Tuesday, December 12, 2017


Of course, I am conflicted about the amorality of so much in the world today and the entitlement mentality.

But as one who worked in business, I tend to side with what these "ministers" are saying. When I was at the Dairy Queen, we didn't cater any parties. But let's say we did. Could we say yes to some groups and no to other groups? Only if there was a conflict in the schedule.

Of course, it is in my memory when I saw "whites only" in so many places of business in Atlanta and Augusta where I grew up in the late 1950's and early 60's. When I asked my dad what that meant, he said it was a terrible thing.

What do you think?


Anonymous said...

If a Catholic baker is required by law to create and sell a cake for a homosexual couple, is the Catholic doctor then required to preform abortions ? If the Catholic baker is required to create that cake, what about the Catholic printer. Are they required to print pamphlets that go against their faith? What about the Catholic writer, are they forced to write what they don't believe? I think government is deciding what peoples religions should be. I think religious freedom has already disappeared. IMHO that video was just more government propaganda.

Daniel said...

If you are in business to sell cakes, or offer lunch at the counter, or bus rides around town, and are legally licensed to do so, you cannot decide you will serve white but not black, or men but not women, or straights but not gays or Christians but not Jews. That's how we do business in USA. If folks are upset by that, there are plenty of lines of work where you're not obligated to deal with the public. It's really nothing new, we've fought this battle several times before. Next?

Anonymous said...

What do we do when, under the guide of religious freedom, a hotel owner refuses to rent a room to an interracial couple, because his/her deeply held religious beliefs do not allow interracial marriage?

Or what do we do when, under the guise of religious freedom, a doctor refuses, because of his/her deeply held religious beliefs, to treat a pregnant patient because that woman is not married to the father of the child she is carrying?

Or what do we do when, under the guise of religious freedom, a funeral director refuses, due to his/her deeply held religious beliefs, to provide his/her services to an atheist?

Or what do we do when a religious supply house refuses, due to the owner's deeply held religious beliefs, to sell products to a Catholic church since that owner believes Catholics are following the anti-Christ and embody the whore of Babylon?

Mike Lutz said...

Sorry, Father - not buying. By the exact same logic of "not using religion to discriminate" one could:

1. Require an Arab baker to bake a cake commemorating Israel's victory in the Six Days War.

2. Require a Jewish baker to bake a cake for an alt-right group celebrating Hitler's birthday.

3. Require an Evangelical minister to officiate at a same-sex wedding (see recent developments in Australia).

4. And even require a Catholic obstetrician to participate in an abortion. I've had this specific argument with a philosophy professor whose area is ethics.

I'm with the bakers and photographers here; otherwise we risk becoming so tolerant and so accepting that the faith becomes little more than Moralistic Therapeutic Deistic pablum.

Daniel said...

Performing an abortion, like it or not, is a medical procedure.

Serving food, making cakes, running a public-transit bus, running a hotel -- these are all public accommodations. Under the law, they may not discriminate.

If you don't understand the law, you might want to read up.

rcg said...

The question before the Supreme Court revolves around the intent of making the baker celebrate the homosexual union. The request was bigoted and made with the intent of forcing the baker to submerge, and even subvert, his belief. The couple were not denied a cake but were denied the effort to force other people to endorse their belief over any other. Our Government must now decide. If it goes against the baker then I expect the next case will be a homosexual wedding in a Catholic church.

Anonymous said...

Mike - so the cases I presented at 4:32...

No interracial couples allowed... no treatment for non-married pregnant women... no burial for an atheist.... no candles sold to Catholics.

What becomes of these?

Anonymous said...

How does decorating a cake "subvert" one's belief?

Anonymous said...

Daniel - The "public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act probably doesn't apply, accd to the SCOTUS.

Some states have non-discrimination laws, some do not. States with "Right to Work" laws - really "Right to Fire" laws - allow employers to fire anyone for ANY reason, including the fact that the employee is a Catholic.

Carol H. said...

How can these people call themselves clergy when they don't know the difference between freedom and license?

Gays are under the misconception that if their lifestyle is accepted as normal, that it will no longer be a sin. This is why they choose a baker who lives out his Christian beliefs in the public square over a gay baker to cater their wedding. You are right- it is NOT about the cake, it is about them forcibly shoving their agenda down our throats and making us choke on it.

God knows the intentions of their hearts. God makes the rules for us to live by, not the other way around. My prayer is that gays be freed from the deception that they are living under, and receive the graces necessary to amend their lives. It is the only way their souls will ever find peace.

