Poll shows that 85% of American think photographers, bakers, etc., can refuse blatantly homosexual clients without fear of attacks

There are going to be challenges, costly challenges, to every business and industry… challenges that are actually systematic campaigns of bullying and intimidation.

I saw this on the site of the National Organization for Marriage:

85% of Americans Say Christian Photographer Has Right to Refuse Same-Sex Ceremony

We’ve heard a lot of stories recently about people of faith being forced to compromise their religious beliefs over same-sex marriage (bakery owners in Oregon, a florist in Washington state, innkeepers in Vermont…). But a new Rasmussen poll shows the vast majority of Americans are highly opposed to business owners being penalized or sued for running their business according to their own personal beliefs and values.

In fact, just 8% of the population answered “no” when asked the question “Suppose a Christian wedding photographer has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. If asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, should that wedding photographer have the right to say no?”

More Republicans (96 percent) than Democrats (77 percent) [Of course… but 77% is still huge.] agreed with the photographer’s right to deny a gay wedding request. Ninety-seven percent of evangelical Christians and 92 percent of weekly churchgoers said the same. But even 88 percent of atheists agreed that the photographer has the right to say no.

This comes four months after the latest development in the famous Willock v. Elane Photography case, where Vanessa Willock and her partner, Misti Collinsworth, sued Christian couple Elaine and Jon Huguenin for this very denial in 2006. In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the Huguenins guilty of sexual discrimination, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld this ruling last May.  [Do not let anyone fool you into accepting that the same-sex marriage thing is a civil rights issue.  This is not like the racial civil rights movement.]

The Alliance Defense Fund, which defended the Huguenins and their company, Elane Photography LLC, has taken their case to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The court heard ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence’s oral arguments on March 11. On Wednesday, an ADF spokesman told CP that “ADF attorneys are still waiting for the decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court.” -Christian Post

Business owners and employees should never be threatened with legal action for abiding by the tenets of their faith. If you or anyone you know has been threatened, harassed, or intimidated because you believe in the truth about marriage, we want to hear your story. You are not alone.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Priam1184 says:

    They are only just starting with the intimidation campaign Father. Those poll numbers will one day soon fall off the cliff just like the rest of our society has. We are weak and failing in the area of morality and we do not have what it takes to withstand the response when Barack Obama starts shooting missiles into Syria. A storm is coming.

  2. colospgs says:

    Also, there is a difference between refusing homosexuals service, and refusing an event such as this. If someone went to them and said “I’m homosexual and I want you to photograph my grandmother’s 90th birthday party” I’m sure they would have no problem photographing the birthday party. There is no discrimination here!

  3. Lisa Graas says:

    So, 85% of people basically agree with Rick Santorum. Maybe this is why he won eleven states in the primary despite even “conservative” pundits saying he’d never poll more than 3% in any state. By the way, he did so on a wing and a prayer. His entire Iowa campaign cost $35,000 compared to millions spent by Romney, et al.

  4. Lisa Graas says:

    P.S. Rick Santorum won Iowa, if you will recall.

  5. Norah says:

    “Do not let anyone fool you into accepting that the same-sex marriage thing is a civil rights issue. This is not like the racial civil rights movement.”

    Father, could you explain how the same-sex marriage thing is not like the racial civil rights movement?

  6. Charles E Flynn says:

    The only opinions that seem to matter in the long run are those of the members of the house that is often divided against itself by five to four.

  7. netokor says:

    Norah, your question was for Father, but I hope you don’t mind if I give you my opinion. It is not unnatural to be black or white or of any race. Therefore, it’s unjust to discriminate racially. The dignity of the person is denigrated. On the other hand, sexual complementarity between the same genders is impossible. Homosexual “marriage” is a false concept and therefore unjust to uphold. You should read this story about Bishop Paprocki’s courageous defense of marriage.


  8. Ben Kenobi says:

    “Father, could you explain how the same-sex marriage thing is not like the racial civil rights movement?”

