Baker ordered by state to bake cake for same-sex reception

From the NY Daily News:

Colorado baker ordered to serve gay couples vows to stop making wedding cakes

This takes the cake.
A Colorado baker has pledged to stop making wedding cakes after his state’s Civil Rights Commission ordered him to start baking for same-sex couples.
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, was willing to go to court to defend his decision to refuse service to two grooms who walked into his shop last year looking for a way to celebrate their marriage.
Phillips’ crusade turned out to be a giant failure after the Commission unanimously ruled that he had violated civil rights law by discriminating against the couple.
The devout Christian is retaliating by refusing to make wedding cakes altogether.
We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs,” Phillips told CBS Denver.
The man said that he would be happy to make cakes for an LGBT person’s birthday party. But he believes making a wedding cake would be equivalent to participating in the ceremony.
“My issue is that I don’t want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding,” Phillips said.
The grooms at the center of the controversy, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, tied the knot in Massachusetts. They wanted to order a cake for a reception in Colorado.
Phillips isn’t too worried about his business shutting down—he says business is booming at Masterpiece Cakeshop. His brownies and cookies are reportedly flying off the counters, snatched up by people who agree with his stance on gay marriage.
But [get this…] for the next few months, he’ll have to submit quarterly reports about who he refuses to serve. He’ll also have to give his employees anti-discrimination training.
Same-sex marriage is legal in nineteen states, plus Washington D.C. But in Colorado, marriage is still defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Phillips’ attorney says they are considering appealing the Commission’s ruling.

John 16:2.

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 Coming Storm, The future and our choices, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Baker ordered by state to bake cake for same-sex reception

  1. LarryW2LJ says:

    Tyranny – pure and simple.

  2. mrshopey says:

    They are doing this on purpose – finding people who disagree with their lifestyle and suing.
    I would establish firm boundaries.
    These are the cake toppers I offer. If it isn’t to your liking, you are free to substitute, ask for none. If they hint they are a ss couple, then they can pick it up. If they want to purchase two cake toppers to create their own meyheim, m/m, then so be it. A Man/Woman would be on top. If they didn’t like it, they are free to go to other bakers.

  3. Fr. Bryan says:

    Persecution and Martyrdom (even this dry-21st Century type) is the seed of faith. Look for lots more of this in the near-future.

  4. NBW says:

    This is the beginning of Kristallnacht for Catholics and Christians, folks. Fast and pray the Rosary.

  5. CrimsonCatholic says:

    @NBW

    I don’t believe they are about to commit violence against anybody. They are just going to take away the ability to freely worship and have free speech in the public square, and then tax us and anybody who disagrees into submission.

  6. CrimsonCatholic, don’t kid yourself. It will end in violence.

  7. nykash says:

    Perhaps he moves his business to a donation basis and put a giant placard in the store stating his views on marriage.

    They just whine more about their ‘rights’ however… as the Constitution is trampled underfoot.

  8. Dax says:

    Collectivism and the common good of man has been determined, dissenters have been identified and separated, re-eduaction camps established. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio.

    God help us.

  9. Del says:

    Two weeks ago, I participated in the Ordination Mass of three transitional deacons. Our bishop warned the young men that they may have to join him in jail soon, when it becomes illegal to speak the truth about such things as the sanctity of life and the nature of marriage.

    A few days later, I was at the graduation of students from a faithful Catholic high school academy. Again, our bishop warned the young people that they may be called upon to join him in jail for speaking the truth about life and marriage.

    The dark days are coming again. Are we ready to go joyfully into the persecution?

  10. Iacobus M says:

    As the late, great Fr. Neuhaus said, “When orthodoxy becomes optional, sooner or later it will be proscribed.” Looks like it’s sooner.

  11. I often wonder how far this idea of “forced service” can be pushed. Would a Christian caterer who serves food at events be forced to provide service at a swinger’s club, for example?

  12. Flavius Hesychius says:

    As disgusting as this is, I’m not at all shocked this happened.

  13. Bob B. says:

    Isn’t this one of the states that has legalized pot? Consistent, aren’t they?

  14. wmeyer says:

    Bob, they have also legalized assisted suicide. It’s only really important stuff, like refusing to bake a cake, that can’t be permitted.

