Government will ruin you if you don’t help celebrate same-sex “marriage”

The Left and the openly immoral use the tactics of thugs to intimidate others to their will.

Here is something from Gateway Pundit.

Washington Grandmother Set to Lose Home & Life’s Savings for Not Selling Flowers to Couple for Gay Wedding

Seventy year-old Barronelle Stutzman may lose her home and life’s saving for not selling flowers to couple for their gay wedding. Stutzman did refer the couple to a different shop but that was not enough.  [It never is.  Scratch a liberal or one of these immorality activists and you will find a fascist underneath.]

The court ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally. [Because their goal is not just to attain their goals but to hurt everyone who disagrees so bad that no one will stand against their agenda.  Sounds like another group active in a certain part of the world.]

The Alliance Defending Freedom reported:

A state judge ruled Wednesday that Washington floral artist and grandmother Barronelle Stutzman must provide full support for wedding ceremonies that are contrary to her faith – a decision at odds with the views of most Americans according to a newAssociated Press-GfK poll. The court claims that Stutzman’s referral of a long-time customer to another business for floral design and support for a same-sex ceremony violated Washington law.

The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally. That means the 70-year-old grandmother may not only lose her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.

“The message of these rulings is unmistakable: the government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued before the court in December. “The two men had no problem getting the flowers they wanted. They received several offers for free flowers, and the marketplace gives them plenty of options. Laws that are supposed to prohibit discrimination might sound good, but the government has begun to use these laws to hurt people – to force them to conform and to silence and punish them if they don’t violate their religious beliefs on marriage.

That’s right.  If someone doesn’t agree with your position or agenda, sue him until he lives in a box under a bridge, crush him, bring him down, threaten him with more law suits, destroy his livelihood so that he can’t even buy groceries, take away his free-speech by bullying him into silence … just because you don’t like him.

Why not just put him in a camp?

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Pò sì jiù, Religious Liberty, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Bob B. says:

    “Why not just put him in a camp?”
    With our government so intent in becoming friends with China, it seems that something like this might be the next logical step.
    Keeping the whereabouts of an underground bishop secret for many years (apparently until he died), police taking “suspects” away and holding them without charge (supposedly for only up to a year), periodic attempts to squash all forms of religion, incarcerating people into psychiatric hospitals (so they can become good little robots) and the Chinese gulags (called laogais) to help “reeducate” people who think differently than the state wants.
    If nothing else, the government can introduce poor houses. Future in the making?

  2. The Masked Chicken says:

    This whole problem stems from an inconsistency within the Constitution, its amendments, and their interpretations. There is conflict possible between Freedom of Religion and Equal Protection. The only way to avoid this is if everyone is of the same religion and practices that religion to the same degree. This needs to be addressed legislatively, but I doubt many legislators really care. This type of coding in a computer program would lead to a logical fault allowing hackers malicious entry to the computer. I submit that that is EXACTLY analogous to what the gay attivists are: hackers of society.

    The Chicken

  3. Nicholas says:

    It doesn’t take much to be thrown in a camp. My stepfather’s family was thrown into Dachau when Romania switched sides to the Allies in WWII. All they were guilty of was being diplomats from Romania in Berlin. My stepfather’s mom and grandma are still alive.

  4. Perhaps we should consider petitioning our elected representatives to consider a law that would penalize states of the Union whose courts trample the liberties of the people by ejecting those states from the Union–think of it as involuntary secession imposed from without.
    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  5. Mandy P. says:

    The ironic thing about all this is that the very folks cheering this kind of ruination on feel completely different when it comes to anyone forcing *them* to do something they don’t want to. And I don’t even mean something they have strong beliefs about, just things they don’t like doing.

    I am one of several mods in a political debate Facebook group (from which I am fasting this Lent and feel much less annoyed and insane even with only 24-hours absence) and I’m one of maybe three or four relatively conservative folks out of several hundred group participants. I’m one of maybe two who aren’t dedicated atheists. Anyway, they just had this very long, whining thread about how terribly fascist business dress codes are. Apparently, it is oppressive to expect someone to come into work not looking like they rolled out of a dumpster. Quite a few of these folks were convinced their civil rights were being violated by their employer’s bans on pajamas and sweat pants at work.

    But every single one of these folks are absolutely thrilled when they see someone of faith being ruined personally for not catering to homosexual demands. It’s mind boggling.

