Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » And So it Begins (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: And So it Begins
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope. Infallibility is not what most people think. The Pope can be wrong (and often has been) because he is a human person. Look, for a Scriptural example, about the arguments between Peter and Paul on conversion of Gentiles. Peter was the Pope, but Paul was right and, eventually, Peter agreed.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How is it possible the Pope could be wrong that homosexual behavior is sinful?
How is a behavoir being sinful relevant? If you're4 going along that line, many, many daily behaviors are sinful, and that's for each person to deal with on their own faith journey, not for religious zealots to "help" them with by abusing earthly laws.

OR are you suggesting that Catholics have as some point officially abandoned the principles behind "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "worry not about the speck in your brothers eye, as you have a log in your own"?

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I was not aware the Pope had made a pronouncement ex cathedra on the subject of homosexuality.

He has not. His predecessors tried to practice a sort of non-doctrinal "creeping infallibility". Sort of "We aren't going to do this officially (and lose a lot of American Catholics who are the ones with the money), but we insist that you act as if we had". Which is just nonsense.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I was not aware the Pope had made a pronouncement ex cathedra on the subject of homosexuality.

He has not. His predecessors tried to practice a sort of non-doctrinal "creeping infallibility". Sort of "We aren't going to do this officially (and lose a lot of American Catholics who are the ones with the money), but we insist that you act as if we had". Which is just nonsense.
I wanted to do a little research before responding because I'm not an expert on Catholicism and I am close with people who know much more about it than I do. I conferred with a very knowledgeable Catholic friend of mine on this topic and re-read some passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is the section in question:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

And here's a relevant quote from it:

quote:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

And here is another quote from the Catechism:

quote:
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
My friend also showed me this Letter to the Bishops on the topic of homosexuality:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The letter was approved by Pope John Paul II and was published, which means that it is in accordance with Church teaching.

In case anyone wonders what kind of authority those documents have, here is a page on that:

http://www.adoremus.org/0902AuthorityChurchDoc.html

quote:
At the top of the hierarchy of authoritative documents are apostolic constitutions and decrees issued by popes, such as the Second Vatican Council documents. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was presented by the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum in 1992. These documents, along with the Code of Canon Law (1983) have binding authority on the entire Church. These are legislative documents, containing dogmatic or doctrinal elements.
In other words, the Pope doesn't have to make a pronouncement ex cathedra on the topic of homosexual activity being a sin; it's already part of the basic framework and is an unambiguous given. In fact, the nature of Catholic doctrine is so interwoven with teleology and metaphysics that an issue such as homosexuality is not an isolated topic that stands on its own. If the Church were to reverse its position on such a subject it would undermine the entire teleology of marriage and procreation, of husband and wife as analogy to the Church and Jesus, and so on. It's all sort of held together tightly from all sides.

Incidentally I view this kind of painting oneself into a corner to be a potential weakness in Church doctrine, because it effectively makes it impossible for the Church to change its mind on anything doctrinal. That being said, as the Church constitutes a top-down authority structure I assumed that a given Catholic would have to accept that this is Church teaching, even if one had a problem with parts of it.

For my own part if I were a Catholic I'd be hard-pressed to suppress my own ego in thinking I know better than the Church in all kinds of topics, which is maybe why I'm not suited for a group like that. Martin Luther, for example, though so too and the result was a schism in the Church. I would be all too eager to say "well the Church is right about X and Y, but is off base about Z", which is very human but also means rejecting the authority of the Church in a strict sense. It bears mentioning that I have no affiliation with and do not endorse the passages above, and am using them to speak about Catholicism.

That being said I'm sure someone can be a Catholic and reject some tenets of the Church here and there, but it seems to me not possible to endorse SSM (i.e. homosexual behavior) and be consistent with Church teaching at the same time.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I fail to see anything in any otf that that states that CAtholics must act to prevent or reject doing business with people who are gay. It just says that the Catholic Church disapproves of them and wont recognize their relationships.

There's plenty there that suggests that it's going to be a very interesting process within the church to change if it goes in that direction; it doesn't prevent Catholics from letting non-Catholics do as they will under the terms of secular laws.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I fail to see anything in any otf that that states that CAtholics must act to prevent or reject doing business with people who are gay. It just says that the Catholic Church disapproves of them and wont recognize their relationships.

There's plenty there that suggests that it's going to be a very interesting process within the church to change if it goes in that direction; it doesn't prevent Catholics from letting non-Catholics do as they will under the terms of secular laws.

No, I wasn't specifically addressing here anything to do with tolerance or sanctions against gays in the business place; i.e. this post wasn't directly about the religious freedom laws. This post was about showing why I assumed any Catholic wouldn't endorse SSM, and why it seems problematic for a Catholic to endorse a political change such as this while yet believing homosexual activity to be a sin. In other words, I am discussing the claim made that American Catholics can be "for" SSM and yet still be in accord with Church teaching. It seem inconsistent to me.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
aws. This post was about showing why I assumed any Catholic wouldn't endorse SSM, and why it seems problematic for a Catholic to endorse a political change such as this while yet believing homosexual activity to be a sin. In other words, I am discussing the claim made that American Catholics can be "for" SSM and yet still be in accord with Church teaching.
And all you showed was that they'll be at odds at the church if they try to advance the case that _the church_ should approve it. Nothing in there suggests and prohibition on agreeing that the _state_ should allow it, even if their church doesn't.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is, in fact, completely fine to say "even though I consider this behavior unacceptable and sinful, there is no reason to have a state (secular) law against it" Believing that something is sinful does not necessitate believing that it should be illegal- that's one of the features of living in a secular state and not a theocracy.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, I agree that acceptance of homosexual acts is problematic for the Catholic Church.

My point is that the teaching hasn't been promulgated as infallible doctrine by the Pope. I don't know if whether or not there's a statement on procreation or sex that would be applicable.

If there are no ex cathedra announcements impinging on it, the Church can renovate the catechism without violating the principle of Papal infallibility.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This I agree with entirely:

quote:
Incidentally I view this kind of painting oneself into a corner to be a potential weakness in Church doctrine, because it effectively makes it impossible for the Church to change its mind on anything doctrinal.
It is arrogant nonsense and may very well be our downfall.