    One makes a choice to commit sodomy. One does not make a choice to be black/white whatever.

    Also – no vendor would know that one of their clients was homosexual unless the client were to inform the vendor that they were. So this isn’t civil rights issue at all – if the gay person wanted service, all they would have to do is simply keep their personal life out of it.

    That being said — I firmly believe that freedom of association protects the rights of the business owner to do business with whomever they please. If a business owner doesn’t want to serve black people, white people, hispanic people, Catholics, protestants, whatever, that is their right. It is also our right to distribute information around said business that they refuse to do business with this group. So the freedom works both ways – the freedom not to serve a client matches the freedom of the client not to receive services.

    This is the problem with health insurance, the flip side of removing freedom of association. If we do not have the right to work with those whom we wish to work with, then we also do not have the right to decline services that we do not want.

  9. Mark says:

    As an Economics major, I’m predicting some economic hurt from this. In the future, I’m predicting that we will witness pro-homosexual activists pretending to want business from a certain proprietor as a means of testing their allegiance to the homosexual agenda. If a business accepts the customers (i.e. passed the test), the activists will say “Actually we’re going with someone else, but thanks” and walk away until they encounter the business that won’t work with them, in which case the activists will become violent, damage property, defame the business, and/or file lawsuits. This will catch on across the country state by state, business by business, forcing some stores to close.

  10. Raymond says:

    Would a homosexual couple really be so stupid as to want a sneering, grumbling and frowning photographer to take their (fake) wedding pictures simply because he was forced to do so by the courts? Wouldn’t he be more likely to botch the job? Common sense would dictate that they would pick a photographer (or baker, or event coordinator, etc.) who would actually be happy to serve their needs. But…then again…gay activists don’t have common sense.

  11. Bea says:

    IMHO, Norah, (I’m sure Fr. Z. has a better theological explanation) My opinion is just man-on-the-street view of things:

    Civil Rights, I see as a human issue to be decent and civil, just and fair to one another.
    To not be civil to another would be immoral and shows lack of love to a fellow human being.
    It is a relationship with humans and their rights to be treated decently.

    Same-sex Marriage is a moral/immoral issue. It is an issue on the spiritual, not just on a human level because it touches on our relationship with God, Himself. We should not be forced to co-operate in the celebration of an event that will be harmful to our fellow human being. They are choosing a sinful path and we should not be forced to accept it and help them celebrate it. Our refusal of such services MAY (and I say that tongue in check) help them (or others) see the seriousness of the evil path they are choosing.

    This may be a simplistic answer, but I’m just a simple person. Black is Black and White is White, no Grays, please.

    Say the Black, Do the Red. (No grays or pinks.) Ha Ha, Just had to add that for the heck of it.

  12. mike cliffson says:

    What you mention, deliberate targeting of known christian small businesses for media martyrdom , the “process as punishment”, and general lawfare, by homosexualists, has been suggested for at least one case of a Christian family B&B /guesthouse UK over the last year or so,over refusing to give two homosexuals a room with a double bed.Conspiracy is hard to prove, so the accusation in a particular case cannot be bandied about in the public forum with no qualifications.As far as I know, the Spanish “cause celebres” such as judicially refused adoption to a lesbian couple, have been whipped up and spun and made national once started, rather than being deliberately begun malice aforethought.
    To some extant, same difference. Public Pillorying by the media, censure by all the evermore encompassing organs of central and local government,action by political parties and union boycotts,all generally leading, even before any case comes to court, to loss of house and home and livelihood.You need customers , thousands of permissions of everysort, umpteen inspections evendaily to serve anyone and stay in business.
    The message is the same : “Don’t mess with us”
    You cousins have shown you can do a chickafilla day, as well as pray.

  13. jhayes says:

    On Wednesday, an ADF spokesman told CP that “ADF attorneys are still waiting for the decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court.” -Christian Post

    The Supreme Court has issued its decision:

    “we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”


    Reading the concurring opinion of Judge Bosson on pages 27 to 30 will give a non-technical overview of the reasoning.

