cuurent times as if they were a mirror of first-century Rome. They are not and this midset can lead to a certain fatalism. In first-century Rome, Christians were both a minority class, a largely poorer class (with some exceptions), and a non-foundational class (they came into existence long after the creation of Rome).

    The situation is in nowise comparable in the Europe or America of today. Christians, especially in the United States, are still the majority class, with at least some class standing, and the foundational class of the Country. The only reason that same-sex marriages and the like is getting play, is because the Christian unity in this country (and much earlier in Europe) is being fractured by internal squabbling. We have priests whose loyalties seem to be more with the good of their belly than the good of their God, we have laity who have been led, especially in the Protestant denominations, to equate civic loyalties with loyalties to God. If two Christians, standing side-by-side can harbor diametrically opposing views on fundamental moral issues – one thinking same-sex marriage is a good, while the other thinking it is an evil; one thinking that contraception is a right, whilethe other thinking it is a wrong; one thinking that they are saved, so to hell with what happens in the world, while the other holds to working out thier salvation in fear and in trembling – may I suggest that we look for the problem, there?

    In the early first-century, B. C., most Christians were just trying to figure out what it actually meant to be a Christian. The model they had was of Christ Crucified, not Christ, the Social Reformer. To them, Christ had a negligable impact on society at large, to that point, so they were forcec to look beyond society to find the source of their salvation. In so looking, they found a fellowship, a procession, of like-minded people walking the road to their own Calvarys.

    In our time, Christ has become the great Social Reformer, with his follows asking, “What would Jesus do to our Land,” without understanding that this question makes as much sense as asking what Jesus would do if he were pregnant. Jesus did not come to reform societies. He came to reform men. This crucial slip of the wheel, from the personal Jesus to the social Jesus, has been the source of many of the modern conflicts within the Church. It is the reason why we are losing the moral battle, today.

    Simply put, morals have become socialized instead of individualized. Unfortunately, one cannot baptize a society, so one cannot remove the effects of Original Sin from a gathering of men. Whenever morality is decided by a committee, the resulting moral code will either become brutal or indifferent to essentials.

    The solutions to the modern moral problems in society cannot begin with society. They must begin with the Church. It is pointless to debate the truth or falsehoods of this or that sentence in a document of Vatican II while the Church around it is crumbling. One cannot fight an enemy in a burning house. Ecumenism has been a failure, since it has not led the Church and her moral neighbors to a united vision that is even merely practical.

    Malcolm Muggeridge called this phenomenon, “inner dissipation.” We are losing the war not because of a superior enemy, but because of an army that has no discipline. There are many things that can be done to stop this. First of all, we must re-establish a recognizable identity as Christians. We must leave the debate in society and take the debate to the Churches. We must actively challenge Churches to prove that they are still Christian. This is the same problem that faced St. Paul: My dear Thesselonians, who bewitched you? Only if the scope of Christianity can be made clear can we confront the moral deacy with a strength borne not of our own.

    It can happen and we are still in control of our destiny for a short time, but a tipping point, a Nash Equilibrium point is coming where a small change will close the road back. We are dealing with nonlinear forces and we can’t see the landscape, clearly. We must define our future rather than be dragged into it. We need leaders who will lead. We need leaders who will get rid of the laxity. We need leaders who will turn the Church into a well-oiled cohesive unit instead of the skipping tripping sorority it has become.

    We need this fast. I want to live long enough to see it.

    The Chicken

  80. The Masked Chicken says:

    Sorry for the spelling errors. Did not have spellcheck and was typing fast.

    The Chicken

  81. wmeyer says:

    Chicken, your point is excellent, but we do have a problem which makes the comparison to first century somewhat more appropriate. Although we have at least a nominal Christian majority, the public voice is a secular one, as the media are aligned with the forces against us. We can act, and we can make a difference, but we must think and act locally, as we have essentially no ability to reach the entire country. Our society is fragmented very badly, but the media and the ruling class are strongly united. As witness the March for Life coverage: we understand the crowd was well over 500,000, but the media coverage was almost nonexistent, and what coverage there was did not present the truth.

    We need very badly for our bishops to cease their courtship of the politicians, which will fail, in any event. We need the Church to remain ever true to its teaching and principles, and to renew that teaching in our churches ever week, without fail. No more namby-pamby feel-good homilies, but weekly strong sermons, filled with the truth of the Catholic faith. We cannot own the airwaves, but we can at least have our own congregations properly taught. That said, it will take decades to repair the damage done in the last 40+ years.