  6. St Donatus says:

    Hey, as long as it isn’t me, who cares, right?

    The problem isn’t the Judge or the Gay rights people, it is us. Where are the marches against this kind of thing? where are the crowds outside the court protesting? When Father Z references the Nazis, [I didn’t reference “the Nazis”, though I could have.] I agree and we are just like the US was then, letting them kill the Catholic Priests, the Polish, the Jews until it is too late. What does it take to wake us up? Like the Nazis, if they had been resisted early, they wouldn’t have become so powerful. It is still early, they may be strong, but they can’t resist most people now. But in a few years their media comrades will have brainwashed most of the rest of Americans (and Catholics) and it will be too late. The few of us left to resist will be called ‘terrorists’ and locked up.

  7. Gratias says:

    This is soon coming to a Catholic Parish near you. The homosexual lobby is not satisfied with the damage they have already inflicted. And Egalitarianism in the courts is how they will get us and the tax-exempt status of the Church.

  8. JTH says:

    Way of the future. But, yes, why aren’t we taking to the streets and demanding this injustice be corrected? We’re being ruled by a mob which comprises 20% of the population and we permit it.

  9. Barto of the Cross says:

    I see a PRACTICAL solution for florists, cake makers, photographers, etc., who don’t want to provide services to homosexuals who are getting married under civil law.

    They could put symbols and representations of traditional religion on their signs, business card, brochures and contracts.

    I know a barber who has a huge picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in his window. He just does it because he wants everyone to become Catholic. It doesn’t hurt his business at all. His neighborhood has many Muslims, and they flock to his barber shop (he offers $9 haircuts).

    I think a florist or cake maker who put up images of Jesus, or the Virgin Mary, or Bible quotations, would cause homosexuals to voluntarily seek and find an alternative vendor.

    Oh, the vendor could also place with every order a brochure titled something like “God’s Plan for Marriage: One Man and One Woman.”

    There, problem solved! Traditional religious people get to retain their religious liberty, and homosexual people get to a find a vendor who shares their moral views or who doesn’t mind providing wedding services to homosexuals.

    To me this approach seems like the only answer. We can’t go back to the world of “Irish Need Not Apply” and “Whites Only” and “No Jews.” Homosexuals are human beings and need to buy stuff.

  10. govmatt says:

    Hyperbole is dangerous, especially when the truth of a matter is insidious. I’ll caution folks, if you jump too far in your analysis, people (the same people who you will eventually want to convince to be on your side) will not listen to you.

    That being said, the owner of the shop will likely not be “ruined” by this episode. She can be fined several thousand dollars (per occurrence). She will also be made to pay attorneys’ fees. These can be quite a lot, but seeing the high-profile nature of the case, I suspect that there will be a fund set up to assuage the cost (just imagine the folks defending her, “Welp, sorry Granny, ya lost, overboard with ya!”).

    Now, the case is likely to be appealed. However, the judge’s decision was not out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Here’s that insidious part I mentioned at the start: you can have your religious beliefs, but taking an action on them can open you up to penalties. Before you jump the gun and say that’s ridiculous, think of a few counter-examples (e.g. I want to kill dogs at midnight during a full moon in the middle of the street, I want to have 12 wives, I drive a bus but refuse to pick up women, etc.). So, advocates of this interpretation of the 1st Amendment see it fitting squarely with the law: “your right to swing your fist ends at my face.”

    Thus, the real issue here is not “religious liberty” it’s the definition of what is, for lack of a better term “going too far” with your religious practice. Ostensibly, the Judge has interpreted the law to be that the florist has illegally expressed her religion by impeding legal commerce. This isn’t a huge departure in the way the laws have been interpreted, so don’t think that this is the final straw before priests are arrested for not performing gay marriages. However, is is a continuation of the issue of re-defining certain terms.

  11. Supertradmum says:

    Homeless people were made “criminals” in August last year in South Carolina, rounded up and put into “camps”. This was in the local newspapers which I saw. No one made a public noise.

    I asked my army friends what this was all about and they told me it was a “test case” to see how Americans would respond to vulnerable groups being picked up and put away. No one objected publicly.

    The same thing will happen when the Supreme Court passes ssm. Good priests will say no, be fined, dioceses will go broke paying fines, and churches will close. Some priests and lay people will end up in jail. This all happened before in England, Wales, Ireland, Russia and China when laws were passed which Catholics could not follow.