  14. ray from mn says:

    You mean that there are no homosexual florists or bakers? You know that they would prefer to give the business to one of them. But this is part of a long running campaign to destroy the Catholic Church in particular, but all Christians who don’t accept their self-destructive practices.

    I can’t recommend more highly that you all read the LifeSiteNews.com article by Hilary White, “The Revolution of the Family: the Marxist Roots of Homosexualism.” http://is.gd/4b3aAs In 1971, a “Gay Liberation Front Manifesto” a “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation” was adopted by a “collective of anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”.

    This 40 year old document, printed in London, that traces its roots back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the fathers of Soviet Communism, in 1850 or so [http://is.gd/9rp90p]. But it was particularly inspired by the Black and Feminist civil rights movements in the United States.

  15. Fool_for_Christ says:

    This family run inn in the boondocks of northern Vermont had to pay out $30,000 plus legal fees and bad press for refusing to host a blatantly lesbian wedding reception:


  16. Cosmos says:


    Reiterating what others have said, one way to see the difference is this:

    – Black persons were denied legal rights and access to certain facilities and institutions because of their skin color.
    – With SSM, homosexuals are not denied legal rights or access to certain facilities and institutions because of their sexual proclivities. Remember, homosexuals are perfectly free to get married to a person of the opposite sex.
    – Rather, homosexuals are claiming that they are being discriminated against by society’s refusal to expand the protections and benefits of marriage to cover a new activity: relationships between persons of the same sex. They want “unequal” protection in a certain sense.
    – The take-away is this: discrimination based on a physical trait is different than society determining that some deliberately chosen activity does not deserve special government protections.

    This is very same reason that civil rights decisions based on religion (think of a case in which a persons tells his employer he will never work on Sunday) are so different than civil rights cases based on simple racial or sexual discrimination.

  17. Simon_GNR says:

    Firstly, I agree with Cosmos’s comments above.

    Secondly, I believe that no human individual or corporation should be forced by law to do business with anybody if doing so would conflict with the sincerely held religious beliefs of that individual business-person or the owners of that corporation. The law should provide for the protection of conscience.
    In any case, why would a couple want to try to force a photographer to photograph their same-sex “wedding” if the photographer didn’t want to do it, unless they simply wanted to make a point and to engage in vexatious litigation against the photographer? Doing so constitutes persecuting someone for their religious beliefs. Surely a couple want a photographer who is sympathetic to them and wants to create a good record of the couple’s happy day? A photographer who has been forced to provide a service against their wishes is hardly likely to do their best work.

  18. mrshopey says:

    Yes, and I think the number is higher than that!

    The only way I see to win, stop the nonsense, is to prove Christian private businesses are being targeted.

  19. Bender says:

    It really is amazing the exent to which those seeking to uphold social tradition always manage to shoot themselves in the foot in their messaging, so that they end up losing the argument before it hardly begins.

    Should someone be able to “refuse” homosexual clients? In other words, should people be able to discriminate? In other words, should people be allowed to be bigots?

    That is the import of framing the issue in that way, just as it is in framing the larger issue as “being against gay marriage” or “being opposed to the legalization of gay marriage,” rather than saying that we support marriage, real authentic marriage, as well as supporting those people who struggle with same-sex attractions to find and know love and truth. Then there is the whole problem of even calling it gay marriage, referring to it as if it is a reality, rather than adding in quotation marks or saying “so-called ‘same-sex marriage'” to underline that it is in fact a made-up fiction.

    It is not an issue of saying “no” to same-sex couples, as if same-sex couples have a right to anyone’s services. It is a matter of saying “yes” to whomever one chooses to, the right of working when one wants to and not working when one does not want to. It is a matter of not being compelled into involuntary servitude.