  15. MarkG says:

    You have to remember that these are “setups” on both sides of people trying to prove a point. The couple could have simply went somewhere else for a cake. The baker could have just quoted a really high price or provided bad service so they would go elsewhere.

  16. murtheol says:

    Making a cake does not participate in a homosexual wedding. Think of it. Is the gas company supposed to refuse service to the reception? The electric company? On the way to the wedding, is the gas guy supposed to refuse to sell gas to a homosexual couple? Should the flour company refuse to sell flour to the bakery, knowing it will make a cake for the gay couple? Should the water company shut off water to the bakery and reception center? Where does it end? There is too much silliness about. [You attempt to cast this issue as silly is itself silly. There is nothing silly about a private person in business being forced by the state to provide a service that violates his religious values.]

  17. Supertradmum says:

    This is just the beginning of persecutions and these will turn into heavy fines, the stealing of houses, rectories, even churches, imprisonment and death.

    Do not kid yourselves on this. And, it has all been planned a long time ago. Social engineering by all those who hate the Catholic Church and all Christian, as well as natural morality…

  18. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    If I went into a store and proclaimed my support for the traditional, natural definition of marriage, and someone accused me of hate-speech, would he still be required to provide for me the services which I asked him to provide? If I proclaimed that I thought all black people should be returned to a condition of slavery, would the Boy Scouts or the NAACP still have to provide me with ….. whatever?

    I think there may be something “deeper” going on, and I’m not going to deny that the demonic is present. What I see is this: ” you have no choice, except the choice we approve”. It is materialism and Darwinism and universalism all rolled into one.

  19. Suburbanbanshee says:

    “Nobody will be able to buy or sell, except those who… will have adored the beast….”

    Pretty standard persecution techniques. Just ask Diocletian.

  20. Martlet says:

    I too believe this is just the beginning. A few weeks ago, someone who thinks herself reasonable answered a Facebook post of mine by saying “One day you will REALLY be persecuted …” She sounded as if she relished the thought and she is not alone. We are being painted as the enemies of progress, as haters and persecutors We are slowly being dehumanized in the minds of many of our young. It is not a huge step from that to violence, as history has shown us over and again.

  21. aviva meriam says:

    Anyone else feel trapped in Orwell’s 1984, in particular the scene where they wouldn’t let the prisoners out until they BELIEVED 2+2=5…. it wasn’t enough to merely say 2+2=5?

    When will the public wake up to the dangers inherent to the state run thought police?
    From Martin Niemoller:
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

  22. Theodore says:

    Andrew Klavan, the author, is much more relaxed about homosexual relationships then most of the readership of Fr Z’s blog, but he feels that the pendulum has swung too far and decries what he terms homofascism in this article.

    http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2014/06/02/homofascism-should-be-crushed/

  23. Uxixu says:

    I wouldn’t want to eat food prepared by someone who was doing so under duress…

    Should simply implement a no exceptions policy of selectively placed Bible versus on the sanctity of marriage, if not also Corinthians & Leviticus.

  24. ghp95134 says:

    But [get this…] for the next few months, he’ll have to submit quarterly reports about who he refuses to serve. He’ll also have to give his employees anti-discrimination training.

    He got off lucky — he didn’t have to go to a Reeducation Camp ….. yet.

    –Guy

  25. The Sicilian Woman says:

    I would appeal this on the quarterly reporting alone. Further, I would not take any orders for cakes celebrating relationships – engagements, alternate commitments, anniversaries.

  26. OrthodoxChick says:

    The Sicilian Woman,

    This could give rise to a cottage industry of underground bakers; those who have a bakery that is open to the public only to sell pastries, breads, and desserts in general. Then the baker will offer his/her services underground to only bake cakes for parish/church members. No law restricting private goods and services exchanged between two private parties would be able to be enforced successfully. Just ask any lady employed in the world’s oldest profession. They get arrested and then they’re right back out there.

  27. MarkJ says:

    Speak out now and proclaim the Truth, or forever hold your peace. Or, as Jesus said: “So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops. Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell… Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.”