  82. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Chicken,

    excellent analysis. Only I think that
    1. Our Lord, who sitteth at the right hand of the Father and whose Body is the Church, does want to reform society. I only need to say “Quas primas”, actually.
    2. One can, speaking metaphorically, baptize a society; this has happened in the past to great effect.

    Rev’d dear @Fr Jim,
    could you please tell me, being a coward, which profession it is that I might enter for not to be persecuted? Somehow I do not really see them.

    Not to mention the great scandal there is if people are persecuted for acting according to what is true.

    On the rest, paraphrasing Walther of the Birdpasture (I guess it was him) or one of his contemporaries:

    Three things it is I wish for: a modest, sufficient fortune; a name of honor among the men; in addition, God’s grace, worth far more than the previous two. These three I would like in a basket; in a time when this is impossible, peace and law are heavily injured.

  83. MichaelJ says:

    maryh, I think you nailed it. Yours is the perfect response to those who would equate refusal to bake a cake for a same sex “wedding” with the refusal to serve lunch to a black man.

  84. The Masked Chicken says:

    “Although we have at least a nominal Christian majority, the public voice is a secular one, as the media are aligned with the forces against us.”

    The only reason the media is secular is because we let it get that way. All of the existing media, outside of free Internet, has to attract viewers and have become more about giving the reader what they want than instructing the ignorant. Christians tend not to be greedy, so they tend not to go into positions where greediness is praised. The love of money is the root of all evil. If Christians who did not hold to the idea that wealth = being in favor with God had gotten hold of the airwaves, things would have been different.

    The publc voice will remain a secular one until we refuse to recognize that it has any truth. The reason the Mass media has any sway is because the notion of truth has been weakened. The notion of truth has been weakened because the traditional guardian of truth – the Church and Colleges have been weakened. Thus, my point that a united Church holding to a consistent truth would overcome the relativism in society.

    The Chicken

  85. acricketchirps says:

    Bishops and priests… pay attention! The persecution is coming.

    Bishops and priests… go back to sleep! No need to worry; just listen to Fr. Jim and go along to get along.

  86. frjim4321 says:

    Rev’d dear @Fr Jim,
    could you please tell me, being a coward, which profession it is that I might enter for not to be persecuted? Somehow I do not really see them.
    imahil.

    What is the blogging equivalent to “drunk dialing?”

    I would be offended if there were any evidence whatsoever that you knew what you are talking about.

  87. wmeyer says:

    What is the blogging equivalent to “drunk dialing?”

    frjim, an ad hominem, really?

  88. Imrahil says:

    Reverend dear @Fr Jim,

    the coward, if that was anyway unclear, is myself. I did not mean to offend you, indeed I did not even (as I sometimes do) intend to use provocation. I on my own turn do not, excuse me, get how you can possibly read an offense out of what I wrote. Also, I was quite well aware of what this was and what I meant by it. Although my English cannot be trusted, of course.

    You wrote:
    This state and many others require those who wish to benefit from engaging in acts of commerce must also provide full and equal accommodation for all parties. Those who would tend to discriminate against people who are […] gay are totally free to find some other means of employment.

    I asked:
    What other means of employment are these in which I am not, nor will be in foreseeable future, required to act against my conscience? Supposing I am a coward (and I am), and want to faithfully serve my conscience and my church, but also without offending the state or positive law – and not just in this present moment, but also in foreseeable future – which profession is still remaining out there where one can do both?

    This was the question I asked, and it was a dead serious one.

    (It also was perhaps sort of a hyperbole. I do not expect that an assembly-line worker or a professional cleaner must be conform-to-mainstream… but then there are so few assembly-lines today. And I might have included a butcher; only it happens that even a baker, even a baker!, is sued to the ground because he sticks to traditional morality…)

    Did I make myself clear?

  89. Peggy R says:

    So Fr Jim,

    Not to pile on, but are you, a Roman Catholic priest, saying that a man may not have his conscience?

    MaryH…You make a good point. It’s not about not serving homosexual customers, but about serving homosexual events.

  90. Imrahil says:

    By the way, I agree that dear @MaryH made a good point… in theory.