However. This I do not agree with:
quote:
That being said, as the Church constitutes a top-down authority structure I assumed that a given Catholic would have to accept that this is Church teaching, even if one had a problem with parts of it.
Unless by "top" you mean the Holy Spirit, the Church is not as top down as the top would have us believe. What you cited was exactly the kind of "creeping infallibility" that I was talking about. In fact, the Pope is only to speak ex cathedra on issues of doctrine where the whole Church speaks with his voice. And clearly, that is not the case. A tidbit: the Pope has actually only ever spoken ex cathedra two times. Both on Marian doctrine. The codification of papal infallibility is fairly new. The bishops may consider it binding doctrine, but a good chunk of the Church does not.

If you are really interested in this, I recommend a couple of books. Why I Am a Catholic by Garry Wills and Faithful Dissent by The Reverend Father Charles E. Curran

[ April 30, 2015, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
It is, in fact, completely fine to say "even though I consider this behavior unacceptable and sinful, there is no reason to have a state (secular) law against it" Believing that something is sinful does not necessitate believing that it should be illegal- that's one of the features of living in a secular state and not a theocracy.

It's not a matter of standing by and accepting that the state makes something legal. For a Catholic to be "for" SSM means they actively endorse that it be made legal, which means they feel it's right to advocate sinning. This cannot be correct, and so while I could certainly understand a tolerant Catholic saying they will stand by and not interfere with whatever is decided, it sounds off to me for a Catholic to actually encourage in any way a sinful act (and pushing for legislation legalizing the formal declaration of the sin is certainly encouragement).

And kmbboots, I am actually interested and may well check out those books when I have a little time. I just moved so right now things are a little crazy over here. I feel I can't answer the part you disagreed with until I confer with my friend again, so I'll try to reply later on.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For a Catholic to be "for" SSM means they actively endorse that it be made legal, which means they feel it's right to advocate sinning.
Do you think it would be hypocritical of a Muslim to believe that stores should be allowed to sell alcohol on Sundays?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[(and pushing for legislation legalizing the formal declaration of the sin is certainly encouragement)
That's absurdly untrue. Stopping persecution is not encouragement of anything- it's just stopping persecution. There is no conflict between believing that a certain behavior is sinful and believing that people shouldn't be legally persecuted based on it. Particularly when you're talking about naturally occurring behavior that doesn't require any encouragement at all to happen on its own. That's a confusion of "can" "should" and "will".

Saying that you can do something is not even remotely equivalent to saying that you should do it, especially if it's clear that someone will or won't do it on their own terms, regardless of what you tell them they can or cannot do.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I can't figure out if you're entirely serious, Seriati:

I am, though I'm often torn on how to come out given there are important rights on both sides of the problem.
quote:
quote:
You didn't read the article. The bakery was always willing to sell to gay customers, they were not willing to prepare a cake for a gay wedding. As I said before that involves a substantial time and effort commitment.
Selling a cake is selling a cake.
I take it you are not married. A wedding cake is not an off the rack product. It's a custom project that usually involves several days and a lot of individual variables (including personal service, delivery, etc.).
quote:
My point is that there does not have to be any investment in or involvement with the details of the event where the cake will be served. The cake seller is not being required to participate in speech they disagree with, or be around people at a gay wedding, or anything of the sort.
But in fairness your point is wrong, it's a factual assertion about what making a wedding cake for a wedding entails that isn't correct. If your argument rests on that are you going to reconsider if it's not true?
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
It's hard to explain logically why some people are so important that their rights to access the market place should trump the rights of everyone else to have freedom to contract or not with them, while for other less favored people its okay to exclude them and even punish them in the market place.
It's not hard at all, if more honestly phrased.
Says the master of creative restatement.
quote:
The freedom of those that do not have a choice in who they are to have equal access to the market place definitely trumps the choice of others to decide not to engage with a market that requires they serve the entire public equally.
That's an interesting assertion, can you demonstrate where it's set out in the constitutional principals that you're purporting to be able to override with the claim? I don't know why I even ask.
quote:
If you don't want your services to be equally accessible to the public, then you should privately offer your services to those who you choose to offer them to and not make use of infrastructure intended for public access.
Like I said, if you are religious you are not entitled in Pyrtolin's world to earn a living.
quote:
quote:
As I said before that involves a substantial time and effort commitment.
How does that commitment of time and effort differ from any other wedding that they might cater? The identities of the people have no relevance to the requirements of the service. They don't need to use special "gay-safe" batter or "gay safe" frosting
That's true, there's no reason to believe the it would require more service than any other wedding. Only that it does require personal service to do a wedding cake for any wedding.

Should it be possible to force the baker to make the wedding cake for her ex-husbands new wedding? If the baker is willing to 20 weddings a year but gets on average 50 requests are they not free to pick which couples they'd prefer to work with?
quote:
quote:
What they were not willing to do in the first two cases was essentially cater a gay wedding. That's activity by the way, not a person.
An activity that does not represent any material harm to anyone else. It, in fact, has absolutely no effect on the lives or beliefs of anyone that does not support it that are differentiable from any other equivalent event that they do support.
Don't really care, don't even disagree. It's still a specific activity, not a person, or people or a class of people. And in this context, my understanding is they were perfectly willing to sell non-custom products to the couple in question just to not "cater" the wedding with respect to the cake.
quote:
quote:
And in this case, they are used as a weapon against a group of people actually entitled to protection under the Constitution.
There is no right to discriminate in business transactions in the constitution.
Well I have to admit, the interplay between the freedom of association and business relationships is complex and sometimes favors each side. This is a further erosion of that right to the extent it requires personal service that violates ones religion. Freedom of religion is a protected right.
quote:
Freedom of religion is irrelevant here, because this isn't an issue of personal practice or observance, it's an issue of regulated market transactions with the general public.
It's established principal of law that you do not get to determine if someone else's honestly held religious belief is applicable. So your conclusion on this matter is just hot air.