    The time is past for voting against this, as there is virtually no difference in the stand against ssm between the Dems and GOP. The culture wars are being lost quickly. Sadly, some bad bishops and bad priests will go along with the new laws, and the laity will also be split. This ssm ruling will separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls, just as Humanae Vitae did and does.

    I have written many posts on different blogs concerning how an irregular marriage ruined the Church in England and this type of lust in those who do not uphold the Church’s long teaching on the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman will win the day again.

    God is allowing evil to be unleashed for these grave sins of abortion and sodomy-sins which the Bible and even the CCC are two of the four crying out to God for vengeance.

    Some of our enemies will be or already are, members of our parishes and our own families. It has all happened before…

  12. Theodore says:

    They may end up trying to get blood out of a turnip. If she files for bankruptcy Washington state has pretty generous exemptions.

  13. LarryW2LJ says:

    I remember when the Gay Rights movement became vocal back in the 80’s. Remember the line, “We just want to be accepted!”

    Yeah, right.

  14. The persecution here in America will resemble less that of Diocletian and more that of the recusancy laws of England – conform or be fined into oblivion.

  15. Uxixu says:

    Only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a tiny deviant minority over the majority.

  16. The Masked Chicken says:

    “Ostensibly, the Judge has interpreted the law to be that the florist has illegally expressed her religion by impeding legal commerce.”

    This is the flaw of man-made laws. The judge is, of course, behaving irrationally, since love of God is a higher responsibility than love of money. He won’t see that, but then, again, it is obvious by this ruling that he does not have his priorities straight. Law of man be damned if it contravenes God’s law. Too many judges rule as if their little law book were set in stone. Only one set of laws were ever set in stone and the ones to which he seems to appeal aren’t they.

    This lady is under no moral obligation to give this judge the time of day since he is not authorized to rule in this fashion, since all authority comes, ultimately, from God and God cannot approve of a ruling, nor authorize one, which contradicts His own rulings. The Principle of non-Contradiction is lost on some people. One can argue this from a secular point of view all one wants, but, in reality, the judge will have to argue his verdict before a Higher Court, before too long.

    The Chicken

  17. ck says:

    White males have found new ways to bully the religious, minorities, and old people.

  18. Adam Welp says:

    There has to come a time when the courts start throwing out these types of BS cases. She made a reasonable accommodation by referring them to another shop. Doctors and Pharmacists are allowed conscience protection when it comes to medical procedures and practices that violate their religious beliefs. Why then cannot we apply them also to the business realm?

  19. Vincent says:

    Just today, I’ve been watching (on Facebook) the impotent rage of liberals about the pro-life society that has been ratified on my former University campus. Of course, they’re mostly members of the “LGBetc” and “Feminist” groups; but it brings home how accurate your comment is, Father.

    Show a man who wants everything to be liberal and amazing, a pro-life society, and suddenly he exclaims “those anti-woman bigots”. Right. They’re not even contemptuous of people who don’t hold the same opinions, they just hate them. I feel it’s like looking at how demons view humans; with utter hatred.

    Scratch a liberal, find a fascist: I fear that there may be a time, not too far from now, that we will face the noose or the torch or the block for being ‘different’.

    Deliver us, O Lord.

  20. Dennis Martin says:

    Mattgov, your standard is that of the old Soviet Union: you may have your beliefs as long as you do not act on them. That is not religious liberty as understood by St. John Paul II, who knew first-hand whereof he was writing.

    And I’m not all that reassured by your assurance that the poor women will end up okay because of the charity of those who contribute to a legal defense fund that will “probably” be set up for her.

    Ask Thomas More (in Robert Bolt’s telling of the tale): Henry VIII needed More’s positive endorsement. More’s silence was insufficient because it was interpreted as opposition. This woman tried silence–just leave me alone, plenty of others will take care of your floral needs. But no, unless she positively celebrates their “wedding” she has injured them.

    The middle does not exist. Guilty consciences and narcissism combine to demand complete and total endorsement.

    Every knee must bend to the same-sex Dogma of Normality. The first victims, like this woman, must be made examples of, in order to get as many as possible to bend the knee out of their own initiative. Then the few recalcitrants can more readily be rounded up for the trip to the camps, errr, I mean, the Sensitivity Training Centers.

  21. Mary Jane says:

    I’d like to respond to something Barto said: “We can’t go back to the world of “Irish Need Not Apply” and “Whites Only” and “No Jews.” Homosexuals are human beings and need to buy stuff.”