    As the saying goes: In theory, theory and practice do not differ. In practice, that’s often not true.

    The thing is that the “equality for gays!” formula was never used to mean what it in this sense seems to say. To my knowledge, no one ever declined to take homosexuals, or left-handeds for that matter, as customers. (Other than Jews or blacks.) “Equality for gays!” never meant the obvious thing that a homosexual must be accepted as customer, because that was never contested. Equality for gays was and is used to mean that homosexuality as such must be accepted. And in this sense, which happens to be the catchphrase sense, it cannot be granted. (Even though it does not even need mentioning, and noone has ever doubted, that a homosexual has all rights and dignities such as belong to a man and citizen.)

  91. frjim4321 says:

    Imrahil . . .
    “the coward, if that was anyway unclear, is myself.”
    I did not get that, I thought it was related to me inasmuch as someone here a couple days ago threw that at me.
    “I did not mean to offend you.”
    None take at this point now that I understand you.
    “ . . . how you can possibly read an offense out of what I wrote . . .”
    I did not imagine that you were speaking of yourself.
    “… Although my English cannot be trusted, of course…”
    I often use a proofreader for official correspondence, and I know that my grammar on the blog is not perfect either.
    “You wrote: This state and many others require those who wish to benefit from engaging in acts of commerce must also provide full and equal accommodation for all parties. Those who would tend to discriminate against people who are […] gay are totally free to find some other means of employment. I asked: What other means of employment are these in which I am not, nor will be in foreseeable future, required to act against my conscience? Supposing I am a coward (and I am), and want to faithfully serve my conscience and my church, but also without offending the state or positive law – and not just in this present moment, but also in foreseeable future – which profession is still remaining out there where one can do both? This was the question I asked, and it was a dead serious one.”
    I was referring to all means of employment that do not involve owning a business, such as working in the manufacturing or service industries. Police, fire, assembly, construction, etc.
    “(It also was perhaps sort of a hyperbole. I do not expect that an assembly-line worker or a professional cleaner must be conform-to-mainstream… but then there are so few assembly-lines today. And I might have included a butcher; only it happens that even a baker, even a baker!, is sued to the ground because he sticks to traditional morality…) Did I make myself clear?”
    Well, what I don’t get is the connection between refusing services to a gay couple and “sticking to traditional morality.” The gay couple is asking the photographer to take pictures or the baker to bake a cake, they are not asking him/her to engage in sex with them.

  92. frjim4321 says:

    “So Fr Jim,

    Not to pile on, but are you, a Roman Catholic priest, saying that a man may not have his conscience?”

    Peggy, as mentioned in the previous post, the gay couple is asking the vendor for photos or for a cake, they are not asking the photographer/baker to have sex with them.

  93. Michelle F says:

    maryh,

    I like your idea of targeting gay-owned businesses to have them print pro-heterosexual marriage t-shirts, posters, signs, and anything else that they would hate, such as Courage literature.

    It is time to take them on in their own game. The Lord said:

    “Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves” (Mt. 10:16, DRV).

    If we got any money out of them, it could be donated to a FSSP seminary, or used to repair a Church building that was defaced in the spirit of Vatican II.

  94. jhayes says:

    Imrahil, as an exmpleof what frjim4321 is describing, here are some regulations concerning rening apartments where I live:

    “(1) Applicable Law. The Massachusetts Fair Housing statute, as contained in M.G.L. c. 151B, s. 4 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status, children, handicap, and receipt of public assistance or housing subsidy in the selling, renting or leasing of housing accommodations, commercial space, or land intended for use as such….

    (4) Property Not Covered By M.G.L. c. 151B, s. 4. The leasing or rental of units in those two family homes in which the owner occupies one apartment of that home as his residence is not covered by this law…

    (c) It is unlawful to cause to be made any written or oral inquiry, or record, concerning the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, ancestry, veteran status, sexual orientation, martial status or handicap of any person seeking to rent, lease, or buy any such housing, commercial space, or land.

  95. Peggy R says:

    Fr Jim,

    Breath-taking! Fr Z frequently discusses at this blog the moral implications of a Catholic attending or participating in a variety of irregular weddings. Yeah, no one asks the guests to engage in an orgy with the bride and groom, so what’s the problem, eh? Clearly such things don’t bother you. Taking photos of two men kissing or baking a cake and putting two men on it and delivering it to a homosexual event could not offend Catholic (or other) moral sensibilities?