But it's just wrong, there is no time when religion is irrelevant to a religious person's dealings.
quote:
People doing something that you don not like, even something that you believe would violate your personal religious standards does not constitute material harm to you or your beliefs.
Being required to violate your honestly held religious beliefs is an acknowledged harm internationally as well as nationally. Freedom of religion is provided for (even if not honored) at virtually all intergovernmental levels. I guess I'm saying, you're way outside reality with this statement.
quote:
quote:
If you want to earn a living and not starve to death you are required to violate your religion.
That's completely absurd.
Given everything you said, and continue to say, I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.
quote:
WHen you are doing business in the public square you are acting in a secular, not a religious context.
You may be, that doesn't mean that is true for others.
quote:
IF you want to precondition access to your services in a certain field on religious conformity of others, then you should offer your services on a private basis and not present yourself as being open to the general public.
By "private" you must mean free, hence starving to death, cause there is no economic version that would actually make sense as private.
quote:
Otherwise you don not have the right to force your patrons- the general public- to conform to your religious standards.
Broken logic. Personal refusal doesn't impose anything on others. No one is entitled to your person or your personal services.
quote:
You're suggesting that providing a cake for a gay wedding would have exposed them to punitive damages?
I think its perfectly obvious that I did not say that.
quote:
In what way does the marriage itself- the thing that service was requested for, represent any form of actionable harm or threat to the people?
In no way that I can see, why do you think that's a relevant question? Forced service isn't okay just because the job in question doesn't hurt someone.
quote:
Being incompatible with their religious beliefs is not a harm to them, as they are free to believe anything they want about it even after providing the cake.
That is so ridiculously tone deaf its shocking even for you. Being forced to violate their religion or starve is not a harm to them according to you.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, did you notice where I wrote that more American Catholics do not consider homosexuality a sin than do? Theoretically, I suppose we should consider heterosexual sex outside of marriage sinful as well. Are you surprised that we are not lobbying to make that illegal? Do you think that we should be?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:

Like I said, if you are religious you are not entitled in Pyrtolin's world to earn a living.

I am surprised to note that you think that people are entitled to earn a living in this world. Even more that they are entitled to earn a living doing just what they want to do and for whom.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Selling a cake is selling a cake.
I take it you are not married. A wedding cake is not an off the rack product. It's a custom project that usually involves several days and a lot of individual variables (including personal service, delivery, etc.).
quote:
My point is that there does not have to be any investment in or involvement with the details of the event where the cake will be served. The cake seller is not being required to participate in speech they disagree with, or be around people at a gay wedding, or anything of the sort.
But in fairness your point is wrong, it's a factual assertion about what making a wedding cake for a wedding entails that isn't correct. If your argument rests on that are you going to reconsider if it's not true?

We're probably shading our terms differently. I'm married. Wedding cakes can involve a lot of personal involvement, or they can involve a customer pointing to a picture in a catalog and picking it up when it's done. Or they can be cupcakes purchased off the shelf.

I'm not in favor of a baker being required to pore through the photo albums of a gay couple to really get to know them and top the cake with a couple of kissing groom figurines. If doing this would be a problem for a wedding cake seller, they can rule it out by describing the parameters on their service offerings up front, and offering those services to anyone.

By doing this, they can refrain from involvement in the details of the event, and abstain from participation in any speech they disagree with.

I'm not familiar with any rules that would distinguish a bakery that sells wedding cakes from any other public accommodation.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Like I said, if you are religious you are not entitled in Pyrtolin's world to earn a living.

I am surprised to note that you think that people are entitled to earn a living in this world. Even more that they are entitled to earn a living doing just what they want to do and for whom.
Well in fairness, I was talking about Pyrtolin's world where there are entitlements, and entitlements are tantamount to rights. But I probably should have qualified it with a form of "try."
quote:
Originally posted by Scifibum:
I'm not familiar with any rules that would distinguish a bakery that sells wedding cakes from any other public accommodation.

The biggest rule is the different rule for personal services. One could argue that the bakery is really two businesses, one a public accommodation required to sell its products to everyone without discrimination, and the other a personal services business that is not.

But there are all kinds of shadings in how this works period. A rental property manager can't discriminate in who they rent to, neither can for that matter a private owner. However, a private owner who is renting a room in their own home can discriminate even on an otherwise prohibited basis, and still take money. These rules are not absolute and they do bend to other conflicting interests and rights.

If someone's right to choose who lives in their home doesn't prevent them from getting paid for it, why should someone's honestly held religious beliefs do so?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
why should someone's honestly held religious beliefs do so?
Hm. That, of course, raises the question of whether it would be possible to defend in court the assertion that one's religion forbids one from making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
why should someone's honestly held religious beliefs do so?
Hm. That, of course, raises the question of whether it would be possible to defend in court the assertion that one's religion forbids one from making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. [Smile]
If you look at my first post, I don't see it myself. It seems inconsistent with Christian philosophy not consistent.

But it's established law, that neither you or I, or in fact the courts, engage in that endeavor. So long as they are convinced the religious belief is honestly held, the interpretation is not subject to review. It can still be ruled against.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems to me this could have been easily clarified up until we started treating businesses as "people".
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A wedding cake is not an off the rack product. It's a custom project that usually involves several days and a lot of individual variables (including personal service, delivery, etc.).
None of which are relevant to the sex of the people getting married. Gas costs just as much to deliver a cake to a gay couple's wedding as it does to a straight couple's wedding.

quote:
Like I said, if you are religious you are not entitled in Pyrtolin's world to earn a living.
Which is still nonsense. If your religious prevents you from entering a given field, it's your choice to find a different field or market to make a living on. You are simply not free to impose your religious standards on others if you chose to utilize the public market, because that it a active violation of their religious freedom.

quote:
Should it be possible to force the baker to make the wedding cake for her ex-husbands new wedding?
You're suggesting that there is an entire class of people that constitutes ex-husbands to all bakers such that such a refusal would amount to manifest harm to them? That it would similarly amount to participation collusion to deny a class of people service? If so, then it would be comparable, and certainly not withing the rights of the baker to refuse if they are offering their services to the public.
quote:
If the baker is willing to 20 weddings a year but gets on average 50 requests are they not free to pick which couples they'd prefer to work with?
Again, a completely irrelevant basis for comparison because you've presented a valid business case, not a form of action to shut a segment of the population out of the market.

quote:
This is a further erosion of that right to the extent it requires personal service that violates ones religion
If baking cakes for people violates your religion, then you shouldn't go into business baking cakes. What the people use the cake for has no bearing on your religion- trying to dictate that violates their freedom.

quote:
This is a further erosion of that right to the extent it requires personal service that violates ones religion. Freedom of religion is a protected right.
The activities of people outside of ones religion that are not directed toward converting them to another belief. Nothing about providing the service they offer on the public market requires them to change their beliefs. They are free to believe that the people involved are sinning and doing something they consider wrong or even harmful to them. That doesn't give them the right to collude to shut them out of the market or deny the service, nor does providing them service require they change their beliefs in any way. Selling a cake to a wedding does not mean they support the wedding. A Catholic baker could not refuse to sell a cake for a Protestant or Jewish wedding on the basis of the religion of the participants, even though their religion does not allow them to recognize those as valid either.

