Being Re-educated by Big Brother

A family bakery business in Oregon run by Christians Melissa and Aaron Klein has closed down because of death threats, aggressive bullying and poisonous boycott tactics by homosexualists. Why? They decided not to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. You can read about it here.

Putting aside the whole homosexuality issue,  what I find most disturbing about the report is that the local government backed up the homosexualists and Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is launching a formal investigation of the Klein family. In a statement which is clearly meant to be conciliatory, Commissioner Brad Avakian said that he was committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbians.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”

In other words, instead of going to jail or paying a fine the Kleins will be rehabilitated or re-educated. How chilling is that? In a famous essay on jurisprudence C.S.Lewis points out that the only just reason for judicial punishment is retribution–not rehabilitation or re-eduation. Why? Because the principal of retribution (not revenge) assigns a just punishment for a crime committed. When the punishment is completed the criminal has paid his price to society and it’s all over. Other motives for punishment–while seeming more humane–actually open the door to grave injustice. So if the motive for punishment is to protect the public does a criminal who is irreformable get a life sentence in order to protect the public? If rehabilitation is the motive is the person incarcerated until he is reformed?  What if that takes a very long time but his crime is minor?

When rehabilitation or re-education is the principal of punishment, then the person may be incarcerated or…”housed in a therapeutic center” until he changes his mind. If re-education is the end goal, then a person could be locked away until he is effectively re-educated. A Christian, therefore, who refuses to change his mind may be locked up indefinitely. Would such a thing happen in the United States? Err, what about Guantanamo?

What form of re-education will be used? Gentle lectures on the goodness of homosexuality? Reading books? Role play? Attending a gay pride parade? What if the person refuses to budge? Will more persuasive measures be used? Will their recalcitrance be softened by the use of drugs? Will they be isolated from others? Will they have to join Homophobes Anonymous? Will brainwashing techniques be used? Will government re-education centers be set up? Will the mental health professionals be involved? How much force will be used?

Furthermore, am I being paranoid or does anybody else see the financial threat looming in Commissioner Avakian’s statement, “we want them to learn from their experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.” Subtext being, “If you don’t conform your thinking, your license to operate a business will be withdrawn and we will ruin you financially.”

Americans need to wake up. Our basic freedoms are being eroded as fast as a mud hill in a monsoon, and I fear that most Americans are too cowardly, blind, lazy and satiated by their materialism to do anything about it. Like fat husbands we’ll do anything for a quiet life. Big Brother will step in and most of us will welcome him because he will promise to provide everything for us and take care of us if only  we will go quietly.

UPDATE: Here’s something from sent to my combox: I hope it’s just another one of those internet troll baiters…

Religious beliefs are no shield against commercial law. The Interstate Commerce Act gives the Federal Government total control of commerce. The Federals long ago dictated that any form of unapproved bigotry is not tolerated and will be crushed.
Anyone who has a “moral code” in conflict with Federal and/or State and/or local law cannot, I repeat, cannot withhold services based on their own “moral code.”

Today, legal=moral and illegal=immoral. It’s as simple as that. Since homosexual marriage is now legal in several states (and will be nationwide within the year, I bet), you had best adjust your “morality” or you WILL end up behind bars being re-educated.

Don’t be surprised when we atheists show up at one of your weekly shows (“the Mass”) and impose our legal morality on you.

 

 

  • Xenophon

    A fact that came out in previous articles about this story is that the bakery never refused to serve homosexuals–in fact, they willingly served their products to customers who were openly gay, and in fact were repeat customers. What the bakery did was refuse to participate in making a custom-made cake for specific ceremony that CELEBRATED the gay lifestyle in and of itself–a gay “wedding.” One of the great ironies is that in Oregon, single-sex “marriage” is not even a legal construct–it has been repeatedly rejected by voters–so the bakery is now being prosecuted for refusing to participate in a ceremony that has no legal standing in the first place. If anyone is upholding the law here, it is the bakery, and if anyone is violating it, it is the attorney general of Oregon.

    • Vision_From_Afar

      What kind of message does that send, really? That’s like saying/doing, “Sure, we’ll serve cakes to immigrants, they’re in here all the time, but a cake celebrating their becoming citizens? Not a chance!”