    I may be picking a nit, as I don’t think … think … this was the point of your comment, but those two things you mention are extremely different. Not serving someone merely because they are of a different skin color or religion than you is one thing. Not serving someone because they are asking you to in a way *participate* in their sinful act by the services you provide is entirely different, and that’s the topic here. Homosexuals are human beings who need to buy stuff sure (clothes, food, same as you and me) but they do not need to buy cakes/flowers/whatever for their wedding. Two totally different things.

    It’s like a business putting up a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” sign. “No man no woman – no cake/flowers/etc”. Privately owned businesses still do have a right to refuse service. The customer is not always right.

  22. JesusFreak84 says:

    “Tolerance for me, not for thee!” >.>

  23. eulogos says:

    Barto, doing that would just make these business a special target for lawsuit minded homosexuals. They are NOT looking for a business which shares their views. They already know which those businesses are. They are looking for businesses to sue, to punish people for daring to think that what they will be celebrating is not really marriage.
    I am afraid there is a list of occupations Catholics cannot take up. It includes florist, baker, and wedding photographer. I am afraid it also includes physician, since it is difficult to get through the OB/GYN rotation without performing an abortion, and pretty much impossible without fitting IUDS and prescribing oral contraceptives. I am thinking it likely also includes nurse midwife as I don’t think one would be allowed to opt out of learning to insert IUDS, but I am not certain on that one. Pharmacists have issues with having to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill and contraceptive pills.
    A truly Catholic medical school would be a really good idea. A Catholic owned pharmacy chain maybe.
    But I don’t know what we can do for the florists, bakers, and photographers.
    Susan Peterson

  24. AvantiBev says:

    I work for attorneys who specialize in family law. Many family lawyers are salivating at the prospect of more clients; per Neal Sedaka’s song breaking up may be hard to do but NOT hard for law firms to BILL.

    I have warned gay friends that we heterosexuals have so debased marriage’s sacredness and permanency they may be in for a nasty surprise and regret what they have wished for. Our firm has already had calls from unhappy “married” lesbians and homosexuals who have whined that “he took the car” or the cat, or the summer cottage, or the paintings, etc.

    I can only regret that Catholics stayed mum when the no-fault divorce ball got rolling in the 1960’s and 70’s. What you make easy, you cheapen.

  25. chantgirl says:

    Barto- The homosexual lobby is not content to find vendors who share their beliefs.

    The homosexual lobby will not stop until everyone is forced to applaud deviant sexual behavior or become pariahs.

  26. Ben Kenobi says:

    @Barto of the Cross.

    “They are persons who need to buy stuff”

    Sure. But not from me. If you’re going to sue Christians into oblivion for not serving you then I don’t want to do business with you. Simple as that. Shortest and sweetest way to end this is to simply decline to work with them. If they thought that they’d be singled out every time they entered a store, bought groceries, etc, it would stop pretty quickly.

    Business is a two way street. If I’m taking a chance on a lawsuit simply by letting you into my establishment, then no, I’m not going to let you in.

  27. Mandy P. says:


    No. Just, no. This has nothing to do with “Homosexuals need not apply” style refusal of service. Prohibitions against African Americans or Irish, etc, were blanket refusal of service, ie they would not be served, period, and all on the basis of their appearance, ethnicity, etc. NONE of the people currently being sued, fined, and threatened with jail have done that. What they *have* done is refuse to service a specific type of *occasion*. There is a HUGE difference between saying, “I’m sorry, sir, but I cannot provide flowers for your gay wedding,” and “No, sir, I won’t serve you because you like men.”

    All of these businesses have said, enthusiastically, that they are more than happy to sell these couples other products and services, but that serving at a homosexual wedding (and let’s be clear, photographers, bakers, and floral designers don’t just throw something together and dump it there, most of them actually have to physically attend the event in some capacity and physically labor there to complete their work) violates their religious conscience. They have happily recommended others in town that are more amenable to working under those conditions, and many of them had already had the couple as previous clients for other, non-wedding types of services. It is not discrimination based upon the orientation of the couple. It is a religious objection to an event. That’s the difference.

    There absolutely must be space found within jurisprudence for this kind of objection. Frankly, it should already be there, but it is a matter of political correctness and political expediency that has motivated the bench thus far to ignore this very clear distinction between blanket denial of service and a refusal to serve one type of event. I highly doubt these same judges would find against someone who refused to cater to an event expressly dedicated to the glorification of the “values” and ideals of some persons or groups that society happens to find more repugnant nowadays.