You can believe what you want. If you choose to offer services to the public, you can't refuse services based the fact that their religion or practices different- your religion moderates what you do. not what others choose to do with services you provide them.

quote:
t's established principal of law that you do not get to determine if someone else's honestly held religious belief is applicable. So your conclusion on this matter is just hot air.

But it's just wrong, there is no time when religion is irrelevant to a religious person's dealings.

Since the religious person is not getting married or conducting the ceremony, the content of the wedding is not their dealings. It is a black box that hey have no right to use as a basis for collusion to exclude people from the market.

[quote[Being required to violate your honestly held religious beliefs is an acknowledged harm internationally as well as nationally. Freedom of religion is provided for (even if not honored) at virtually all intergovernmental levels. I guess I'm saying, you're way outside reality with this statement.[/quote]
Indeed, which is exactly why people who operate businesses that are open to the public cannot use that license to impose on other peoples beliefs by denying them services. They can believe what they w ant about the people buying the services, but since they've chosen to use the public market to offer their services, they cannot impose their beliefs on others, only themselves.


quote:
WHen you are doing business in the public square you are acting in a secular, not a religious context.
quote:

You may be, that doesn't mean that is true for others.


It's true for everyone by definition of the word secular. The US government regulates the US market, not any church. That MEans that it is, by definition, a secular institution, regulated by worldly politicians and human laws, not a religious one regulated by holy texts and priests.

quote:
By "private" you must mean free, hence starving to death, cause there is no economic version that would actually make sense as private
By private I mean outside of the context of commercially zoned property, public business licenses, exemption from sales taxes and income tax deductibility of your expenses, the assurances of the public health department that your business is safe to patronize, and public advertizing space. You're free to sell your services only within your church or directly to people who share your beliefs on a private basis. Once you open a public establishment and register for a license to do business with the general public, you opt into the secular laws that require that you must offer those services to the entire public and not use the implicit power that comes with a public business license as a way to collude to exclude some segment of the population.

quote:
Personal refusal doesn't impose anything on others. No one is entitled to your person or your personal services.
Except we're not talking about personal services. We're talking about publicly advertised and offered services. If you operate a commercial bakery that advertises that you cater weddings, then you have an implicit contract to sell those services to anyone, regardless of your personal approval or beliefs about the wedding.


quote:
quote:
You're suggesting that providing a cake for a gay wedding would have exposed them to punitive damages?
I think its perfectly obvious that I did not say that.
Sure, but it's the only way that what you said would have any meaning. Without that, it's completely spurious.

quote:
quote:
In what way does the marriage itself- the thing that service was requested for, represent any form of actionable harm or threat to the people?
In no way that I can see, why do you think that's a relevant question? Forced service isn't okay just because the job in question doesn't hurt someone.
The service isn't forces, it's contracted by the rules of the public market. You promised you'd provide them when you applied for your business license. It's only "forced" in as much as you are not trying to renege on your contract implicit in the license.

quote:
quote:
Being incompatible with their religious beliefs is not a harm to them, as they are free to believe anything they want about it even after providing the cake.
That is so ridiculously tone deaf its shocking even for you. Being forced to violate their religion or starve is not a harm to them according to you.
If you choose to starve yourself on the basis of other people not conforming to your religion, that's entirely on you, not them. Unless baking and delivering a cake is against their religion, the assertion is spurious, because the use that the cake is then put to is not something that they have any right to dictate. Your religion allows you to define them as and believe them sinners, certainly, but not to deny them service. Denying them service on that basis forces them to be participants in your religious beliefs, whereas the service you provide, unless it actively requires participating in some ceremonial role, requires absolutely no actual participation on your part.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin, saying that "the U.S. government regulates the market" ergo it is a secular market is a misuse of language. There are some federal regulations on commerce, there are some state level regulations, and some are municipal. It is true that the Federal level does have regulation, but the statement that the Federal level "regulates commerce" is a half-truth, since it makes it sound like the Federal government somehow set up the market and its rules and upholds them. And nothing could be further from the truth.

The entire basis of American commerce is actually the right for individuals to trade with other individuals as they see fit, freely. This existed prior to the Federal government and is not predicated by it. The creation of a Federal government didn't suddenly make the market "the Federal government's market." The right to trade belongs to each person, not to a government organization. Some people are secular, some are religious. "The market" isn't some homogeneous thing in which each business operates; it's just people doing their thing, and the aggregate is called 'the market.' There is no difference between a person selling cakes out of his own home versus at a store front (aside from zoning and license issues); no difference if it's for his friends or for strangers (as long as he pays taxes on revenue). Saying that by choosing to sell cakes at a store front suddenly makes you a "public business" is contrary to every tenet of American values and commerce.

Now: There are some laws over the years that are exceptions to this reality, such as various tax laws (like the income tax), protected status (to prevent discrimination), workplace laws (safety, cleanliness, etc), and so forth. Each of these is a modification on the framework of each person being allowed to decide how to run his own business. You are taking the existence of exceptions and assuming that a business owner no longer has any choice and that once he 'decides to join the public market' (whatever that means) he is now a vassal of the state. This is just false on every level.

The issue here is not about secular vs religious and how that applies to the marketplace. The issue is whether protected status trumps religious freedom. That's about it. In certain gray area cases such as we're discussing it appears that no matter what is decided the rights of one group or another will have to be trod over, and while that's unfortunate it doesn't mean that either group is talking nonsense or trumping up fake arguments.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious why "religious freedom" enters into it at all, Fenring. Shouldn't an atheist baker who just doesn't like gay people be free to refuse to make them cakes?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I wonder about the word "status." Should a baker be allowed to refuse to make cakes for Christians if he doesn't like them? Buddhists? Moslems? Blue-eyed people with black hair?

The only reason certain groups have "protected status" is because they historically have been discriminated against. But others could and should be added to such status if they start being discriminated against, including Christians.