      • kmk1916

        So should the bakery require a sexual behavior questionnaire for every customer? The clients were the ones shoving their specific action in the face of the baker and demanding that he not just tolerate it, but help with the celebration.

      • SteveP

        Bad analogies do not make good law.

      • Jacob Suggs

        No, in fact it is like saying “sure we’ll serve cakes to immigrants, but not in celebration of violating immigration law.” Not all immigrants violate immigration law. And even those who do can still buy cake. But not a special “congrats for outwitting the government” cakes.

        Of course if you think gay marriage is a good thing, then you’d probably prefer your analogy (though the implication that gay people aren’t, in some sense, legitimate unless they act on it and “marry” each other is troubling). But what right do you have to force these bakers to act as though you are right when it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs?

        • LogicalAnswer

          Religious beliefs are no shield against commercial law. The Interstate Commerce Act gives the Federal Government total control of commerce. The Federals long ago dictated that any form of unapproved bigotry is not tolerated and will be crushed.
          Anyone who has a “moral code” in conflict with Federal and/or State and/or local law cannot, I repeat, cannot withhold services based on their own “moral code.”
          Today, legal=moral and illegal=immoral. It’s as simple as that. Since homosexual marriage is now legal in several states (and will be nationwide within the year, I bet), you had best adjust your “morality” or you WILL end up behind bars being re-educated.

          Don’t be surprised when we atheists show up at one of your weekly shows (“the Mass”) and impose our legal morality on you.

          • FW Ken

            Only the mindless, or, more charitably, those ignorant of history, equate legal and moral. The death penalty for sodomy was the law at one time.

            However, it’s typical that an atheist would be willing to use force. They always have.

          • dougpruner

            A word: “Crusades”.

          • jaybird1951

            What a fine display of aggressive bigotry on your part, complete with a threat to send the objectors to re-education camps. Do you ever stop and listen to yourself and what you have become?

          • kmk1916

            “Today, legal=moral and illegal=immoral. It’s as simple as that.”

            Seriously, that’s pretty simple. So abortion is OK? Slavery was OK? Women as chattel was OK? Separate but equal was OK? Human sacrifice (all those ancient cultures)?

            Is that really your moral code (you do have one, you do live by a set of moral beliefs, some kind of self-decided logic–we do all possess free will)–follow the government in power? I am honestly trying to understand where this ends for you.

            What if the horrible Whateverthey’recalled Baptist “Church” ends up running the government and making the laws? Seriously, we would all be following them? Lord have mercy, I hope not!

            I love the Catholic Church, there are so many saints who spoke “truth to power” — in love — and spent time in jail or were sentenced to death. Ss. Thomas Moore, Felicity and Perpetua, Blessed Franz Jaegerstetter–pick an era. … thousands of them! All sorts of situations, but all asking the Lord for forgiveness. I love our communion of saints!

      • Anonymous Coward

        So I guess it’s OK if I threaten to burn down a Jewish deli if they won’t make me a bacon cheeseburger?

    • Greg V.

      Xenophon, I understand and agree with everything you say. Unfortunately, the thought police enforcing these laws do not see it that way. If you are refusing to serve people who are homosexual under any circumstance, it does not matter, you are a bigot and the force of law will be brought to bear on you.

      The thought police see the Catholic Church as being the same as Bob Jones University in the 1970s, when it banned interracial dating. BJU lost its tax exemption. The Church could suffer the same fate (or worse, be forced underground) if it does not successfully differentiate its position from that of BJU. And right now, we are losing that battle.

  • Lynn

    What consequences will there be for those who made death threats, etc?

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      Probably a job in law enforcement.

      • Brian

        I doubt it.

      • Zwetschgenkrampus

        Nah – local government, more likely. Or pubic relations.

