tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post4627115737491111847..comments2024-03-28T05:17:04.006-04:00Comments on southern orders: WHERE DO YOU STAND?Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73518285572667090952017-12-17T15:04:45.693-05:002017-12-17T15:04:45.693-05:00IHM, hey you sound like Kavanaugh for two reasons:...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 answerTJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-87148197562363092052017-12-16T22:33:16.407-05:002017-12-16T22:33:16.407-05:00Still hiding...Still hiding...IHMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51165843625070198292017-12-16T15:10:33.520-05:002017-12-16T15:10:33.520-05:00IHM - pot calling the kettle black? Your comment w...IHM - pot calling the kettle black? Your comment was a non sequiturTJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50698465300615624182017-12-15T18:09:49.053-05:002017-12-15T18:09:49.053-05:00"Rank cowards" And you keep hiding beh..."Rank cowards" And you keep hiding behind "TJM".........IHMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-77005420306989493012017-12-15T15:33:32.656-05:002017-12-15T15:33:32.656-05:00Gene, these gays were rank cowards. They should ha...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."TJMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15713251021506784272017-12-14T06:45:14.168-05:002017-12-14T06:45:14.168-05:00The baker did not refuse them service...they could...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.Genenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-66590745855679881862017-12-13T17:41:16.279-05:002017-12-13T17:41:16.279-05:00In other words, following the dictates of his cons...In other words, following the dictates of his conscience, he could choose martyrdom or prison or fines or the loss of his business. Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-49675505870495457322017-12-13T17:40:07.287-05:002017-12-13T17:40:07.287-05:00I think the baker has a right to his opinion and a...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. <br /><br />Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54287555165190436862017-12-13T17:18:56.365-05:002017-12-13T17:18:56.365-05:00Marc, once again, performing a service or selling ...Marc, once again, performing a service or selling a product is not "speech." <br />Cooking a burger, driving a bus, baking a cake, running a hotel are not speech.<br />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.<br />Same for the Klan or the Nazis.<br />Speech is protected by the First Amendment. Discriminatory actions are not. That's what we're talking about. I suspect you know that.Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25738031050103952252017-12-13T16:31:43.955-05:002017-12-13T16:31:43.955-05:00Daniel recognizes the absurdity of his argument, b...Daniel recognizes the absurdity of his argument, but persists in making it. He states, "<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-57930563548874802462017-12-13T16:31:00.011-05:002017-12-13T16:31:00.011-05:00Daniel:
My scenarios are meant to give a concrete...Daniel:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-23546577850969204542017-12-13T14:36:32.880-05:002017-12-13T14:36:32.880-05:00Father Fox, if I were running a restaurant or lunc...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-41222051708110381582017-12-13T13:59:01.940-05:002017-12-13T13:59:01.940-05:00Anonymous:
And how, exactly, does the designation...Anonymous:<br /><br />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"?Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-63429837443189578052017-12-13T13:54:57.926-05:002017-12-13T13:54:57.926-05:00Daniel --
You're not obliged to respond to my...Daniel --<br /><br />You're not obliged to respond to my post, but what you offered doesn't actually answer my questions. What would <i>you</i> yourself do in the three scenarios given? <br /><br />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?<br /><br />I am not questioning the right of anyone to <i>buy</i> 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 Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-81047278441867490862017-12-13T13:43:49.062-05:002017-12-13T13:43:49.062-05:00Let the marketplace handle it....certainly in most...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."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-26967468038983558062017-12-13T13:30:20.329-05:002017-12-13T13:30:20.329-05:00Daniel, this freedom of association. I do not thi...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.rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131930849106490711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45333946513746398942017-12-13T12:51:48.448-05:002017-12-13T12:51:48.448-05:00Father Fox, if we believe in free speech & in ...Father Fox, if we believe in free speech & in civil rights, they belong to all. No "free speech for me, but not for thee."<br />Courts held that Nazis had the First Amendment right to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town that was home to many Holocaust victim.<br />If that's so, then they certainly have the right to buy a cake.<br />But realistically, Nazis are more likely to boycott a Jewish business than patronize it. That was their pattern in Germany.<br />Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25547316428936648132017-12-13T12:22:42.568-05:002017-12-13T12:22:42.568-05:00Daniel and Anonymous, the law contemplates tests t...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Laws pertaining to non-protected classes are not subject to strict scrutiny analysis, though. <br /><br />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.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-35365780065657881782017-12-13T11:37:02.819-05:002017-12-13T11:37:02.819-05:00Is it always wrong to discriminate? Protected Clas...Is it always wrong to discriminate? Protected Class Laws vary by state, and are different from Federal laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-32830662816138221982017-12-13T11:11:44.626-05:002017-12-13T11:11:44.626-05:00I think quite a lot those who take the "bake ...I think quite a lot those who take the "bake the cake" stance are being either unreflective, or -- forgive me -- hypocritical.<br /><br />The reason I say that is because I strongly, strongly suspect that most (perhaps not all) would draw the line <i>somewhere</i> -- but perhaps not where Mr. Phillips, the Colorado baker, drew it.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Fr Martin Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-79386693185279904502017-12-13T11:01:16.189-05:002017-12-13T11:01:16.189-05:00If, for religious reasons, a person believes that ...If, for religious reasons, a person believes that interracial marriage is wrong, it is 1) racist and 2) the effect of a religious belief.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The government CAN regulate religious practices. Animal sacrifice is regulated, for instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-770355499616130952017-12-13T10:36:49.418-05:002017-12-13T10:36:49.418-05:00Southerners, in our lifetime, used "deeply he...Southerners, in our lifetime, used "deeply held religious belief" to oppose interracial marriage, because allegedly something, somewhere, in the Bible forbade it. <br />People used "deeply held religious beliefs" to justify slavery or Jim Crow segregation.<br />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." <br />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. <br />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.<br />Your religious beliefs do not trump people's right to equal treatment under the law. Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-9916713211535131062017-12-13T09:36:37.140-05:002017-12-13T09:36:37.140-05:00Miscegenation is not sinful.
Homosexual acts are...Miscegenation is not sinful. <br /><br />Homosexual acts are sinful, as is simulating the sacraments.<br /><br />Being a party to an interracial marriage would not violate a deeply held religious belief. It would be racism.<br /><br />Being a party to a homosexual "marriage" would violate a deeply held religious belief. It would be sinful.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510317669833026685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-89392201806757833572017-12-13T09:31:03.781-05:002017-12-13T09:31:03.781-05:00Daniel, I do not care if inter-racial couples want...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.<br />Genenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37475271341006255492017-12-13T09:20:52.897-05:002017-12-13T09:20:52.897-05:00If I recall correctly, it was the southern Democra...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com