[ May 01, 2015, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well said, Tom.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom: Because Fenring is talking about conflicting rights. If we grant that someone's exercise of religion can include "refusing to sell services to gay people or for gay events", then making that illegal is a restriction on their religious freedom. That has to be balanced against the civil rights of the people who would be discriminated against.

The atheist has a right of freedom of association, so there's actually a similar conflict in his case.

WS: Religion is already a protected class, of course.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm curious why "religious freedom" enters into it at all, Fenring. Shouldn't an atheist baker who just doesn't like gay people be free to refuse to make them cakes?

I'm not really addressing "should", but rather trying to describe what is meant by "free market." If you're asking me what I personally endorse then I don't endorse much about the current economic model at all. However based on the system the U.S. is 'supposed' to have, it seems like outside of an exceptional law anyone should be allowed to refuse service to anyone else as they see fit. In fact this is the law right now for everyone except protected groups. If I run a store I can turn away a customer because I don't like the look on his face. It's totally legitimate, although I'll likely get a bad reputation for doing so and it will hurt my business. In general it would be totally idiotic for a company to start turning away entire groups of customers, especially in a recession, but that's another matter and has to do with their bottom line.

This is the 'normal' state of affairs in business; you associate with the people whom you choose based on whatever intelligent or stupid criteria you want. With the advent of protected classes of people this rule of thumb is abrogated and you legally cannot refuse to serve someone just for being in that protected class (although you can lie and make up another reason why you're refusing; this will fail eventually if you do so repeatedly and the pattern becomes apparent). This is all straightforward and would generate no conflict on its own, except for the fact that since religious freedom is also guaranteed by law there will be cases where protected classes of people request services that create scenarios problematic to the religion of the owner (so the argument goes). This would not be an issue except for the existence of protected classes, because if a non-protected person (e.g. a white straight male) requested a service that infringed on the owner's religion then he could simply refuse and there would be nothing else to say.

I'm not saying it should be this way, I'm saying this is how I think it is. This is my attempt as an assessment of the facts, not my opinion on what I'd like.

EDIT: I'm not saying that the existence of protected classes is a bad thing, I'm saying that it is the reason why there may be a real legal conflict here.

[ May 01, 2015, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First of all, Fenring very well said. I think you've very adequately captured the ideas involved.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
A wedding cake is not an off the rack product. It's a custom project that usually involves several days and a lot of individual variables (including personal service, delivery, etc.).
None of which are relevant to the sex of the people getting married.
And? You say that like its relevant. The question is whether it's a personal service of the person providing the service.
quote:
Gas costs just as much to deliver a cake to a gay couple's wedding as it does to a straight couple's wedding.
True, but delivering the cake normally requires the cake chef or their personal assistant to go along to ensure safe delivery and correct for any travel damage. Most weddings are evenings or weekends which often requires this activity occur outside normal business hours.
quote:
quote:
Like I said, if you are religious you are not entitled in Pyrtolin's world to earn a living.
Which is still nonsense.
Explain how. Every word out of your mouth confirms exactly what I said. You've haven't explained how someone with a religious objection should be able to earn a living. Essentially you've waived your hand at the problem and told them to get a different job, but not explained what job they could take where they would be free to comply with their religious concerns. I've certainly never heard of a requirement that someone stop being a baker as being reasonable.
quote:
If your religious prevents you from entering a given field...
It doesn't. It prevents them from meeting extraneous demands that you believe should be imposed.
quote:
...it's your choice to find a different field or market to make a living on.
Why are you objecting to what I said again?
quote:
You are simply not free to impose your religious standards on others if you chose to utilize the public market, because that it a active violation of their religious freedom.
This is sentence would completely fall apart if you redid it with symbolic logic. Refusing to perform can not be construed as imposing your religious standards on others. No one is entitled to your services and that is a mandatory condition of your construction. An adverse conclusion requires the legality of slavery.

Fenring knocked it out of the park on your construction of 'chosing to use the public markets.' He's absolutely right that you are misinterpreting what that means. I'll also assert that you don't believe in a private market that could apply.

And finally, there is absolutely no logical way to flip into a violation of the other person's religious beliefs in any meaningful way.
quote:
quote:
Should it be possible to force the baker to make the wedding cake for her ex-husbands new wedding?
You're suggesting that there is an entire class of people that constitutes ex-husbands to all bakers such that such a refusal would amount to manifest harm to them?
No, I'm suggesting the logic here is full of wholes and hypocritical and that it's easy to see in any one of thousands of other examples that don't involve religion. I believe the arguments you are making require that religious views not be given respect, and that is inconsistent with constitutional law.

Not sure why you'd try to analogize to all bakers, these personal matters, unless you're trying to assert that all bakers have religious objections to serving at gay weddings?
quote:
That it would similarly amount to participation collusion to deny a class of people service?
Which collusion doesn't currently exist, and you've provided no evidence of. Which is why I referenced unthinking application of rules originally designed to deal with Race, where there was ample evidence of such collusion as a historical matter.
quote:
quote:
If the baker is willing to 20 weddings a year but gets on average 50 requests are they not free to pick which couples they'd prefer to work with?
Again, a completely irrelevant basis for comparison because you've presented a valid business case, not a form of action to shut a segment of the population out of the market.
It's "irrelevant" because it shows the inconsistency of your argument. Again, you've not shown any evidence of an attempt to shut out a segment of the population from the market, which to use your own term makes your objection irrelevant.
quote:
quote:
This is a further erosion of that right to the extent it requires personal service that violates ones religion
If baking cakes for people violates your religion, then you shouldn't go into business baking cakes.
If you find someone for whom baking cakes violates their religion, I doubt you would find them being a baker. Of course, that's one more of your creative restatements since it matches no one we've been discussing.
quote:
What the people use the cake for has no bearing on your religion- trying to dictate that violates their freedom.
I agree, none of this violates my religion. Nor does any use of a cake by anyone, violate the baker's religion. What violates their religion is being required to perform personal service to facilitate the wedding.

If they refused to sell an off the shelf cake, I'd agree with you. Not the same thing as refusing to prepare a custom product.
quote:
Nothing about providing the service they offer on the public market requires them to change their beliefs.
It requires them to violate their beliefs. I'm not willing to debate this point with you anymore. You are factually wrong and its morally bankrupt to claim that you can interpret someone else's religious beliefs and obligations better than they can.