  28. iamlucky13 says:

    “The ironic thing about all this is that the very folks cheering this kind of ruination on feel completely different when it comes to anyone forcing *them* to do something they don’t want to.”

    Like pay for contraception. Remember, if you and I don’t buy somebody else’s birth control pills for them, we’re violating their health care rights.

    Also, on the website of the main local paper, commenters are hysterical with joy over this ruling. People who elsewhere argue society has a duty to care for the homeless and the needy are ecstatic at the opportunity to destroy this woman’s life for daring to disagree with them about homosexuality.

    “I think a florist or cake maker who put up images of Jesus, or the Virgin Mary, or Bible quotations, would cause homosexuals to voluntarily seek and find an alternative vendor. “

    You’re joking right?

    They’ll do the opposite, especially now with this precedent set. They’ll seek out those businesses specifically for the purpose of forcing them to repent of their beliefs or be punished.

  29. Supertradmum says:

    In case anyone is interested, I wrote a series last year on February 24, 303, between 15-23 posts….Diocletian’s reign and comparisons.

  30. Kathleen10 says:

    This is all happening at breakneck speed in the U.S. because our current resident of the White House has made it clear he supports forcing Americans to do what they do not want to do, and he does this on many fronts. In fact one of the worst things they can do is let him know about what they do not want. He has total lack of interest in what Americans want as long as his core supporters enjoy his antics, and they do. His complete departure from supporting our Constitution which gives us our rights is a first, as far as I know. Presidents are sworn to uphold the laws of our land, but this is not what our current resident has done. This is why homosexualists are emboldened and activist judges are taking it on themselves to toss out millions of legitimate votes by Americans and just rewrite or reinterpret law that was never intended. Those in control have had six years of green lights to upend America in every possible way, and they have done it. The people who are suing and so on are just demonstrating they have no real heart and no respect for religious freedom at all.
    They have their day. If an actual conservative Republican gets into the White House in 2016, there will be changes. There are some good candidates who definitely have respect for the will of the people, religious freedom, and will give no support for the kinds of legal hijinks we are suffering now. If the GOP heads don’t ruin this by throwing a RINO at us, we can stem this tide. If we lose in 2016, there may be no going back to the country we knew. We can’t lose this one.

  31. Kathleen10 says:

    govmatt, I don’t think what is happening to this lady is unlikely to hurt her. At 70 years old, this is surely a very stressful event, and who knows what kind of toll the anxiety and pressure may cause. It won’t matter if sometime down the road money is raised, this is personally devastating. They cannot restore her health if it is lost over this.
    America has a long history of respecting religious conscience, not just religious freedom. The interpretation of laws in the U.S. has always, always, bent in the direction of allowing people to have FREEDOM, and the departure from that is significant. Obamacare gives us, for the first time EVER, a “fine” if you do not purchase the Obamacare product, a huge departure in terms of freedom, for Americans. Never were we “fined” for not purchasing something.
    The HHS mandates have taken away our freedom in that Catholic institutions have to prove how “religious” they are or face fines and penalties. This is a radical departure for our nation, and only has come about because of who is in the White House for the time being. There are other examples of how tyranny has set up in our nation, but those are two, and they are egregious.

  32. Legisperitus says:

    The issue is the sacrilege. I’m sure none of these people would mind selling homosexuals a cake or some flowers for a birthday party. But simulating a Sacrament is an act of sacrilege in which a Christian must not cooperate.

    And it’s a double sacrilege because it’s not merely simulating a Sacrament: it’s using the sacred name of Holy Matrimony to apply to an unspeakably sinful union that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. There is no middle ground here. And this is what they are demanding, and they know it.

  33. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    This nonsense will end once the mechanism of the state is turned against these people.

    Find freelancers and contractors who happen to be atheists, feminists, and liberal gays or businesses owned by them. Approach them for projects such as helping with your Church’s pro-life materials, etc. that they will likely refuse. Once they do, sue them for discrimination and file charges with different state agencies.

  34. jflare says:

    “White males have found new ways to bully the religious, minorities, and old people.”

    ck, that’s pretty close to being a baldly racist and sexist statement.
    It might be worth noticing that, out of all the Catholic people I’ve ever met, the extreme majority have been white, and the ratio of men to women has likely been something like 60/40. Out of the general run of people I’ve met and worked it, even in the military, people approving of this sort of bullying doesn’t even come close to a majority.