    Let’s take the opposition to “same-sex marriage” out of the question. In fact, let’s say they are big advocates for “same-sex marriage.” If asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, should that wedding photographer have the right to say no?

    Of course! Maybe he’s got something else scheduled. Maybe he just doesn’t feel like working that day. Maybe he’s an atheist and doesn’t like that they are getting married in some (Protestant) church and he wants nothing to do with that. In any event, he has no obligation to say “yes” to everyone who wants to hire him. And he is under no obligation to justify himself, to give reasons for why he will accept one job and decline another.

  20. jhayes says:

    he has no obligation to say “yes” to everyone who wants to hire him.

    Unless the “everyone” is a member of a “protected group” (and his business is a “public accomodation”). In that case, he can’t refuse to do what he would do for anyone else.

    21 states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations,

    New Mexico is one of those states. Its Supreme Court found that the photographers were a “public accomodation” and could not legally refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding.

  21. Sissy says:

    Bender said: “In any event, he has no obligation to say “yes” to everyone who wants to hire him.”

    According to the NM Supreme Court, citizens of that state do, indeed, have an obligation to work for anyone who demands it, even to the point of performing services which violate one’s 1st Amendment rights. According to a concurring opinion, that duty is “the price of citizenship”. So, in NM, you have no 13th Amendment right to not be forced into labor against your will, and you have no 1st Amendment right to practice your faith as your conscience requires. Therefore, under this holding, physicians and nurses have no right to refuse to perform abortions, either. That’s the “price of citizenship” in NM. Illegal aliens living in NM might want to rethink the whole amnesty business…maybe being a citizen isn’t such a great idea, after all.

  22. Raymond says:

    The NM Supreme Court has made a decision, now let them enforce it! Seriously, if Democrat politicians in the executive branch can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce or not, then Republican politicians should do likewise. Americans should stop treating judges as if they were gods!

  23. AA Cunningham says:

    This kangaroo court of judicial activists needs to be impeached and isn’t it telling, yet again, that the ACLU is nowhere to be found in defending the Huguenins. They should simply tell these judges to stuff their ruling in a dark place. As Andrew Jackson once said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

    It won’t be long before Soetoro, Holder and company are coming after the Church to force her to condone yet another manifestation of the intrinsically disordered cabal of society. We’ve all read about the heavy hand of Uncle Sam attempting to force Catholic Hospitals to engage in sinful behavior and Catholic adoption agencies have chosen to close rather than allow homosexuals to adopt children. Let there be no doubt that the storm troopers are amassing on the horizon and the Church is their target. All the more reason for the entire Church to stop accepting any money whatsoever from any government entity, regardless of whatever good it is being used for, lest that be used as leverage to force their immoral agenda upon the Bride of Christ.

  24. Peggy R says:

    I have been trying to think of ways that wedding vendors may cover themselves. First off, wedding vendors are already market segmented by religion and other cultural factors. A wedding is a personal thing. Yes, there are “secular” sites, florists, & bakers that are accessible to all faiths. But some religion-specific matters require specialized vendors. Should a Catholic sue an Orthodox Jewish caterer for not serving her wedding or for leaving pork off the menu? Thus, we are talking about an industry that already does not serve all comers and discriminates on the basis of religion–which could be a basis for refusing a homosexual nuptial. “What kind of faith are you in that you are having a same-sex nuptial?” “Sorry. We work with these faiths….”

    If an entity is not a “common carrier” or provider of last resort (ie, the only house on the block), it should have no obligation to serve all comers. (Here’s some econ for ya, Mark.)

    I think that vendors may want to have a list of sites, churches, synagogues etc where they can or will work. The problem is all this is economic contraction and limiting one’s business, not just to homosexuals. So, it’s not ideal. The idea I am shooting for is to have criteria other than homosexuality for a reason not to provide services for a homosexual nuptial. Another tact is to adopt the methods of the snob vendors who know how to get rid of undesirable customers, but are never sued. This will not be easy.