  • Surrendered Soul

    Thank you for stating the truth which should be so obvious to all of us. Unfortunately Fr. Dwight, you were also right when you commented that perhaps too many Americans are “cowardly, blind, lazy or satiated with materialism” to see what is developing right before their eyes. Complacency in a comfortable existence precludes the possibility of feeling compassion for others who lack comforts or worse, may be suffering. It seems to go back to the narcissistic belief that “if it doesn’t directly affect me, why should I care?” attitude. These are scary times of uncertainty with an upside down world where bad is good and good is bad. Prayer and fasting is our greatest hope for awakening the sleeping giant in our world and ultimately God is in charge. We are so blessed to have His love and mercy still at our side.

  • spudnik

    A nation that is unprincipled and unthinking can only move toward tyranny. This was overcome in Rome when enough people became Christian. America is nominally Christian but the pews are filled with practical atheists who are only looking for a nice bed-time story. Sacrifice? Self-denial? What are those?

  • Vision_From_Afar

    Yes. You’re being paranoid.

    • Chesire11

      I agree that Father is overstating things. We are a VERY long way from internment and suppression, and there are so many intermediate stages at which the slide is likely to come to rest at a point beyond which Americans simply will not go. That said, we are in the early stages of losing our guarantee of religious freedom. It i startling how many people, whether atheist, or simply “nones” respond to invocations of religious freedom rights with a dismissive snort, and openly expressed opinion that religion is alright as long as it doesn’t get in the way of important things…

      On the bright side, Christian tend to do our best work when oppressed. In times of comfort, the Cross all too easily comes to bee seen as something of an embarrassing relic to be ignored or downplayed at every turn.

      • cestusdei

        I am not that old, but within my living memory this would have been unthinkable. This soft totalitarianism will give way to a harsher brand all too soon.

  • Ray Bones

    The Judeo-Christian idea of morality, and, more importantly, where it comes from, is no longer the foundation for social behavior. We can argue against same sex marriage all we want, but if the other side rejects scriptural life, and they do, if they are even educated in it, then we just sound like hopeless throwbacks to them. Might as well argue against inter-racial marriage. This being the case, we will find ouselves increasingly out numbered, speaking a language that’s no longer understood.

    What can we do? Tell the truth, of course, but be prepared to support home-based bakeries and other fringe businesses, and eventually, to work in such a business ourselves, living a very small lifestyle. Or, we can cave and go with the flow. This is the life of a shrinking minority.

  • Jer

    I do not see where making the cake is a problem. I do not see, how that is agreeing with their life style. I wonder if they made cake for bachelor parties? lol

  • tim

    Let us never fail to remember we are the Church militant, not the Church pathetic

    • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

      Unfortunately, it’s too often the ‘Church Belligerent’ these days, to quote Fr Paul Scalia…

      • Howard

        It’s more often the Church Slumbering. To paraphrase …

        What is your opinion? A man had two sons. The man’s enemy came to the first and said, ‘Go out and sow tares in your father’s field today.’
        He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.
        The enemy came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.
        Which of the two did the will of his father’s enemy?

        I’m afraid too many Catholics are like the first son: bluster, then acquiescence.

  • mollysdad

    This episode suggests to me that the American way of life is rapidly becoming something not worth defending against the enemies of the USA, foreign and domestic.

  • ponerology

    What “America” has wrought overseas is being and shall be wrought here. The velvet glove is coming off. Christendom hangs in the balance.

  • AnAnonymousCatholic

    There are dark clouds on the horizon. Pray that our Bishops have the strength to get through the coming storm.

    I wonder how many bakeries that lesbian couple went through until they found one who wouldn’t serve them?

    I wonder how feasible it would have been for that bakery to offer a wedding cake, but at a substantially increased price, say $500,000 for that kind of “wedding” cake. They could state that they aren’t discriminating against them. The bakery offered the service to the couple just like anyone else, but the couple were unwilling to pay for it.

  • theotpr1976

    Death threats, absolutely they are wrong and horrible. Bullying, that is a most un-Christian response and should be condemned. People deciding that they don’t want to patronize your business because of what you stand for…… well that’s kind of free market capitalism and it’s the pitfalls of doing business. They didn’t go out of business because of over-regulation by government entities…. they lost business and couldn’t sustain it. Now, I’m not defending rampant capitalism, I’m just saying that if people are so pro-free market….. one should accept when the market speaks right? When capitalism does not work in your favor, we tend to gripe about it. (MYSELF INCLUDED in that gripe fest), but if a bakery was run by a gay couple making cakes and they lost business precisely because they were a gay couple making cakes then they either need to move their business or make some darn amazing cakes so that people overlook that they’re a gay couple and their desire for cake overcomes their desire to not patronize the gay couple’s bakery. It’s the same with the Kleins’.