  28. SKAY says:

    Supertradmum said-

    “This is just the beginning of persecutions and these will turn into heavy fines, the stealing of houses, rectories, even churches, imprisonment”
    I agree.
    This administration is also going to use the EPA and the clean water act to subject all property owners to unbelievably stringent new regulations and fines( bypassing Congress ) in order to control what can be done on any land that has water on it at any time–even a dry area that retains water after rain. This will directly affect small farms and ranches ability to operate since a permit must be submitted and permission given to do anything on or to the property. If you do not comply–heavy fines will follow. It is also a land grab as even a Dem. Rep. from Oregon stated, As we have seen (IRS)–they will pick and choose their targets and the targets will be the private property of any person or organization/business/church that does not agree with their definition of fairness and “rights” of certain people or animals.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/19/feds-target-private-pond/
    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/30/judge-nap-krauthammer-weigh-insane-epa-water-rule

    The EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, said that the new rules are just clarifying the rules–no
    change. I think we have heard this kind of language before Obama care was passed.
    Don’t worry–we would not change anything–PERIOD.
    It will take the House and Senate to stop this–and if the Dems still have a majority in the Senate after the election in 2014 Harry Reid will not let the Senate vote on it unless he has the votes to defeat any bill blocking the regulations.

  29. gheg says:

    Racial discrimination in restaurants, hotels, housing, etc. was an abomination, but it was a mistake to try to remedy it by having the government compel individuals to serve people they prefer not to serve. Increasing governmental power to achieve social change is almost never a good idea. The precedent was set in the 1960s, and I’m afraid this is the inevitable result. Ideologues have managed (improperly) to equate “sexual orientation” with race, and “same-sex marriage” (an utter impossibility) with interracial marriage (a fundamental human right), and the activist judiciary has gone along with it.

  30. Cantor says:

    I’m curious why a bakery that performs custom work can’t accept a standard “Request for bids” form and respond if interested. Corporations, small businesses and government agencies do it all the time. If they don’t want the job, they simply don’t respond and nobody has to know why.

  31. Dax says:

    Ghp95134

    “He got off lucky — he didn’t have to go to a Reeducation Camp ….. yet”

    I am going to have to disagree with you. The baker and his employees have already been enrolled.

  32. RomeontheRange says:

    Why is it that young men were once allowed to avoid the military draft by claiming “conscientious objector” status, but this principle isn’t applied to anything else?

  33. Giuseppe says:

    My 2 cents:
    A baker cannot refuse to sell a valid customer a cake.
    A baker cannot be required to write specific words onto a cake.

  34. NBW says:

    @CrimsonCatholic: What do you think will they do with those who won’t be taxed into submission?

  35. acardnal says:

    “My fellow comrades, . . . . “

  36. Susan M says:

    As a side business (definitely not booming like Masterpiece Bakery) I have an antique booth in a nice antique mall in our little local town. One shelf – front and center – is filled with old wedding cake toppers of brides and grooms, that is, each cake topper is a bride and groom together, because in decades past there was no such thing as a separate bride and/or a separate groom figure.

    I think of it as my “Sacrament Shelf”, and am just WAITING – oh pleasepleasepleaseeee – for 2 lesbians or 2 homosexuals to complain so that it can be explained that “there are no single bride or single groom figures because, this is an antique store and there was no such thing as same sex ‘marriage’ before, say, yesterday, so sue me for not selling something that never was. The marriage that these cake toppers represent is between one man and one woman, joined together as one.”

  37. Kathleen10 says:

    The entire business is being forced to undergo “re-education”, in addition to the two year “reporting to the government” to make sure his discrimination is not continuing.
    He is possibly not going to comply. His 86 year old mother works there, and he said she is not interested in going to any sensitivity training. He doesn’t sound like a man who is going to roll over on his faith.
    Every time something like this happens, why am I still stunned. I’m annoying myself. Activist judges are taking over, and our politicians stand by and let it happen. It’s a coup. Colorado is altogether nuts. Too bad, such natural beauty in that state, but they are awash in evil.
    We must resist, resist, resist. We are all going to become political dissidents, because it’s coming. The speed at which it is approaching is stunning though.

  38. Kerry says:

    As ‘W’ said, “Bring ‘em on!” Viva Christo Rey! Arriba Christo Rey! Viva Christo Rey!