This debate is solely about whether the state has the power to force someone to violate their beliefs, not about whether an action does violate their beliefs.
quote:
That doesn't give them the right to collude to shut them out of the market..
Again no evidence of any relevant collusion.
quote:
Selling a cake to a wedding does not mean they support the wedding.
One can't sell a cake to a wedding. And your opinion on this point isn't relevant to someone else's interpretation of their religious obligations.
quote:
A Catholic baker could not refuse to sell a cake for a Protestant or Jewish wedding on the basis of the religion of the participants, even though their religion does not allow them to recognize those as valid either.
Which would only be relevant if say the Pope declared that it were a sin to prepare wedding cakes for non-Catholic weddings. If such were to occur, they would in fact have to either refuse that sale or violate their religion.
quote:
You can believe what you want.
Not sure why you say this, when you seem to feel entitled to tell other people what they actually believe.
quote:
If you choose to offer services to the public, you can't refuse services based the fact that their religion or practices different- your religion moderates what you do.
They didn't refuse on this basis, ergo your argument has no premise.
quote:
quote:
t's established principal of law that you do not get to determine if someone else's honestly held religious belief is applicable. So your conclusion on this matter is just hot air.

But it's just wrong, there is no time when religion is irrelevant to a religious person's dealings.

Since the religious person is not getting married or conducting the ceremony, the content of the wedding is not their dealings.
My answer is the same as what you quoted. It's an established principal of law, and not within your power to make this conclusion.
quote:
It is a black box that hey have no right to use as a basis for collusion to exclude people from the market.
No collusion. No exclusion from a market. Misinterpretation of public market. No right to claim blackbox status vis a vis someone else's religion. Lots of factual/logically problems there.
quote:
quote:
Being required to violate your honestly held religious beliefs is an acknowledged harm internationally as well as nationally. Freedom of religion is provided for (even if not honored) at virtually all intergovernmental levels. I guess I'm saying, you're way outside reality with this statement.
Indeed, which is exactly why people who operate businesses that are open to the public cannot use that license to impose on other peoples beliefs by denying them services.
Which isn't what happened. Victim flipping nonsense.
quote:
They can believe what they w ant about the people buying the services, but since they've chosen to use the public market to offer their services, they cannot impose their beliefs on others, only themselves.
See all the prior answers pointing out your logical and factual flaws.
quote:
quote:
WHen you are doing business in the public square you are acting in a secular, not a religious context.
quote:

You may be, that doesn't mean that is true for others.


It's true for everyone by definition of the word secular.
And? You're the one that stuck that word in, there's nothing inherently secular about the "public market." There's no scrap of constitutional or other law that provides for government force to keep religion out of commercial dealings between citizens.
quote:
The US government regulates the US market, not any church.
And? See also Fenring's response.
quote:
That MEans that it is, by definition, a secular institution, regulated by worldly politicians and human laws, not a religious one regulated by holy texts and priests.
It doesn't mean that as a matter of definition. It means that the federal government is entitled to regulate commerce, not that all commerce is inherently secular.
quote:
quote:
By "private" you must mean free, hence starving to death, cause there is no economic version that would actually make sense as private
By private I mean outside of the context of commercially zoned property, public business licenses, exemption from sales taxes and income tax deductibility of your expenses, the assurances of the public health department that your business is safe to patronize, and public advertizing space. You're free to sell your services only within your church or directly to people who share your beliefs on a private basis. Once you open a public establishment and register for a license to do business with the general public, you opt into the secular laws that require that you must offer those services to the entire public and not use the implicit power that comes with a public business license as a way to collude to exclude some segment of the population.
Then you should be free to open a business without applying for a public license, and to post on your door that you are not open to the public and will comply with your religious obligations.

That is not the law though. The business license is mandatory, which puts us right back to being forced to violate your religion to earn a living, notwithstanding the constitutional protections afforded religion.
quote:
quote:
Personal refusal doesn't impose anything on others. No one is entitled to your person or your personal services.
Except we're not talking about personal services. We're talking about publicly advertised and offered services.
We are talking about personal services. Are you under the mistaken belief that one can not advertise personal services? If I advertise my willingness to be a personal assistant I am absolutely free to discriminate against any employer on any basis regardless of the fact that I am engaging in commerce, in public. There is a distinction between services and products, which is why this is such a difficult case.
quote:
If you operate a commercial bakery that advertises that you cater weddings, then you have an implicit contract to sell those services to anyone, regardless of your personal approval or beliefs about the wedding.
There is no such thing as an implicit contract to sell personal services. You can not be bound to perform any personal service at law period, you can only be made to pay damages for failure to perform.

What you just advocated was commercially approved slavery.
quote:
quote:
quote:
You're suggesting that providing a cake for a gay wedding would have exposed them to punitive damages?
I think its perfectly obvious that I did not say that.
Sure, but it's the only way that what you said would have any meaning. Without that, it's completely spurious.
That's just a bad faith assertion on your part. It doesn't resemble what I said in any rationale way.
quote:
quote:
quote:
In what way does the marriage itself- the thing that service was requested for, represent any form of actionable harm or threat to the people?
In no way that I can see, why do you think that's a relevant question? Forced service isn't okay just because the job in question doesn't hurt someone.
The service isn't forces, it's contracted by the rules of the public market.
Do you understand what force means? It means you have no choice, which is exactly what you just described.

Contracts require that two parties enter into a voluntary agreement. You can not have a contract by operation of the "rules of the public market."
quote:
You promised you'd provide them when you applied for your business license. It's only "forced" in as much as you are not trying to renege on your contract implicit in the license.
Then everyone should be entitled to a religious exemption from the license, or to the application of these imposed license terms. There is nothing about the right earn a living that is a gift of the government. The power its been granted to regulate doesn't change that.

You're really arguing that we're all serfs with all the rights and privileges of being serfs here.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Being incompatible with their religious beliefs is not a harm to them, as they are free to believe anything they want about it even after providing the cake.
That is so ridiculously tone deaf its shocking even for you. Being forced to violate their religion or starve is not a harm to them according to you.
If you choose to starve yourself on the basis of other people not conforming to your religion, that's entirely on you, not them.
Broken logic again, since the baker is not asking anyone to conform to their religion, no matter how much you'd like to pretend your warping the situation is reality. Plus all the other repeated bad logic and false facts previously iterated.
quote:
Unless baking and delivering a cake is against their religion, the assertion is spurious, because the use that the cake is then put to is not something that they have any right to dictate.
Bad logic again, applied on your bad faith interpretation of someone else's religion.
quote:
Your religion allows you to define them as and believe them sinners, certainly, but not to deny them service.
Their religion requires they not provide personal service in furtherance of sin, not in any the same thing as what you said. Creative restatements don't make a new reality.
quote:
Denying them service on that basis forces them to be participants in your religious beliefs, whereas the service you provide, unless it actively requires participating in some ceremonial role, requires absolutely no actual participation on your part.
Why did you post the same thing over and over and over again? There's nothing in what you said that references anything but you're own bad assumptions and misapplied logic.