    • eddiestardust

      You know nothing of retailing:(
      I do…
      This couple decided to close their business.
      How would you fare if The Attorney General of your state took you to court unfairly?

    • jaybird1951

      I have read nothing that says they are closing because of the loss of business but because of the governmental pressure and the death threats.

      • Phil Steinacker

        You should go back and re-read.

  • Sven2547

    “Let the free market decide”, I keep hearing. “Businesses should be free to discriminate against homosexuals. If they don’t like it, they’re welcome to boycott it!”

    Well that’s what happened. They boycotted it, and they asked other people to do the same. The free market had its way with this business, and conservatives are outraged anyway.

    • frdlongenecker

      It would have been interesting if the Kleins had been a bit more creative and said, “We’re happy to bake your cake for you. The money you pay for the cake will be contributed to the Support Traditional Marriage Campaign.”

    • Jacob Suggs

      First, most of the outrage is over the government meddling and the venom and death threats. A peaceful boycotting whereby a bunch of people simply stopped going there, and possible wrote reasonably polite letters saying why would cause concern (as described below), but not the outrage at those involved per se.

      Second, the free market doesn’t decide morality. The concern over morals is not concern that people decided to boycott a business that they disagree with, but that our culture has degraded to the point where sticking to something as fundamental and basically obvious as the definition of marriage causes people to boycott you. It’s more of “whoa, how on earth did our understanding of right and wrong fall so far.”

      • Sven2547

        our culture has degraded to the point where sticking to something as fundamental and basically obvious as the definition of marriage causes people to boycott you.

        Funny, I thought equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were a bit more fundamentally obvious.

        • jaybird1951

          Those qualities apparently are only applicable to the gays. Not to the shop owners.

        • cestusdei

          What about the Klein’s liberty and pursuit of happiness?

    • Glenn54321

      No, this is not the result of a market reaction. This was bullying by the state against the backdrop of popular belief instead of law. If they merely boycotted the business and encouraged others to do so as well, there would be no story and the bakery would still be in operation.

      The free market does not have “deploy thugs” as a legitimate tactic. This is a fascist reaction by the state, not the market.

      • Sven2547

        The state didn’t shut down the business. They weren’t even fined.

        • Xenophon

          Not yet. As the article clearly states, the bakery “is under investigation,” with a view to “rehabilitation.” They will be facing crushing legal bills to even attempt to defend themselves against the state’s charges. You need to stop being an apologist for evil, Sven.

          • Micha_Elyi

            Sven doesn’t feel the need.

        • Glenn54321

          So, to sum up your position: Nothing but a totally voluntary boycott happened, the state didn’t do anything, and they decided to close their doors and hide until they can figure things out because…???

          Is this right? Do you honestly think they weren’t bullied by state officials into hiding?

        • cestusdei

          Maybe it was the death threats and persecution by homosexuals that did it.

    • Xenophon

      If if were only that simple, Sven2547. In fact, the free market was NOT able to decide. One of the main reasons the bakery had to shut down was the prohibitive cost of defending itself against the legal action the Oregon State Labor Commissioner is bringing against it. The other main reason was the LGBT activists’ tactic of threatening and boycotting any other local firm that did business even in remote cooperation with the bakery–i.e., florists, wedding planners, caterers, etc. who might wish to participate in the same events the bakery was participating in. The bakery decided to back away, in part, so that other innocent vendors wouldn’t suffer. That’s not “letting the free market decide”–that letting the BULLIES decide, the same sort of thuggery the gays are always complaining about.

      Portlandia is a tough place for Christians to do business in.

      • Sven2547

        Portlandia is a tough place for Christians to do business in.

        That’s a silly thing to say when the vast majority of local residents, politicians, and business owners are Christians.