  39. John Nelson says:

    It is as it ever has been. We must choose. Evil is evil, Good is Good. We can know it. Or we can fool ourselves. Or be deluded. We must always relay on the mercy of our good and gracious God.

  40. C N says:

    This has been happening to bakers, Catholic and non Catholic ministers, etc ever since states decided to legalize homosexual unions. This isn’t the first or last time Fr. Z will be sharing an article about it either.

    We need to send every government official a copy of the constitution. The rulings for legalizing these unions are always being justified with calling it “unconstitutional.” Every time I read that rationale I rack my brain for any part of the constitution that might apply and I fail every time.

    I’ve been trying to figure out how our public officials get away with calling it unconstitutional ever since it started becoming legal. Last time I checked, it was unconstitutional for the government to impose their religion on the people, which is essentially what is happening with legalizing homosexual unions. The answer is what everyone else has already said: plain and simple, it is tyranny.

  41. Norah says:

    I think that Sicilian Woman has the right practical response: the baker could stop baking commitment cakes if that didn’t deprive the family of too much income. Our local baker doesn’t bake wedding cakes because he doesn’t have the skill at decorating. At least the baker has an easier way out than the photographer or the small hotel owner.

  42. LarryW2LJ says:

    Saw a great banner on Facebook the other day and an going to make it my cover photo. On the left side is the Papal Symbol (Tiara with crossed keys) on the right side is a Rosary. In the middle it says: “The Catholic Church – Outlasting Oppressive Governments since 33 A.D.”

  43. anilwang says:

    murtheol,
    There’s a huge difference between your example and the bakery case. In the bakery case, the bakers have to create a cake affirming the “couple” and top it with a symbol of that “couplehood”. In the gas case, no such affirmation is made. One is an indirect participation in evil, the other isn’t.

    But even if it were not a violation of conscious and religious liberty, it is still morally wrong to compell the baker to make a cake when for someone he doesn’t want to. We can refuse service to anyone we choose to for any reason we choose to. Remember the signs “no shoes, no shirt, no service”? Or “No service without a shirt or tie?”. Is the judge going to compell restaurants to serve anyone? Of course not. This judge is abusing his office to promote his ideology, and must either repent and make reparations or resign.

  44. Fr. Thomas Kocik says:

    Forget the Grand Inquisitor. He was a softy compared to the petty inquisitors who pounce on anyone who dissents from the politically correct orthodoxies of secularist postmodernity. “In ze politics of choice, ve vill prescribe your choices.”

  45. Magash says:

    The real problem is that too many people are say that the baker needs to do this or that to try to get around the courts and the imposed conditions, when what he really needs to do is civil disobedience. He needs to simple refuse to obey the court as they are attempting to force him to act against his conscience.
    It’s like with the mandate. I have said all along nothing will happen to stop it until the bishops simple refuse to play. Don’t cover contraception, abortion or same sex unions. Refuse to pay the fines (taxes). Go to jail. When 20 or 30 bishops are sitting in jail maybe U.S Catholics will stop supporting the Democratic party and actually wake up to what is happening.
    When butchers, and bakers and candlestick makers are on the news as they are forcibly shut down by police SWAT units because they refuse to sell to participants of immoral functions, then maybe people will wake up before it really becomes too late. I’d like to see it he would be in court because he refused to sell to the KKK or the American Nazi Party.

  46. Michael says:

    So, if someone’s religion stated that black people are evil and are not to be talked to, you guys would support a business refusing to serve them?

  47. Michael @ 1:18 pm:

    You’re confusing the issue…that’s not what this is about. This is about a private business owner being forced by the government to provide a product/service that directly violates his religious beliefs.

    Private business owners (should) have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, even if the reason is silly…it’s their private business after all. A cashier working at Walmart may not be able to refuse to ring up the gay couple’s groceries…but a privately-owned business should be able to make their own rules and policies on who they will serve. Think of it as the moral version of “no shirt, no shoes, no service” — that is, “no man, no woman, no wedding cake”. :)

  48. jesusthroughmary says:

    Michael says:
    5 June 2014 at 1:18 pm
    “So, if someone’s religion stated that black people are evil and are not to be talked to, you guys would support a business refusing to serve them?”