[ May 01, 2015, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Fenring, did you notice where I wrote that more American Catholics do not consider homosexuality a sin than do? Theoretically, I suppose we should consider heterosexual sex outside of marriage sinful as well. Are you surprised that we are not lobbying to make that illegal? Do you think that we should be?

It sounds like you're saying that many American Catholics don't consider it sinful to have sex outside of marriage. Is this the case?

The answer to your question is that no one lobbied to make SSM illegal; it already wasn't legal. In fact, it simply didn't exist. The movement trying to make it a thing was trying to create the possibility of marriage meaning same-sex also. As such it was a positive move, trying to create something, rather than a negative move as you suggest, in trying to negate that which already existed. Had gay marriage already been legal then anyone lobbying to have it abolished would meet the criteria of your question. In a state, however, where SSM hasn't yet been made legal (i.e. where it never was legal before) the three options when presented with the possibility of it would be to abstain, to be 'for' it, or to be 'against' it. Assuming someone believed homosexual practice to be a sin, I assume they would either be against it or else choose to allow others to decide and abstain. It would seem very strange to be actively 'for' the change while yet thinking it's a sin, assuming we also include the premise that it's the duty of each person to try to minimize sin in the world (we can imagine some amoral believer who might say something like "it's a sin, but I don't really care if they sin or not, let them do it," but this doesn't sound like a Catholic to me).

The other thing I should say is that heterosexual sex outside of marriage isn't an institution recognized and confirmed by the government, and the act of it would still exist no matter what the government says, so making that illegal would simply create penalties for doing the act. Contrast with SSM, where disallowing it actually means there is no such institution at all, and there would simply be no gay marriage. In this sense making one illegal versus the other would be different types of gestures; for fornication it would be "don't do this"; for SSM it would be "we do not recognize this." That's very different.

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What you cited was exactly the kind of "creeping infallibility" that I was talking about. In fact, the Pope is only to speak ex cathedra on issues of doctrine where the whole Church speaks with his voice. And clearly, that is not the case. A tidbit: the Pope has actually only ever spoken ex cathedra two times. Both on Marian doctrine. The codification of papal infallibility is fairly new. The bishops may consider it binding doctrine, but a good chunk of the Church does not.

Having had more time to confer with others I can address this a little bit. The first thing I should say is what I suspected before but didn't know how to articulate, which is that ex cathedra pronouncements are not the only infallible statements that can be issued by the church. Here's a short article on the subject from USCatholic.org (the top Google hit on American Catholic websites):

http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings

quote:
Even though only two doctrines have been declared ex cathedra, there are many others that the church professes must be believed. Some of these are laid out in the 1998 “Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei” issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

According to this document, many teachings are “irreformable” and “definitive” and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine, although not necessarily proclaimed ex cathedra. That is, they aren’t promulgated by the pope himself but by the larger magisterium of the church. The lineup of “irreformable” teachings—ones divinely revealed—include those regarding Jesus, Mary, sin and grace, the sacraments, the primacy of the pope, and the doctrinal formulations of the ancient creeds.

Another Catholic source I found explains the difference between "doctrine", "dogma", "authoritative", and so forth:

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

The long and short of it is that doctrine (infallible Church teaching) consists of both dogma (revelation) and "definitely proposed" doctrine (that which is determined to follow necessarily from revelation). Ex cathedra pronouncements are in the latter category, but are not the only kind of 'infallibly taught' doctrine.

On infallibility:

quote:
As noted above, all that the Church teaches as being of "divine and catholic faith" is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limnited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such "infallible" statements deceive themselves. In both the category of divinely revealed and definitively proposed doctrines there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. This means that the Church has "always and everywhere" taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught. Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception. At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church, to Paul VI, to today.
One important element that can be found here and in many other Catholic documents is the necessity to submit one's will to the wisdom of the Church in teachings that are not taught infallibly but are still considered authoritative:

quote:
Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope's writings and addresses that is not "of divine and catholic faith" if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive "religious obedience of intellect and will," as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him.
The Catechism I linked earlier would be an example of this, and although it isn't infallible it is apparently still theoretically required of Catholics to give the assent of their intellect and will to those teachings. Naturally this is an area where there might be some contention (i.e. disagreement about how much assent to give of one's will and intellect), and it does seem that if a tenet was expounded in an authoritative source only and not in infallible doctrine then there could be a case to be made for it to be reversed eventually.

The chief problem I see is that the list of the seven deadly sins as they're now called was formalized by Pope Gregory I, and the contrary virtue to lust is chastity. It is against chastity that homosexual relations supposedly trespasses, and so as long as we assume that lust is a sin then it follows that chastity is a virtue and that unchaste behavior is sinful. This tautology would predate any Catechism now in effect, although the Catechism updated under John Paul II also confirms this verbatim. However, as the seven deadly sins are more of a template than a doctrine it seems to me that unchaste behavior might also trespass on the sacrament of marriage as well, which itself is a strict dogma. I'll try to check up on this aspect of it.

All this said, I find it very hard to figure out how to 'legally' justify a lack of chastity under Catholic historic tradition, but maybe the answer would be found in the books you suggested. The American Catholic website I linked seemed to assume that the Church teachings on sin, grace and the sacraments are part of the infallible teachings, but I suppose the likely conclusion is that this site reflects the part of American Catholics that you did mention believes homosexual practice is a sin.