    If we might agree that most gay rights activists are white and male, we should realize that such a circumstance makes perfect sense given the racial and gender breakdown of the US. While non-white groups are growing in proportion, the fact remains that white people still constitute something like 55% of the population.

    We have plenty enough of a sexual identity problem with this concern. Let’s not make it worse by throwing racial and sex/gender problems into the mix.

  35. jflare says:

    “Here’s that insidious part I mentioned at the start: you can have your religious beliefs, but taking an action on them can open you up to penalties. …”

    govmatt, the general thrust of your argument basically declares that secular values shall be final marker by which we shall judge all concerns in society. I understand that the Courts may insist on such a view and many “cultural elites” will cheer them on. I also understand though that We, the People, of these United States, have never agreed to adjudicate matters by secular standards, nor do We intend doing so anytime soon. Don’t forget that most of us, whatever our assertions may be, still live our lives according to Judeo-Christian philosophical ideals.

    We have every cause, as a nation, to continue doing so.

    We have no obligation to hold ourselves to account to secular bullying.

  36. jflare says:

    “Why not just put him in a camp?”

    For the moment, I think that’d be too obvious. I don’t think the people who’re pushing this quite have the nerve to be that honest with themselves regarding their intentions.

  37. Tim says:

    Would the florist have refused flowers for a second marriage of a man and woman if they already had a living spouse? I doubt it. In my view it is a case of unjustified discrimination against homosexuals which is condemned in the CCC. Fifty years ago that sort of attitude would be manifested by refusing to serve black people. [No. You have fallen into a trap. This isn’t a civil rights issue.]

  38. Gretchen says:

    I wonder if a scenario like this would make any sense:

    Lesbian couple enter florist shop and tell shopkeeper they want to buy flowers for their “wedding.” Shopkeeper says, “I am happy to take your money and sell you as many flowers as you want. By the way, I can’t disagree more with your lifestyle. My highest hope and prayer for you both is that you leave the homosexual lifestyle and find suitable men to marry. Now, how many lilies did you want?”

    Naturally, even objecting verbally will soon become verboten…

  39. chantgirl says:

    Tim- No one has a right to an impossibility. No man has the “right” to become a mother. This would be a civil rights’ issue if the baker had refused to sell the man a box of cookies off of her shelf because he was gay. What she did was refuse to take a special order. Does a Christian photographer have to take a contract for a boudoir shoot for two gay men? Does a videographer have to take the contract for a porn shoot, or a propaganda film for the KKK? Does a liberal design firm have to take a contract to produce ads for the RNC? Does a seamstress have to take the order for a bondage/restraint outfit? Are artists free to take on the projects they want to do, or are they slaves?

  40. Barto of the Cross says:

    What about Jews?

    Some Christians (even some Catholics) still hold the old view that Judaism is an unholy, ungodly, illegitimate religion.

    Should those sort of Christians have a legal right to refuse to provide flowers or a cake or photography to a wedding of Jews that will involve prayers and rituals of Judaism?

    To me, once you have a business that is open to the public, you must serve whoever comes in, as long as they are law-abiding, non-violent, polite, respectful, and so on.

    Jewish Kosher restaurants open to the public are NOT required by law to sell non-Kosher foods, but they ARE required by law to sell to Gentiles who enter their restaurants.

    A Christian cake maker could offer for sale only cakes with Christian symbols on them, and no one could force him to bake a cake without those symbols. But if a cake maker sells “secular” non-religious cakes, then he must sell them to anyone: homosexual, Jewish, black, Mexican, Muslim, Catholic, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon.

    That’s the American way. That’s what the Founding Father’s intended. That’s what the U.S. Constitution is all about. We simply can’t have a Balkanized economy–if we do, we’ll end up like the Balkans, with violence on par with what we saw in Bosnia in the early 1990s.

    Those who are against civil marriage for homosexuals completely retain the right to evangelize, door-to-door even, to convert people to traditional Christianity. Such converts will voluntarily choose to stay out of homosexual relationships. And if the percentage of the citizens converted to traditional Christianity gets high enough, all the laws allowing civil marriage for homosexuals will be repealed.

    That’s the American way. We don’t what anything like Sharia law here. This seems like a no-brainer.