  25. StJude says:

    These businesses are targeted. We had one here in my city.. a openly Christian family owned company was asked to make cupcakes for a gay pride event. They said no.. and of course all the outrage/press/pearl clutching began.
    But.. their business doubled when the community stood beside them.

  26. jhayes says:

    Here is the New Mexico state law which decided the cae:

    The New Mexico State law says

    28-1-7. Unlawful discriminatory practice.
    It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for:

    F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person’s ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

  27. mike cliffson says:

    St Jude:
    ¡Viva your local community! Ad moltos años!
    ” Love your enemies and bless those who persecute you ” May I suggest that supporting the persecuted is not incompatible. Fr , please discern! [Can anyone interpret this for me?]

  28. Neil Addison says:

    The New Mexico Supreme Court has issued its judgment and the reasoning of one Judge in particular is extremely worrying. You can read the judgment and my, English Lawyer, views on it at religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk

  29. MarkG says:

    As a part time photographer myself, there are lots of people and/or events I don’t want to photograph. You get vibes on who will be difficult and/or high maintenance and a good part of success is figuring out these types of people really quick without wasting time.

    It’s really easy to get rid of them. You just quote them a price that’s ridiculously high. They will just move on. Some photographers will lie and say that date is booked. (I don’t like to lie) Some will just cancel at the last minute for sickness (which I don’t like to do either). Just look on craigslist gigs sections for photography gigs and you will find people who say the urgently need a photographer for a wedding as theirs just cancelled on short notice due to illness. These people almost always tend to be nut cases and you can figure out their photographer had enough of it and cut losses and ran.

    If a photographer doesn’t want to an event, it’s so easy to get out of it, it makes me wonder if there is more to the story.

    One other note, one local diocese requires photographers for events like weddings, first Communions, Confirmations, etc to pass a background investigation that takes weeks and costs money. I’ve heard people say a lot of couples have been left scrambling when they find this out and there isn’t time for the background check, although I haven’t found any specific cases of this personally.

  30. Susan the Short says:

    Interesting concept, but if an extremely high price was quoted, and the SSM crowd found out that others were charged much less, wouldn’t that be a basis for a law suit?

    It can’t be emphasized enough that Christian businesses are being targeted. The SSM crowd goes looking for a target, and will not be put off by the ruses you might employ to get rid of a high maintenance customer.

    Even Martin Luther King admitted he ‘shopped around’ when looking for a city to target with demonstrations. Birmingham didn’t just happen. It was targeted.

  31. Supertradmum says:

    Norah, Sin has no rights.

  32. Kathleen10 says:

    Some wisdom needs to be employed. I hope nobody is using opposition to same-sex “marriage” as the reason they cannot serve a customer. It may well be the reason, but, in most cases it need not be stated as such. Of course the SSM groups are targeting specific companies, not just falling over them then suing. Caution, hedging, and wisdom. I personally would have no trouble obfuscating if pressed in these dire times. Some things take precedence and scrupulosity over honesty makes no sense in these cases. First things first, people’s lives are at stake. So don’t state why, just don’t be available and don’t call the media and tell them why.
    In our state we had a recent Second Amendment Rally because Connecticut is a horribly liberal state who tramples our freedoms routinely, with abandon. At that rally was a southern gentleman whose name I can’t recall, but who really did make quite an impression. He told the crowd, standing under the windows of the Governor at the State House, to the crowd, cameras, police, etc., that he had already broken Connecticut’s new draconian gun laws, and brought “illegal” weapons into our state, and would do it again soon. He talked about his car, and that he dared the police to try to catch him, because they wouldn’t. This man, so clearly well-versed in challenging laws that break or overly restrict our American liberties, was crystal clear in how we are to act in the face of such tyranny. RESIST! We are called to RESIST and continue to do whatever it is the police state insists we do NOT do. He literally yelled that into the microphone. It is our DUTY to resist and continue on doing exactly that thing they try to stop us from doing.
    Radical, yes, especially for we Americans who are not ever for illegal activity of any kind. But, resistance is the thing, and it is what we are called to do in whatever way we can, as often as we can. It is good to remember there are more people who are with us in these things than against. Far more. But we are too weak and passive, and the opposition is loud, vocal, and aggressive. We need to learn how to handle that by resistance, obfuscation, maneuvering, and other strategies, all the while we are supporting the people and entities who will fight these battles head on for us.