The part I still have a hard time getting around is how to set aside the opinion of the Pope (or several Popes) and the Catechism on a particular subject. Without meaning to denigrate your position on this, how do you justify it?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would seem very strange to be actively 'for' the change while yet thinking it's a sin...
Why? Isn't this precisely, for example, what any libertarian Catholic resigned to the existence of legal marriage would do?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't have to imagine it; you can see it. Check any poll on US Catholic opinion on things like birth control, women priests, married priests. And you can see throughout history where the Vatican has clearly gotten it wrong and, eventually, changed position. People who were condemned by the Vatican who are now considered saints and doctors of the Church. Yes, I know what the conservative Catholic websites say. This is exactly what I was talking about with the "creeping infallibility".
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pyrtolin, saying that "the U.S. government regulates the market" ergo it is a secular market is a misuse of language.
Using words according to their definition is misuse of language? The US market does not originate from a sacred institution- it is not a product of a church or religious or spiritual institution. That means, by definition, it is secular. It is of the world, not of the spirit. That's what secular means.

There have been sacred markets- the bible has examples of the Jewish temple markets where people exchanged goods and wealth for the coins and offerings they needed to give priests for spiritual absolution. Business was transacting using religious credit- the temple coins. That's a sacred market. In the US, business is transacted using the US state credit- the dollar- that means that it is a secular market regulated and de facto owned by the entity on whose credit it operates.

quote:
There are some federal regulations on commerce, there are some state level regulations, and some are municipal. It is true that the Federal level does have regulation, but the statement that the Federal level "regulates commerce" is a half-truth, since it makes it sound like the Federal government somehow set up the market and its rules and upholds them.
The full sum of Federal regulations include the allowance of the states and localities respectively to make their own rules where it has not made them.

The Federal government issues the credit required to be used in the US market. It creates rules and regulations on which it operates as a whole. There would not be a coherent US market without it providing the basic structure on which it operates. There would certainly be a collection of local and personal markets, each with their own local credit and rules, but there would not be a single baseline consistent market as there is now. (Heck, one of the failings of the Articles of Confederation was that they did not establish a unified market, and the various states found trying to conduct trade between themselves completely unmanageable due to each having its own money, needing to operate its own trade policy, etc... One of the primary features on the Constitution was the establishment of one baseline universal market throughout the US, centrally regulated and operating on one standard unit of credit.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If they refused to sell an off the shelf cake, I'd agree with you. Not the same thing as refusing to prepare a custom product.
It is precisely the same thing if your business formally offers custom products as part of its services. If the bakery did not offer to prepare wedding cakes and only offered off the shelf cakes, but the owner or an employee worked separately to offer those on a select basis, the issue would be different (unless it could be shown that that they were effectively offering them as a formal service, but simply not publicly stating them as a loophole to illegally collude to exclude people from the market)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which collusion doesn't currently exist, and you've provided no evidence of. Which is why I referenced unthinking application of rules originally designed to deal with Race, where there was ample evidence of such collusion as a historical matter.
It certainly does exist- which is why this is a civil rights issue and multiple bakers and other businesses have been found refusing such services. You even note that it could be presented as a religious belief, which means that all members of that religion are actively in collusion if they all refuse service on that basis.

The entire point of establishing practiced classes is that history shows us that all businesses, by the nature of the market, tend toward collusion unless regulated not to. We're not talking about an isolated case of bigotry here, we're talking about widely distributed bigotry that, where present, reduces consumer market access, and will, in some areas have a net effect of representing an effective lockout of a given class of people because enough businesses in that area would force others to comply with their religious assertions in order to access any business services in or across industries.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Contracts require that two parties enter into a voluntary agreement. You can not have a contract by operation of the "rules of the public market."
And, in this case, the contract is between the person that wants to create a business entity and the public authority that issues the licenses to create such. WHen you take out a business license, you are contracting with the public to offer services on a basis that complies with public regulation, including non-discrimination. If you have religiously enshrined bigotry such that you cannot take that contract, then you are opting yourself out of agreeing to that contract and should look for a lone of work that you religiously allow yourself to do instead.

Religious liberty is a good thing, but legally, the only person that you should be able to hold to those standards is yourself, even if that means opting to forgo greater profit margins or make other personal sacrifices because of religious adherence. Anything short of that is using public law to impose the need to satisfy your religion on others.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I advertise my willingness to be a personal assistant I am absolutely free to discriminate against any employer on any basis regardless of the fact that I am engaging in commerce, in public.
And in that case you are acting as an individual, not a public business entity, so you have the personal freedom to discriminate, while the public business entity is regulated such that it does not have that freedom as a condition of its existence.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then everyone should be entitled to a religious exemption from the license, or to the application of these imposed license terms. There is nothing about the right earn a living that is a gift of the government.
No they shouldn't. The business license is a special public service for those willing to comply with the public terms of getting one in order to increase their profitability. It is not essential to the right to earn a living, it's an optional path to increase ones profitability by taking grater advantage of publicly provided infrastructure.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Broken logic again, since the baker is not asking anyone to conform to their religion, no matter how much you'd like to pretend your warping the situation is reality.
"If you want to purchase this service my business entity claims to offer to the public, you must behave in compliance with my religious beliefs" is explicitly forcing people to comply with their religion. It is using publicly granted market power to impose a religious test on ones customers.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Their religion requires they not provide personal service in furtherance of sin
Which they are not doing. They are delivering a cake according to contract. That neither aids nor hinders a sin, because any sinful behavior that might be occurring is happening completely orthogonally to their efforts. It is not less likely to happen if they don't fulfil the contract, it not more likely to happen if they do. The law should not regard purchasing a service offered to the public as facilitation, and thus should not recognize any religious imposition in doing so, unless the act itself is explicitly facilitation. The wedding will happen with or without a given cake. The delivery is, in and of itself, completely unrelated to the execution actual ceremony.

So far as the Baker is concerned in relation to the law they are dropping off a wedding-style cake for a private party. Inserting anything more than that would be applying the law to enforce their religious standards, which would be an explicit violation of the separation of curch and state.


quote:
Which would only be relevant if say the Pope declared that it were a sin to prepare wedding cakes for non-Catholic weddings.
Okay, so then Catholics have no basis for objection since the Pope has not explicitly declared providing cakes to same sex weddings verboten? If you mean effectively doing so be declaring them to be sinful, then the exact same thing was done for protestant (and particularly Catholic/Protestant unions) and yet there was never an equivalent allowable case of business discrimination on the basis of the wedding being interfaith and thus just as restricted as a same sex wedding. The same rules against facilitation would have applied, but providing business services that did not actually have a participatory nature was never an issue. Such restrictions only magically became a big issue when combined with independent bigotry directed at same sex couples.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1