  41. chantgirl says:

    Barto- If the Homosexual lobby has its way, we’re going to get something every bit as vicious as sharia in the US. Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down in the US, priests in Canada have been fined and brought before judges for preaching about homosexuality, bed and breakfasts have been fined/closed, bakers and photographers have been sued. You are willing to tolerate homosexual activity, but the homosexual lobby is not willing to tolerate your beliefs.

    “But if a cake maker sells ‘secular’ non-religious cakes, then he must sell them to anyone..”
    -I think the baker in question would argue that a wedding cake is inherently religious to her.

    People are missing a HUGE distinction between refusing to sell a standard product on the shelf and refusing to go out of the way to make a special product which would violate the artist’ beliefs. I ask again, does an artist have to accept a contract for any special order just because someone requests it?

  42. Imrahil says:

    Dear Tim,

    1. If anything, your argument is for not serving the remarriers either, rather than for serving the gays.

    2. one of the first principles for any functioning system of law is that there is no right to equality in the treatment of injustices – specially not by private actions.

    3. There is, in fact, a mountain of difference between an illicit or also adulterous second union on the one hand side and the marriage-mockery called a same-sex union on the other.

    That said, you’re right in so far is that people hitherto have abused the idea of natural law by taking something for natural law which wasn’t, and we’re now facing the problems resulting therefrom when dealing with something which, now, is actually natural law.

  43. Imrahil says:

    Dear Barto of the Cross,

    That’s the American way.

    And I had always thought that the specifically American idea was freedom of conscience (which naturally may lead to Balkanization).

    And I had always thought that cujus-regio-ejus-religio was the specifically European thing (leastways as last resort when compromises fail and as far as and as long as truth does not prevail against falsehood).

    Ah yes. Seems not to be the case.

  44. Barto of the Cross says:

    Chantgirl wrote: “priests in Canada have been fined and brought before judges for preaching about homosexuality.”

    In the U.S., the First and Second Amendments protects us from that sort of totalitarianism.

    We are one heavily armed citizenry. If any government in the U.S. tried to prevent people from preaching and teaching against homosexual sex, citizens will exercise their “right to bear arms,” and there’d be a real fighting shooting civil war.

    Consequently, no government in the U.S. is going to prevent the clergy or members of any religion from preaching or teaching what the Bible says.

    But if you open a secular restaurant, bakery, or whatever to the public, you must sell to everyone: Jews, homosexuals, blacks, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mexicans, Muslims, Scientologists, atheists, etc.

    That’s the American Way.

    The Knights of Columbus chapters regularly have events open only to Knights. At these events they sell beer and barbecue. Should a non-Knight arrive at the event, they have a right to refuse to sell beer and barbecue to the non-Knight because it is not a public event or a public business.

  45. LarryW2LJ says:

    “They basically want to strip me [of my rights] so it’s an example to other people to be quiet.” — 70-year-old Flower Shop Owner Barronelle Stutzman (credit: The Heritage Foundation)

    Scary, isn’t it?

  46. Barto of the Cross says:

    1. A Catholic bookstore has a legal right to refuse to stock and sell anti-Catholic books.
    2. But should a Catholic bookstore have a legal right to refuse to sell its merchandise to homosexuals?
    3. Suppose a civilly-married homosexual couple came into a Catholic bookstore to buy a crucifix for their new home. Would it be right for the store clerk to say, “Oh, I’m sorry, are you two a couple? Well, then, I can’t allow you two to buy that crucifix, since this is a Catholic bookstore and as Catholics we don’t approve of sexual relationships between members of the same gender.”

  47. Mary Jane says:

    Barto said, “To me, once you have a business that is open to the public, you must serve whoever comes in, as long as they are law-abiding, non-violent, polite, respectful, and so on.”

    This is not correct. The customer is not always right, and the customer does not always have a right to be in one’s store or buy one’s merchandise. Remember no shirt, no shoes, no service? A privately owned business is allowed to refuse service for various reasons. I am the chief operating officer at a privately owned business, and there are customers that I have recommended we not do business with. This is certainly allowed.

    Barto, a homosexual couple buying a crucifix is completely different than a homosexual couple buying a wedding cake or wedding flowers. Can you not see the difference? There is nothing wrong with hanging a crucifix on a wall, wherever it may be hung. There is something very wrong about a homosexual wedding.

  48. Supertradmum says:

    Barto of the Cross. I disagree strongly. Priest will be punished for being real priests. We shall be bereft of the sacraments and churches in our areas.