  33. Gail F says:


    It is not a civil rights issue because gay people have the same civil rights as everyone else. Not allowing people of different races to marry was a civil rights issue because marriage has nothing to do with race — it is the union of a man and a woman. One had to restrict marriage to refuse to allow people of different races to marry. In the specific case of black and white marriages, for example, it was legal for black people to marry white people in most countries and in a lot of American states. The states that forbid it were infringing on their natural right to marry.

    There is no natural right for men to marry men or women to marry women. One has to redefine marriage to make it legally possible, and even then it is a fiction because women and men are not interchangeable.

  34. frjim4321 says:

    Irrelevant because such issues are decided by the courts and not by public opinion polls.

  35. Supertradmum says:

    frjim4321, yes sad, is it not, that America is no longer either a republic or a democracy.

  36. Midwest St. Michael says:

    “Irrelevant because such issues are decided by the courts and not by public opinion polls.”

    Yes, and if the courts would be – um, wrong, frjim? (as in Roe v. Wade)

    So, when prop 8 was voted for by the majority of the California public – then an activist judge decided to throw it out – this makes it right according to whom? The judicating judge and not the people?

    So, if the court decides upon an issue that goes against basic human rights (nevermind the right to religious freedom) that is the end of it?

    [As it may in this situation]: (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/22/washington-attorney-general-catholic-hospitals-must-provide-abortions/ )

    Ah! Sure. For the people by the people.


  37. jhayes says:

    As it may in this situation]: (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/22/washington-attorney-general-catholic-hospitals-must-provide-abortions/

    Lifesite has corrected that article and says: “CORRECTION: The first two paragraphs have been updated to make it clear this refers to publicly-funded hospitals”

    From a different article it appears that some Catholic healthcare organizations have been bidding to take over the operation of government-owned hospitals

  38. Peggy R says:

    Ah, frjim weighs in. So predictable.

    The public opinion is relevant in that it could push the NM legislature to revise the law on which the court ruling was based.

    The courts are 1/3 of govt. They are not our masters…but tell that to them of course.

  39. Sissy says:

    frjim4321: “Irrelevant because such issues are decided by the courts and not by public opinion polls.”

    Evil laws are “irrelevant” if a wicked judicial panel upholds it? The Dred Scott opinion was irrelevant? The Nuremberg Laws? I see. Whatever evil a judge says is legal should be ignored. Got it. Thanks for the great advice, Padre.

  40. Supertradmum says:

    People who address Fr. Jim, is it not possible to answer arguments one disagrees with without getting snarky? Rational discourse is based on mutual respect and the desire to lead a person to another point of view with facts, truth, reason. Being personal closes doors. Ad hominems and ad populums do not belong in discussions, and neither does sarcasm, which reveals bitterness in a soul.

  41. Midwest St. Michael says:

    Ah! Thank you kindly jhayes. :^)

    Appreciate the update.


  42. pannw says:

    frjim4321 says:
    25 August 2013 at 10:28 pm
    Irrelevant because such issues are decided by the courts and not by public opinion polls.

    And what about God? Is He irrelevant? What of His laws?

  43. Sonshine135 says:

    Homosexuality was once classified by the APA as an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I mention this, because it is important to understand why this has become such an issue. Who here mentions that they are a heterosexual when conducting business? I rest my case. It would be absurd to do so. Even in the case of the B&B owners, the gay couple did not have to mention that they were gay, but they chose to do it.