    Many Muslim cabbies refuse to transport passengers with alcohol. No one’s asking them to drink. Should they be made to do so? (Actually, cabbies may be common carriers who have an obligation to all comers. So, there may be a legal question to explore here.) But I ask your judgment.

  96. Peggy R says:

    Correction: I mean should the cabbies be made to transport alcohol, not consume it. Poor antecedant.

  97. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321,

    Have any parishioners ever asked you to say a Latin Mass?

  98. frjim4321 says:

    Have any parishioners ever asked you to say a Latin Mass?

    Do you mean the current RM3 in latin or the unreformed mass of Paul VI?

    Either way, the answer is “no.”

    Regarding the former, my last formal instruction in latin was as a high school sophomore during which I taught myself all the latin I would need to get as ‘C,’ then I promptly forgot it.

    Regarding the latter, the unreformed mass was pretty much history by the time I reached junior high, I would hardly be qualified to preside at one.

  99. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    6 February 2013 at 9:37 pm

    Have any parishioners ever asked you to say a Latin Mass?

    Do you mean the current RM3 in latin or the unreformed mass of Paul VI?

    Either way, the answer is “no.”

    I am unaware of any changes made re RM3 to the Latin Missal. In fact, RM3 purports to be a better translation of the Editio Typica.

    And it’s not surprising that no one has asked. As I have said here more than once, the laity is not dumb. Despite your best efforts to conceal your doctrinal dissent, the laity in the parish knows. So many priests think that glad handing the laity after mass is enough to BS the laity. It isn’t. I know because I have heard the comments.

    Regarding the former, my last formal instruction in latin was as a high school sophomore during which I taught myself all the latin I would need to get as ‘C,’ then I promptly forgot it.

    Which means that according to the documents of Vat II, you have not been properly formed as a priest.

  100. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    Peggy, as mentioned in the previous post, the gay couple is asking the vendor for photos or for a cake, they are not asking the photographer/baker to have sex with them.

    Your various comments here indicate that you have no objection to either.

  101. frjim4321 says:

    As I have said here more than once, the laity is not dumb. rb

    Exactly so, they have been well-formed.

    Hence, no requests.

    Which means that according to the documents of Vat II, you have not been properly formed as a priest. rb

    It was not a perfect seminary, but better than most. Anyway, I wasn’t in charge and I suspect very few seminaries are perfect. Anyway, unless you are my bishop it’s really not for you to say. Of course you could be under an alias and I would never know it.

    Your various comments here indicate that you have no objection to either.

    I don’t know how that relates to the subject at hand, and no, frankly I was not insinuating that the couple would or should do so. Actually it never entered my mind, but evidently it did yours.

  102. frjim4321 says:

    . . . which is not to say that the unreformed mass should not be made available to those who due to a lack of proper liturgical formation have been experiencing difficulty transitioning into the standard rite; it’s just that presiders for the prior form should be properly trained, and I am not.

  103. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    As I have said here more than once, the laity is not dumb. rb

    Exactly so, they have been well-formed.

    Sure. And that’s why they practice contraception and don’t encourage their children to become priests and religious, just like other parishes in the US. Let’s face it: Your idea of being well formed is praying. paying, and keeping their mouths shut unless they’re endorsing something anti-Catholic (e.g., ordaining women and homosexual “marriage”)

    Hence, no requests.

    More likely, it’s because they’ve given up.

    Which means that according to the documents of Vat II, you have not been properly formed as a priest. rb

    It was not a perfect seminary, but better than most.

    Don’t you mean not as bad as most?

    Anyway, I wasn’t in charge and I suspect very few seminaries are perfect. Anyway, unless you are my bishop it’s really not for you to say.

    You’re confusing an informed opinion (which I have) to governance over the seminary (which I don’t have).

    Of course you could be under an alias and I would never know it.

    I have said here more than once that I have known Fr Z for 20 years, being old friends from Rome. I have also made no attempt to hide my name.

  104. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321 says,

    Your various comments here indicate that you have no objection to either.rb

    I don’t know how that relates to the subject at hand, and no, frankly I was not insinuating that the couple would or should do so.

    By endorsing same sex “marriage”, it follows that you endorse homosexual sex.