Daniel said...

A business baking a cake is not "celebrating" the wedding.
(I've never heard of a Catholic or evangelical baker refusing to bake a cake for a divorced straight couple.)
They are selling ap product and they may not offer it to some and deny it to others based who they are or what they believe.
Would you support the baker's right to deny a cake to an interracial couple, based on religious belief. This was a real issue in our lifetimes.
This has nothing to do with performing weddings in a church. Again, read the law.D

Anonymous said...

The baker wasn't asked to sell a cake off the shelf. They were asked to make a cake for a specific occasion, and decorate it with specific symbols, and write a specific message on that cake. They morally objected and said no. What if they were told to create a cake for a white supremacist organization , decorate it with their emblems , and write a phrase saluting them? They are still required to comply, even if it goes against their religious beliefs? The sale isn't the question, its what they are being commissioned to do. Its the terms of the commission that are morally objectionable, based on faith. They are not simply selling a cake off of a supermarket shelf. The cake has a message attached to it.

TJM said...


To call killing a baby a "medical procedure" tells me all I need to know about you. If you're a "catholic" the Church is in more serious trouble than I thought. Begone, Satan

Mike Lutz said...

Anonymous 4:32 & candles for Catholics.

If the Protestant religious store refuses to just sell me generic candles, that's a problem. But that's not the issue here.

Would you require the store to decorate a candle celebrating the BVM's Assumption? While I, as a Catholic, believe in the Assumption, I would be sticking my finger in the eye of a Protestant were I to force him or her implicitly express the same via candle artistry.

Please also address the cases I outlined of an Arab (Muslim) baker asked to bake a cake commemorating the Six Days War or a Jewish baker asked for a cake celebrating Hitler's birthday. These are not generic messages; they are fraught with meaning, and it is being coerced into endorsing that meaning - even if implicitly - that is at issue.

Anonymous said...

"If the Protestant religious store refuses to just sell me generic candles, that's a problem. But that's not the issue here."

You left out the essential element - the owner's deeply held religious convictions.

I think it is precisely the issue here.

The Protestant store, due to the owner's deeply held religious convictions regarding Catholics (we are the whore of Babylon, we follow the anti-Christ, etc.), refuses service to Catholics based on those deeply held religious convictions.

The baker, due to his deeply held religious convictions regarding gay marriage (it is against his beliefs), refuses service to a gay couple based on those deeply held religious convictions.

When a business owner can say "I will not do business with you because you do not share my deeply held religious convictions" that opens to door to all kinds of discrimination.

Anonymous said...

Continuing - The "message" doesn't matter. The use of "deeply held religious convictions" as a basis for discrimination in business is, I think, the fundamental, even Constitutional, question before the SCOTUS.

Anonymous said...

If I recall correctly, it was the southern Democrat politicians that passed laws against interracial marriage. Up north , the Catholic school system was actively teaching against racism. I don’t know if southern Catholic priests refused the sacrament of matrimony to interracial couples. The complication is that if they did offer that Sacrament to those couples, I am unsure if the State would have recognized it. Personally, if a man and woman of different races announced their intention to marry, I would say congratulations! Heck, if I knew how to I might even bake them a cake.

Gene said...

Daniel, I do not care if inter-racial couples want to get married as long as they are heterosexual. I do think that, given the history of race relations in this country, it is problematic on several levels. But, if the people love each other and are not simply trying to make a point, go for it.

Marc said...

Miscegenation is not sinful.

Homosexual acts are sinful, as is simulating the sacraments.

Being a party to an interracial marriage would not violate a deeply held religious belief. It would be racism.

Being a party to a homosexual "marriage" would violate a deeply held religious belief. It would be sinful.

The government can legitimately regulate commerce in an effort to eliminate discrimination based on race because race is a protected class under the equal protection clause.

The government cannot legitimately regulate commerce in an effort to eliminate discrimination based on sexual proclivity because sexual proclivity is not a protected class under the equal protection clause. Religion, however, is a protected class under the equal protection clause as a result of the first amendment. So the government cannot compel a person to violate his deeply held religious belief when compared to someone else's sexual proclivity -- one is protected (religion) and the other is not (sexual proclivity).

Daniel said...