    Anyone using their sexuality as a minority status has a serious problem, because they are “obsessing” over their sexuality or they are “obsessed” that everyone else is not okay with their sexuality. The APA turned a blind eye to this truly important epidemic all in the guise of political and social expediency. This has now given rise to the inability to help these people, and it has given rise to these phony court cases that will ruin businesses- all of this based on the false premise that homosexuality is normal and natural.

    The worst part of this whole debacle is that it has caused good, otherwise faithful Catholics to assist in the ruining of souls under the guise of “loving” the person for who they are. This one issue has caused me to lose good friends as I logically explain to them they do not understand the teachings under the catechism and that these people are called to lead chaste lives who suffer from the deviancy. The response generally then becomes, “Don’t they deserve love and to be happy too?” At that point, the entire conversation brakes down, and I usually respond to that by asking them if they think all Priests are unhappy (due to their call to chastity)? The supporter doesn’t understand that they are supporting is sodomy, a sin, instead of providing good, factual guidance on this matter based on helping the person attain everlasting life (it would require them to take a now unpopular stance). They don’t understand that God is a God of justice as well as mercy.

    It is so very sad for the Defendants, and especially for the Plaintiffs in these cases who were not raised with a good foundation of teaching. Souls do indeed fall to hell like snowflakes in a snowstorm.

  44. Sissy says:

    Supertradmum, frjim4321, and others:

    I apologize for resorting to sarcasm to express my horror that a priest could suggest that God’s truth is irrelevant if a judge says so.

  45. robtbrown says:

    Supertradmum says:

    People who address Fr. Jim, is it not possible to answer arguments one disagrees with without getting snarky? Rational discourse is based on mutual respect and the desire to lead a person to another point of view with facts, truth, reason. Being personal closes doors. Ad hominems and ad populums do not belong in discussions, and neither does sarcasm, which reveals bitterness in a soul.

    Some months ago I made a comment to Father Jim that whenever I would write a refutation to his comment, he never would respond–but later would offer the same opinion. I added that I was open to being proven wrong, but according to human discourse no response implies agreement.

    Father Jim than all but said that he really didn’t believe in human discourse.

    In such a situation sarcasm, which is a type of irony, a rhetorical device , can be justified.

  46. Peggy R says:


    I apologize for expressing sarcasm and contempt for “frjim.” You are right that it is axiomatic that if we are focusing unreasonably on another person’s flaws there is something we need to look at in ourselves.

    I don’t know whether the person calling himself “frjim4321” is truly a Roman Catholic priest, but we know it is sadly plausible for a Roman Catholic priest to think and say as he does. So, it is possible that he is not deceiving. (You see I’ve started to find “frjim” a suspect character, frankly, and may be dehumanizing a real person. I don’t know.)

    I am disappointed and saddened that a Roman Catholic priest routinely publicly denies Catholic teaching. He appears not to respect the God and Faith he professes, nor does he seem to respect his temporal employer. [notice the “appears” and “seem” qualifiers.] Any other firm would fire a man for such public betrayal. God is merciful and the Church is not a business. I pray that “frjim” comes to embrace Truth.

  47. Cathy says:

    pannw, Amen! It seems our politicians and courts these days are all about judging God wrong. What disheartens me most in regards to frjim4321, is he not only makes the same judgment, he seems to disassociate himself from his Bride at the same time. In his mind, the Church is an institution somehow separate from himself, not a Bride to be upheld and defended. As regards the homosexual among his membership, if he regards his actions as without sin, he judges the Bride of Christ and Christ, Himself, to be in error. If he upholds the Bride of Christ as true, but refuses correction to the active homosexual, he has judged the man or woman before him as incapable of receiving God’s grace and mercy and has cut that man or woman off from Christ, as well as himself. This whole gay agenda thing and the whole murder your children within the womb thing and the whole hire a medical community to be judge and jury over who lives or dies thing is not about a nation being free or upholding equal rights, it is simply a nation whose elites have decided that equality with God is something to be grasped at. The ultimate manifestation is when the politician and the courts have the capacity to uphold or reject what God has defined, and declare God wrong. The only way to persecute Christ, at this time, is to persecute the photographer, the baker and the inn keeper, but, will eventually flow into the Church, Herself. Unfortunately, there are heretics within that will love to see this day.