    >b>Actually it never entered my mind, but evidently it did yours.

    It entered my mind for the same reason it entered the catechism–because “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.

  105. robtbrown says:

    Actually it never entered my mind, but evidently it did yours.

    It entered my mind for the same reason it entered the catechism–because “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.

  106. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    . . . which is not to say that the unreformed mass should not be made available to those who due to a lack of proper liturgical formation have been experiencing difficulty transitioning into the standard rite; it’s just that presiders for the prior form should be properly trained, and I am not.

    You make several mistakes.

    1. Celebrants using the 1962 Missal are never referred to as Presiders. That term is reserved for those who consider the Eucharist to be a meal.

    2. BXVI has said that availability of the TLM is not merely a matter of providing it for those who have adjusted to the Novus Ordo.

    3. It is not necessary to be trained to say the Novus Ordo in Latin.

  107. The Masked Chicken says:

    “Peggy, as mentioned in the previous post, the gay couple is asking the vendor for photos or for a cake, they are not asking the photographer/baker to have sex with them.”

    While one may have a discussion in this case regarding remote material cooperation vs. remote formal cooperation, clearly, they are not simply supplying the cake batter, but might, actually, have to attend the, “wedding,” reception in order to transport the cake, etc. May I remind any reader who does not know about them, there are nine ways to be an accessory to sin:

    1.By Counsel
    2.By Command
    3.By Consent
    4.By Concealment
    5.By Defense of Evil Done
    6.By Partaking
    7.By Provocation
    8.By Praise
    9.By Silence

    They may not be asking the bakers to have sex with them, but they are asking the bakers to either be silent in the face of their evil or to consent of it. Thus, they would be an accessory to their evil if they made the cake. Might I suggest that this would form a strong basis for a counter-suit against the couple, since no properly formed law can force a person to violate a properly formed conscience and guess what, it not the courts right to define what is and what is not a rightly formed conscience (let’s see them try and expose their hubris for what it would be).

    The Chicken

  108. Tim says:

    robtbrown says:

    By endorsing same sex “marriage”, it follows that you endorse homosexual sex.

    I don’t think Fr Jim said he endorsed same sex marriage. This thread has been somewhat hysterical from the start. Let’s remember what the CCC says about discrimination against homosexual persons (art. 2358).

  109. robtbrown says:

    robtbrown says:

    By endorsing same sex “marriage”, it follows that you endorse homosexual sex.

    I don’t think Fr Jim said he endorsed same sex marriage.

    It follows logically that he does. Do you know of any concept of marriage in which sex is not intrinsic? Certainly not in the CIC, the CCC, nor in any of the writings of JPII.


    This thread has been somewhat hysterical from the start. Let’s remember what the CCC says about discrimination against homosexual persons (art. 2358).

    I think you forgot the word “unjust”–unjust discrimination.

  110. The Masked Chicken says:

    In the end, we simply must part ways with a government so confused about what constitutes a good.

    The Chicken

  111. The Masked Chicken says:

    By that, I don’t mean we should all leave the country, but call them out.

    The Chicken

  112. Andrew says:

    FrJim4321

    “Those who would tend to discriminate against people who are left-handed, blonde, Jewish, Black, bald, fat or gay …”

    All the categories mentioned above, with the exception of “gay” are based on physical characteristics whereas being “gay” is a definition that cannot be established or verified because it is based on a personal and private mental disposition. What goes on in the privacy of someone’s head does not create a category. It would be impossible to legislate on the basis of what someone finds pleasurable. Think of all the different ways this could go. To buy into this is parallel to buying into a complete collapse of any moral, legal or ethical standard. Anyone could say that he is “gay”. Give me a special privilege and I’ll be gay too. We could all be “gay” or “not gay”. In fact many “gay” people have had wives and children. Or they used to be “gay” and now they’re not. Or they are so called “bi-sexual.” What the heck is that? How is that different from “perverse”?

  113. robtbrown says:

    Tim says,

    This thread has been somewhat hysterical from the start.

    There are lay people, some here, who have devoted time and energy to defending Catholic doctrine on the priesthood, sexual morality, and abortion. When they come onto comments from a priest like Fr Jim, spouting propaganda that originated to undermine such doctrine, they are justly offended. If that means they are sometime hysterical, I can only say that it’s understandable.