Southerners, in our lifetime, used "deeply held religious belief" to oppose interracial marriage, because allegedly something, somewhere, in the Bible forbade it.
People used "deeply held religious beliefs" to justify slavery or Jim Crow segregation.
Others, of course, believe that the Bible prohibit blood transfusions or other types of medical care or various types of food or interactions between men and women -- always, of course, due to "deeply held religious belief."
See, that's the thing about "deeply held religious belief" -- they're all over the map, but people have the right to their beliefs, even if they're nonsense to the rest of us.
What people do NOT have the right to do is put those beliefs into law and inflict them on the rest of us who don't agree.
Your religious beliefs do not trump people's right to equal treatment under the law.

Anonymous said...

If, for religious reasons, a person believes that interracial marriage is wrong, it is 1) racist and 2) the effect of a religious belief.

Making a cake does not make one a "party" to a homosexual marriage. Neither does renting the couple a tux, selling them a honeymoon travel package, or driving them to the airport in a taxi.

The government CAN regulate religious practices. Animal sacrifice is regulated, for instance.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I think quite a lot those who take the "bake the cake" stance are being either unreflective, or -- forgive me -- hypocritical.

The reason I say that is because I strongly, strongly suspect that most (perhaps not all) would draw the line somewhere -- but perhaps not where Mr. Phillips, the Colorado baker, drew it.

If you are a caterer, and you are asked to cater the Nazi Party of (Your Home State) Gala Celebration of Der Fuhrer's Birthday, would you do it?

If you are a realtor, and representatives of the Westboro Baptist Church (the ones who picket funerals of dead soldiers -- loudly) come to you, saying they want to open a branch in your town, and want to hire you to help find a suitable location, would you take the commission?

If you are a printer, and you are asked to print pamphlets viciously hateful toward, well, any group you care to mention, would you accept the job?

In none of these cases, is this a matter of your own speech; the catering job is not even speech at all. Rather, the issue is you being forced to associate with, and assist, something (I hope) you find deeply repugnant. Should you be forced to do so? Or rather, should you be free to decline this business, because it involves you promoting -- or associating -- with something you deem vile.

And, to be clear, I'm not asking what this or that provision of state or federal statutes say about what the government says you must do. My question is, what do you think is right? I'm simply asking you a question of what you think is right and wrong.

Anonymous said...

Is it always wrong to discriminate? Protected Class Laws vary by state, and are different from Federal laws.

Marc said...

Daniel and Anonymous, the law contemplates tests to determine whether a religious belief is deeply help. Miscegenation would not pass muster under that test, but belief in traditional marriage likely would.

And the law can regulate religious practice, such as the case with animal sacrifice. The question is whether the legislation meets the strict scrutiny analysis to which law targeting protected classes is subject.

Laws pertaining to non-protected classes are not subject to strict scrutiny analysis, though.

Although I can see how you think your arguments would be persuasive to someone who doesn't understand the law, since the law is different than what you imagine it to be, the rest of your comments don't really apply to the analysis of this question.

Daniel said...

Father Fox, if we believe in free speech & in civil rights, they belong to all. No "free speech for me, but not for thee."
Courts held that Nazis had the First Amendment right to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town that was home to many Holocaust victim.
If that's so, then they certainly have the right to buy a cake.
But realistically, Nazis are more likely to boycott a Jewish business than patronize it. That was their pattern in Germany.

rcg said...

Daniel, this freedom of association. I do not think a person leave his civil rights behind when he gets a business license. I don’t think we are following the right logic to equate homosexuality with either race or politics. Should we force a store to carry a line of make up for our skin color? That is the question here.

Anonymous said...

Let the marketplace handle it....certainly in most areas of decent size, there will be plenty of bakers willing to make the gay wedding cake, or florists willing to provide flowers for a same-sex "wedding". Colorado is another state that politically has gone off the "deep end."

Fr Martin Fox said...

Daniel --

You're not obliged to respond to my post, but what you offered doesn't actually answer my questions. What would you yourself do in the three scenarios given?

And, on the off chance that my scenarios do not send your loathsome-meter into the red zone, I think you get the drift of my point, that everyone has a line. Have you a line? Anywhere? Are there any circumstances where you would refuse to provide a good or service, because the purchaser is beyond the pale?

I am not questioning the right of anyone to buy a cake. Likewise, I am not challenging the right of Nazis to march in Skokie. I think my actual questions were clear enough.

Fr Martin Fox said...


And how, exactly, does the designation of "protected class" pass muster with the 14th Amendment: "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?

Daniel said...

Father Fox, if I were running a restaurant or lunch counter or hotel, there is no group of people that I would not serve, unless they were somehow dangerous to myself or others. If I were driving a bus, there are no people that I would deny seats. If I were a baker or caterer, I cannot think of any customers I would not do business with. Their message is their own, not mine; I would provide the service that I advertised and they were paying for.