  48. TimG says:

    I think part of the reason frjim tends to get under my skin on this blog is my initial assumption that Fr. Z’s “user screening process” had to some extent validated frjim is in fact a Roman Catholic priest. This in fact may not be true as any user apparently can select any user name within some realm of decorum.

    Anyway, the comments frjim posts (to me) tend to brush other folks’ comments aside with what appears to be contempt. That combination of being a priest + contempt has a particularly galling effect. On other blogs this is known as “trolling” and I cannot help but think that frjim may enjoy doing this, perhaps he can engage in polite discourse in the future to avoid being labeled as such.

  49. TimG says:

    Oh and by the way, as Peggy R and others have so correctly stated, the public repudiation of clear Catholic Church teaching also adds to the effect.

  50. Sissy says:

    “I cannot help but think that frjim may enjoy doing this, perhaps he can engage in polite discourse in the future to avoid being labeled as such.”

    My past experience with the commenter calling himself frjim4321 is the same as robtbrown. I have frequently tried to educate him on subjects about which he is in error, eg, legal issues. He never acknowledges the correction nor do his subsequent comments give any evidence that he has learned anything from exchanges here. He simply continues to misstate facts and law, mantra-like. I used to think he was merely ignorant, but I now believe he is deliberately trying to mislead readers. If he really is a Catholic priest, my heart breaks for those sheep in his care. To the degree that I have ever used a sarcastic tone in my responses to his comments, it does not reflect an attempt at an ad hominem attack, much less any bitterness in my soul. I only address his comments at all out of a desire to underscore just how anti-Catholic and illogical his views are.

  51. Supertradmum says:

    robtbrown, in apologetics, which is discussion to save souls, sarcasm is never an option, as it is not in formal debate, either. Definition of , as a reminder..sarcasm is…

    1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
    2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule

    I not only have taught formal debate and argument, but have won one contest at a state level judged by a consortium of lawyers involving this skills and have led students to win contests. We need to transcend language and use the wonderful truths of the Catholic Church to win arguments, not cuts or ridicule. Irony is not the same as ridicule, which is sarcasm.

    I do not care if frjim4321 is a priest, or a minister or a lay person. In argument, one attempts to help the other side see a point, not shut down conversation. The truth is the same for all people, regardless of rank or status.

  52. Midwest St. Michael says:

    Great comments, Sissy. :^)

    You say: “He simply continues to misstate facts and law, mantra-like.”

    Isn’t this what liberals do – in the political realm, I mean?

    Would not doing this in the realm of faith and morals reveal one to be a unabashed dissenter?


  53. Sissy says:

    Midwest St. Michael said: “Would not doing this in the realm of faith and morals reveal one to be a unabashed dissenter?”

    That is my opinion, as well. Leftism is inherently irrational; the committed leftist is only concerned with propaganda, never truth. That is why I think frjim4321’s comments should not go unchallenged, particularly, because he uses the claim that he is a priest to add weight to his false statements.

  54. Johnno says:


    Such issues are decided by God and His Church, not the courts not your favorite president, and certainly not by public opinion polls either. These are all irrelevant when God and the reality of His Creation have spoken, the matter is closed.

  55. robtbrown says:


    1. This is not a formal debate, which has a judge. Further, sarcasm doesn’t need to be ad hominem–the irony can be about what someone said not what someone is.

    2. I define Apologetics objectively rather than with your subjective approach. Not an attempt to win souls (which all discourse is, in so far as it tends toward knowing what is true), it is an attempt to show that there is no contradiction between the Christian mysteries and natural reason.

    3. How about this for sarcasm?

    Caiaphas: It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish . . . He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,

Comments are closed.