    Red herring alert. People are not evil; actions are. What the baker is claiming is that he has a right to refuse to cooperate in an action that he believes to be evil. Do you deny that he has that right?

  49. coeyannie says:

    I think the baker said he wasn’t going to bake cakes any longer. He said the cookies and other baked goods are flying off the shelves with all the publicity. God is working in the bakery.

    If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

  50. One of those TNCs says:

    What happens when another same-sex couple walks into his shop and orders, not a cake, but a pan of brownies to celebrate their “marriage”? Simply not baking wedding cakes will not solve this problem, especially if (when) the radical homosexual agenda includes seeking out pro-genuine-marriage business owners to punish.

    Any confectioner, decorator, rental business, photographer, caterer, florist, wedding garment shop, etc., can (will) find themselves in the same unenviable position.

  51. Imrahil says:

    The dear Michael draws attention to the following fact:

    it is ultimately a question of right and wrong which cannot be evaded. And we are right of course.

    A state that infringes the rights of the Catholic Church, forbids the tiniest bit of truth to be preacjed and acted upon, is a tyrant. A state that would allow everything posing as “religion” to do what they want would be insane.

    As to the dear murtheol’s comment, “silly” is blatantly wrong. But he seems to have seen it from another perspective. Our reverend host highlighted the outrage that the State forces, and an outrage it is. But by all semblances we’ll have to live with that sort of thing, and then it’ll come in useful to know where we really have to say “non possumus” and where we can comply,albeit with a stomach ache. (Being sued out of existence is no laughing matter and, other than martyrdom, not over in an hour.) Thus, especially if the cake is just a big cake otherwise unadorned, some casuistry (pace the Holy Father) really might come in useful

  52. Pingback: Bakery refuses to compromise; stops making wedding cakes - Stand Up For The Truth

  53. The Masked Chicken says:

    No one is required to obey an unjust law. If all of the Christian bakers, together, refused to bake cakes for homosexual ceremonies, then this might bring the issue to a head. At some point, the government has got to be stood up to and be made to realize that they are not God. Unfortunately, some in the general public have elevated civil laws to a status they do not, naturally, enjoy. Civil laws are man-made. Divine laws supersede them. It the government cannot fathom this, then they would not be installed officials, because they would not believe in the God to whom they swore their oath and the oath would be void. So, I put it – either they let the bakers have their way or we get to ignore them as public officials – and so do the police, so they do not have to follow their orders to arrest the bakers. They can’t have it both ways.

    The Chicken

  54. acardnal says:

    “Chicken for President!”

  55. Ok so…where’s frjim4321?!

  56. This is what happens when we as a society try to place error on the same plane as Truth. Religious liberty without grounding in the Truth will fail. That said, it’s about to get ugly, pray for preservation of the Faith and of our souls

  57. Michael says:

    Catholic Living,

    You’re confusing the issue…that’s not what this is about. This is about a private business owner being forced by the government to provide a product/service that directly violates his religious beliefs.

    Your ignoring my question. My scenario states that a private business owner has a religious belief that being black is evil. Should he be forced to violate his conscience and sale to black people? Yes or no?

    jesusthroughmary,

    Red herring alert. People are not evil; actions are. What the baker is claiming is that he has a right to refuse to cooperate in an action that he believes to be evil. Do you deny that he has that right?>

    Ok, that’s what your religion says, but the person in my scenario’s religion states that black people are evil. You do know that your religion is just one out of 1000s right? So answer my question, does someone who believes black people are evil have a right to deny them service?

    Imrahil,

    it is ultimately a question of right and wrong which cannot be evaded. And we are right of course.

    Oh, of course your right! LOL. That is just what every single member of every single religion says.