  114. wmeyer says:

    By that, I don’t mean we should all leave the country, but call them out.

    Where would we go, anyway? I don’t see any attractive alternative. But to your point, yes, we cannot fulfill our responsibilities of citizenship if we do not hold our legislators accountable.

    In the end, we simply must part ways with a government so confused about what constitutes a good.

    The founders foresaw this, and I believe would be shocked to find that we have tolerated so much.

  115. pmullane says:

    RobtBrown

    “There are lay people, some here, who have devoted time and energy to defending Catholic doctrine on the priesthood, sexual morality, and abortion. When they come onto comments from a priest like Fr Jim, spouting propaganda that originated to undermine such doctrine, they are justly offended. If that means they are sometime hysterical, I can only say that it’s understandable”

    Agreed, furthermore, a lot of laypeople on these boards are very deeply concerned about the future, insofar as our jobs and our children are at stake. How long before families who stand for real marriage come under the suspician of the quasi-marxist quasi-sentient social services meddlers for example? When people are willing to risk everything to defend truth and the Faith and a spiritual father comes along and sells them out to Ceaser a little bit of anger is understandable.

  116. Imrahil says:

    Where would we go, anyway?

    Hungary, Latin America, Czechia (despite the fact they’re in far majority atheist, they seem to have escaped the usual slings of political correctness, so far), Italy (where the bar-owners launched a passive-resistance rebellion against an EU threat to put down their crucifixes), or somewhere in Africa or in a forgotten place within far Australia. Poland also perhaps. Perhaps also Slovaky, Slovenia or Croatia. Serbia and Russia, though they are Eastern Orthodox.

    We cannot fulfill our responsibilities of citizenship if we do not hold our legislators accountable.

    Sorry to say, but it is not the citizen who holds the legislators accountable. It’s the mechanism of elections, where the citizen has one vote out of perhaps 250 million. Sorry to say, but President Obama’s actions seem to be backed by a majority. I’m very much for seeing the good things in people, and I indeed sincerly doubt that a little man from the street would agree to suing a baker out of subsistence for actions as reported, but nevertheless… the said little man would go on to say “but I must keep to the middle ground and not totally dismiss the homosexual cause either”, and even the political opponent will say “we must keep to the middle ground and not have candidates that are too radical, for they will not win”, and so it goes on.

  117. wmeyer says:

    Imrahil said: Sorry to say, but President Obama’s actions seem to be backed by a majority.

    Yes: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin

    Add to the nearly 50% of voters receiving government checks the many Catholics who have fallen for the notion that “social justice” trumps Church doctrine, and we are well past the tipping point. The Republic is dead, and we are suffering the mob rule of democracy.

    Elections are how we are supposed to hold our legislators responsible. However, as the founders knew only too well, a free press is essential to reining in the government, and we no longer have that. In its place, we have a media which have joined the campaign for progressivism and statism, uncritically supporting all that furthers that agenda.

  118. chantgirl says:

    frjim4321-“which is not to say that the unreformed mass should not be made available to those who due to a lack of proper liturgical formation have been experiencing difficulty transitioning into the standard rite; it’s just that presiders for the prior form should be properly trained, and I am not.”

    That’s a pretty demeaning and intolerant view of Catholics who have very good reasons, none of which include “lack of proper liturgical formation”, for preferring the Extraordinary Form. You brush aside their legitimate reasons and paint them all as uneducated. If only they were educated they would agree with the more enlightened opinion. If the laity have picked up on this patronizing attitude, they will not bother to ask for the EF, or perhaps those who would have asked have already left for greener pastures. Perhaps they have found that most of the NO Masses available in their area do not resemble the Mass that VII envisioned.

    Back to the topic of the post, there may be areas of business that Catholics will not be able to engage in in good conscience in the future. This isn’t right, but it appears to be the way the wind is blowing.

  119. The Masked Chicken says:

    “The Republic is dead, and we are suffering the mob rule of democracy.”

    Would that we were. A Nobel Economics laureate showed that all democracies oscillate between two poles. At least in a democracy, in two hundred years we might swing back to a Christian culture. As it is, now, we live in a simulacrum of a democracy. It is neither a democracy nor a republic, but an oligarchy. You know how I know – I could never become president (if I were human – a qualification not established in the Constitution, by the way).

    The Chicken