Acting as a Realtor or a printer are not "public accommodations" as defined by the law, so they're not really germane to the discussion. You can spin any number of absurd scenarios. But if I believe that a Realtor should not be allowed to refuse service to black people shopping in a particular town, then it stands to reason the same rights should apply to a religious group whose views I find repugnant.

That is the spirit of "free speech for me, but not for thee." The First Amendment requires us to accept unpopular, even loathsome views and opinions, or it has no meaning.

Fr Martin Fox said...


My scenarios are meant to give a concrete example of what the "line" might look like. Again, I did not ask about restaurants, lunch counters or hotels. There is nothing particular absurd about any of them. There really are Nazis in our country; did you not pay attention to the events in Charlottesville? Westboro Baptist Church is real; and there really are quite loathsome things printed every day.

The issue of "public accommodations" is a red herring. Yes, I'm well aware of what civil law talks about. But the whole force of this discussion is what the higher law says. Do you really mean to say that your primary concern is obedience to civil law, and nothing higher? Really? So if we lived in, say, 1950, when civil law in many places enforced segregation, then you would be defending obedience to that? I do not believe it.

So the truth is, the fundamental premise for you --and me -- is the highest moral imperative. So whether realtors, caterers or printers are, or are not, a "public accommodation" is beside the point. Do they ever have the right to refuse to cooperate with something repugnant? It seems you say, no, they never have that right. And I appreciate you stating forthrightly that, however repugnant you find Westboro Baptist, you would help them set up shop in your town.

Finally, free speech is entirely irrelevant here as pertains to the customers in question. The Nazis certainly have the right of free speech. My refusing to be their caterer does not deny them that.

At any rate, am I correct in inferring that while many of us would indeed have a line -- as concretized by my examples -- that you do not? You would cater any event, sell property to anyone, and print anything, no exceptions?

Marc said...

Daniel recognizes the absurdity of his argument, but persists in making it. He states, "
Acting as a Realtor or a printer are not 'public accommodations'as defined by the law, so they're not really germane to the discussion. You can spin any number of absurd scenarios." Yet, in his previous comment failed to note the same distinction between the public demonstration of Nazis, which is protected by the first amendment, and the right of business owners to deny service to non-suspect classes.

At the end of the day, the first amendment does require us to accept unpopular, even loathsome views, as Daniel says. Yet, he seemingly fails to recognize that his argument undermines the very principle he claims to assert insofar as the baker's decision not to bake a cake is part of the very first amendment that Daniel asserts as important.

The rule is that the government cannot compel or prohibit protected speech (or religious practice). Yet that is precisely what the government is doing by forcing a baker to bake for an event that conflicts with his religious views. The baker's rights are more important, from a constitutional perspective, because they are religious rights enshrined in the first amendment. The homosexuals' right to receive a cake are not impacted, and even if they were, their rights are secondary because their right to receive service is not a constitutional right since, among other things, their sexual proclivity is not a protected class.

Daniel said...

Marc, once again, performing a service or selling a product is not "speech."
Cooking a burger, driving a bus, baking a cake, running a hotel are not speech.
You may shout from the rooftops that you oppose same-sex marriage, hand out fliers on a street corner, even call talk radio or go on TV that is your right.
Same for the Klan or the Nazis.
Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Discriminatory actions are not. That's what we're talking about. I suspect you know that.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think the baker has a right to his opinion and a right to civil disobedience which means, though, he must take the consequences of the civil disobedience as the civil law specifies.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In other words, following the dictates of his conscience, he could choose martyrdom or prison or fines or the loss of his business.

Gene said...

The baker did not refuse them service...they could have bought any cake in the place. He refused to bake them a particular type of cake. I do not see anything wrong with this. Besides, where would the baker find a bride sodomizing a groom ornament for the top of the cake? I guess he could go buy one of those big old dildos for the top and slather it with chocolate icing...that might work.

TJM said...

Gene, these gays were rank cowards. They should have gone to a Muslim bakery if they truly wanted to make a statement and strike a blow for gay "freedom."

IHM said...

"Rank cowards" And you keep hiding behind "TJM".........

TJM said...

IHM - pot calling the kettle black? Your comment was a non sequitur

IHM said...

Still hiding...

TJM said...

IHM, hey you sound like Kavanaugh for two reasons: 1) You don't recognize the irony of your own comment, and 2) you never address the substance of the other person's comment but keep bobbing and weaving with a non answer