  58. Kathleen10 says:

    Chicken is right. It is called civil disobedience, to just refuse to go along with unjust laws. It has just happened in our state, Connecticut, where we now have thousands of (I believe) Class D felons because…thousands of gun owners refused to “register” their now illegal weapons, probably rightly believing that history will repeat itself and show us that registration leads eventually to confiscation. It is a matter of time before someone gets charged, and then we will see. But thus far, we have all these state-made Class D felons who are felons in the sense that they have already broken the state’s dictates, and have not registered their weapons. After this all came to light, and everybody stood around scratching their heads saying, now what, it came out that many of our State Police have indicated they will not enforce said new laws on “illegal” weapons. There was some initial tough talk from our legislators, especially the usual troublemakers in the Judiciary, who never want to miss an opportunity to exert control over the citizens of the state of Connecticut, but, things have quieted down. Bottom line, many residents are flouting the law, and this is what it takes, in mass numbers, for these laws to go away. One MUST disobey unjust laws. A lawyer can speak to this. It is called nullification, and I believe it means if enough people disobey, the law becomes null.
    So get ready. Your turn is coming, as is mine.
    And @ Michael. What is your point. You are making a comparison to race, which cannot be self-determined, and homosexual behavior, which can.

  59. Michael says:

    Kathleen10,

    Assuming that you are, when did you make the self determination to be straight. You do realize homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom? Also it was Fr. Z who is saying this is a freedom of religion issue. I find it interesting and telling that neither you nor anyone else will answer my simple question, i.e. should someone who’s religion states that black people are in and of themselves evil be allowed to deny service to blacks? If indeed this is a freedom of religion issue (which I think we all know it isn’t and the argumet is just an excuse for discrimination) then you should apply the same rule to our racist religious fellow in my hypothetical situation.

  60. Mike says:

    @Michael: Battle to the death for dominance, both within and between species, and shunning and elimination of individuals based on appearance or “fitness” are also found throughout the animal kingdom. A line of argument that justifies human practices based on animal observations could be applied to justify racially discriminatory practices by humans — and often has been, within the lifetime of many still on this earth. You do realize similar arguments are being used today to justify abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia?

  61. Imrahil says:

    Dear Michael,

    as you did not notice that I implicitly answered you:

    Yes, the baker whose religion forbids it to talk to blacks should be forced to talk to blacks. More precisely: if he just claims “ah my religion makes me do so”, then certainly. If there would be an ancient and widespread religion that really does command not to talk to blacks, then prudence and good-neighborhood might induce a well-meaning statesman to tolerate that for the time being. In principle, though, they too can be forced – because they’re wrong. And, of course, there is no such religion.

    (No, saying “this is religion” as in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Scientology doesn’t make it one. A State who’d follow that and grant freedom of religion would be unmanageable.)

    It is a freedom of religion issue, because freedom of religion must mean at least that the true religion is allowed to act upon each and every belief of theirs. It does mean, also, that the wrong religions are allowed to act upon such beliefs as do not damage, or do tolerable damage, to the common good, and to the highest degree feasible, but at any rate if the true religion does not have the right to act upon each and every tiny belief, freedom of religion is not there.

    But, as you to some degree justifiedly highlighted, it is also a right and wrong issue. We are right, they are wrong, about homosexuality.

    (Though it should be noted, somewhere, that just serving people a person does not like normally is somewhat less infringing her rights than contributing to a celebration of what she opposes. Isn’t it?)

  62. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Michael,

    You wrote,

    “I find it interesting and telling that neither you nor anyone else will answer my simple question, i.e. should someone who’s religion states that black people are in and of themselves evil be allowed to deny service to blacks?”

    Before I answer this question I need the answer to three questions from you, otherwise, I will not waste my time, since a bright sophomore in high school could tell you the answer:

    1. Are you a troll? Forgive me my impression, but you sound like an atheist trolling for a fight. If not, and I DO NOT mean to be either condescending or insulting, then my apologies, but this sort of argument is often put forth all of the time by people who have a Post-Modern view of what religion is (hint: it is not a matter of opinion).

    2. Are you Catholic (if so, the answer is fairly straightforward, if not, then there are other things we need to discuss before the Catholic response will make sense to you)?

    3. How do you derive your sense of moral imperatives? How do you know what is right or wrong? It sounds as if you have not had much training in deontological reasoning.