    The strain of anti-Catholicism in this country still exists, as it has from the very beginnings of this nation.

    Such persecution has all happened before. I have Protestant friends, good Americans, who also think ministers who stand up against ssm will be punished.

  49. pannw says:

    Barto of the Cross, so far as I have read, none of the people involved in disputes with Homofascists ever denied their goods or services to individuals with same-sex attraction. It was only when they came in and demanded services to celebrate the illicit same-sex ‘weddings’ that there was any form of ‘discrimination’ on the part of the florist, baker, photographer…so your examples are not really apples to apples.

    As to the Catholic bookstore, the only thing I could think might be a problem would be if they were in the business of printing, which I’ve known bookstores to do. In that case, they would not be able to offer printing services for ‘wedding invitations’ etc…but selling Crucifixes and good solid Catholic books…I’d say they definitely should!

    It is the ‘wedding’ that is the problem. The ultimate celebration of homosexual deviancy, making a mockery of God’s plan for man and woman… Birthdays and graduations and the like aren’t a problem because they aren’t about sexuality, although with these homofascist types it seems everything is about their sexual preferences.

  50. Mandy P. says:

    @Barto, you’re still talking about two separate things. NONE of the people being sued, fined, etc, has refused general serviceto people because of their homosexuality. What you seem to be missing is that a wedding cake, wedding bouquets, and wedding pictures, are *specialty* services. Ie, you’re coming into a bakery and instead of picking a cake off the shelf you’re asking the baker to 1. Make a special product specifically for your occasion, and 2. Come to your special occasion and perform labor there. All wedding specialty products require the artist to show up and at the very least set up their product. In some cases it also requires serving food to guests, or even attending the entire function if you’re a photographer. This is nowhere near the equivalent to refusing to sell someone a crucifix. It’s more akin to someone coming in and asking the Catholic merchant to have a special crucifix made for them with two dudes kissing in place of the corpus. And to top it all off the merchant will be required to show up at the gay bad and install it over the dance floor.

    I’d highly encourage you to actually think through your logic here. Because your same argument (insisting on the equivalence between denying a specialty product to general refusal of service) could be used to force the same Christian baker to make a special Hitler cake and then show up to the KKK mixer to set it up and serve it. And before you say that’s ridiculous, think about why it would be. Because really, the only difference here is that one set of people-ideas is currently in vogue and the other is not. If the logic is that people have the right to buy stuff and we can’t make any exceptions to that right when it comes to extra labor or specialty products, then you can just as easily say that the idiot in the sheet and pointy hat has a right to buy that stuff, too, and denying him the Hitler is fabulous cake is a violation of his civil rights.

  51. SKAY says:

    Kathleen 10-Your comments point out exactly how we got where we are now on this issue.

    In David Axelrod’s book he says that Obama misrepresented (lied) about his stand on same sex marriage when running for his first term.

    If you bothered to look into this man’s background you knew that before that first election. We now know that “misrepresentation” is a favorite ongoing pattern with this whole administration.

    Life Life News. com–“After massive public backlash, Democrats have put God back in their platform, but it took three votes on the floor of the Democratic convention to do so. Delegates booed and shouted down the idea as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles is seen clearly confused about how to handle the vote when so many Democrats refused to support the idea.”

    I think the Democrat Party convention delegates pointed out where the party stands.

  52. SKAY says:

    Barto of the Cross said-
    “Should those sort of Christians have a legal right to refuse to provide flowers or a cake or photography to a wedding of Jews that will involve prayers and rituals of Judaism?”

    Judaism is a recognized religion and is protected under the first amendment-at least it was before this administration. Homosexuality is a
    Would a Catholic florist be forced to provide flowers for a Satanic black mass? Is that how ridiculous this will become?

  53. Scott W. says:

    On a related note, the latest in anti-Catholic bilgewater is the song “Take Me to Church”. When I first heard this without knowing the words or the context I thought musically it was dreadful caterwauling. Then I kept hearing and was wondering why this lousy music was getting so much airplay. Well, turns out it is a PC Salvo against the Church. The composer repeats the hoary lie that the Church teaches people to be ashamed of human sexuality, and apparently (I haven’t seen it) the video features a homosexual couple being beaten up; the message being that teaching truths about Chastity leads to thugs engaging in violence (nevermind the Church’s clear teaching against unjust treatment of homosexuals.)

    Gird your loins brothers and sisters. We are being ghettoized.

Comments are closed.