    The Chicken

  63. jflare says:

    OK, Michael,
    Let me see if I can answer some of your questions:

    “So, if someone’s religion stated that black people are evil and are not to be talked to, you guys would support a business refusing to serve them?”
    I would contend this to be a loaded question, aimed at pestering and bullying people, not seeking truth. It’s too wide to be easily answered.
    First, do you mean that the restaurant would refuse service to the person who believed black people evil? Or would they refuse service to the black person? Your question is not very clear on this matter.
    Second, it’d be helpful to know what you mean by a “person’s religion stated that black people are evil” and so on. Do you mean this in the sense of something that would be written in a Catechism? Or do you rather mean a statement made by a person that offers a personal interpretation of what the particular church believes?
    Third, I don’t believe there’s any body of law requiring a business to offer wares to all persons, regardless of owner discretion. Usually it’s assumed that ownership will want to offer services, if only to maintain a reputation as a good service provider. Refusal of service can be justified if circumstances warrant though. Or, at least, up to now they could. Refusing service would place one at risk of suffering a lawsuit–as here–when the proposed customer feels the owner has acted improperly, but that’s still not quite a mandate that all customers must be served regardless.

    In this case and those like it, we’re not faced with the problem of the owner intentionally breaking the law–or weren’t originally–so much as a problem that the “victims” in this case wish to require the owner to over-rule his own judgement, merely to please their views. Sadly, the judge doesn’t seem to care about the whole idea of a business person exercising judgement.

    This isn’t about law really, but about the willful abuse of law to further an agenda.

    “You do know that your religion is just one out of 1000s right?”
    Irrelevant.
    I don’t care if 1,000,000 religions might all insist they’re correct. As Catholics, we recognize that one, and only one, religion tells the whole of revealed Truth. Others may provide various portions of that Truth, but none can be declared a complement of Catholic faith.

    ” Should he be forced to violate his conscience and sale to black people?”
    I think no. If you wish to argue that government intervened during the 60’s and 70’s, forcing integration into society, thereby causing things to “get better”, I counter that all the government interventions in the world have not caused black and white to see each other as human beings with innate dignity. If anything, while the obvious colors of people have changed, attitudes most generally have not. Men still hate men, even though law says they must not.

    “You do realize homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom?”
    Irrelevant.
    Human beings and animals are not like creatures outside of the arrogance of whomever wishes to deny the unique dignity of human beings. Notice that, although humans and apes might be within a few percentage points of each other genetically, we do not allow apes to drive cars, write books, speak in public, or do most of those things that human beings do routinely. Appealing to the fact that another species might act upon alleged same sex impulses merely proves one’s own contempt for moral Truth.

    Finally, if you want to argue that allowing a baker to refuse services is an morally abominable act, I might ask why such is unforgivable, I’m compelled to ask: Who says? For what reason?

    In spite of the militant character of various secular, atheistic, progressive, rationalist, or other factions, we do not live in a nation solely defined by secular values. We do so perhaps more than in 1950, but that’s mostly because we’ve typically expected that such efforts would ultimately come to naught. Over the past 20 years, we’ve become more and more aware that we have a growing problem.

    If this baker has “broken” a law, let’s remember that such laws can be changed by the will of the People. We have no need to lay down and let ourselves be trampled. The Left hates admitting this, but we still have the inherent ability to fight back by whatever means might be available.

    It’s simply a matter of will for us to decide to fight for our views to be instilled into law.
    Those who despised Catholic/Christian faith won’t like it.
    So be it.
    The argument, the debate, the fight, the possibility of suffering persecution that moral virtue might shine through, this is the nature of politics.

    Sad that too many of our bishops have not understood this these past decades.

  64. OrthodoxChick says:

    Michael,

    I would try to answer your hypothetical question, but I’m having trouble making sense of it. It seems to me that you are trying to compare two things that are not comparable. You seem to be equating race, which is an inherent quality of an individual that said individual cannot control, with homosexuality. Sexual preference is not an inherent quality, not for heterosexuals, nor for homosexuals. Sexual preference is a behavior and behavior can be controlled. Two people in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship must control their behavior in order to remain monogamous. This is also the case with two homosexual people in a monogamous relationship. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can choose to be celibate for any number of reasons, be they spiritual, or just a personal lifestyle choice. Tim Gunn comes to mind as an openly gay man who has stated publicly that he has chosen to live a celibate life for over 29 years. I don’t know a lot about him, but from the little I do know, I don’t believe that the reasons he has cited for his decision have anything to do with faith or religion.