        • Xenophon

          You have to be joking, Sven. Oregon is the most unchurched stated in the nation (it’s in a close race with Washington), and Portland is the most unchurched city in Oregon. And yes, I realize that Gresham is not Portland, but it’s a nearby suburb. I don’t know where you’re from, Sven, but you’re making Portland sound like Lincoln, Nebraska. Trust me, it’s not. It’s San Francisco North.

        • jaybird1951

          You think so? I live in Oregon and it is the state with the lowest religious affiliation rate in the nation, somewhere below a third of the population and that is likely even lower in Portland itself.

        • cestusdei

          Oregon has the lowest percentage of religious belief and practice in the nation.

        • chicagorefugee

          Are they?

    • Chesire11

      It’s not the boycott that is troubling. It is the threats of violence, and that the state is threatening action against them.

    • SteveP

      A discrimination suit is a bit more than a boycott. Does it not bother you that the shaming and intimidation tactics are the same as used by those against civil rights mid last century?

  • Dave Zelenka

    I had a long discussion with a ‘liberal’ friend of mine (boy, I don’t like labels) about these issues last night.

    I have still come to the conclusion that we must become a poor church. As I’ve explained before, becoming poor (and I mean poor and lowly) we will reform the way our church sees these issues as well as the world. The root of the issue is pride, arrogance, and powerlust, and those are features of worldly richness.

    We must become poor financially. We are already poor spiritually–for that side of the equation, we just need to recognize it.

    And I’m speaking specifically to the Catholic Church, but the world must become poor too or re-education will become standard practice. Liberal Facism is becoming the norm. The solution will not be arms and fighting, it will be poorness and humility–being Christlike in love.

    • Brian

      Liberal fascism? Would you like to see the pages within this page?

      http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html

      • Dave Zelenka

        The fascist extremes becomes all about group-think. It’s a vortex that people get sucked up into. That’s why normal people like you and I went along with Hitler. Walls go up. No one can listen or think for themselves. They can’t hear the other guy, they can’t hear God. How often have I heard the term “like minded” from both extremes in today’s age? Like-mindedness end up being about the self and following some false god (idea) and/or a cult-of-personality. All sides of the political spectrum tend toward a way which is akin to fascism. I have a unique situation to have both extreme liberals and extreme conservatives who are close friends. None of them are fascist in their thinking, yet it gives me insight into both extreme groups who live in our country.

      • Phil Steinacker

        Brian,

        I visited the site you linked to above and was singularly unimpressed, especially since I’ll never get back the time I wasted following your suggestion to see the black holes with this black hole.

        I’ve never seen so much text generated to advance such a thin, one-dimensional argument. No wonder Jonah Gold berg dismisses his argument hallway through all his posts – there’s no there there.

        Fascism has ALWAYS been a creature of the Left – NOT the right. The mad dictator most associated with historic fascism, Adolf Hitler, was a socialist – National Socialism, get it? You should read the text of his speeches before he was elected and even afterwards – filled with the same recognizably socialist rhetoric that Dave, you and the Left love so much.

        It is a fact that after WWII Josef Stalin was extremely worried that there was about to be a world-wide backlash against the international Communist movement. Remember, Stalin had BIG plans and he realized that fellow traveler Hitler gave socialist causes such a bad name that irreparably harm could result.
        Stalin instructed the Communist Parties around the world to begin using the word “fascist” in reference to Hitler’s Nazi party to shift Nazism to the right of the political spectrum. This maneuver paid off handsomely; Stalin’s international communist movement was spared the backlash he feared, and the right got tagged with fascism as its exclusive domain.
        The dirty truth is that the Left – especially in this country – are the TRUE fascists. I wouldn’t even consider tarnishing such an old respectable word like “liberal” (in the original 17th century sense) by linking it with fascism.
        Obama is a fascist street thug; an American brown shirt.
        Oh, btw, I got bored after perusing over half of Dave’s verbal diarrhea and quit to cut my losses, but not before I noticed that NOT ONE of his many posts had elicited a single comment. I don’t want to be too uncharitable, but it appears Dave may have engaged in a little intellectual self-abuse, given that all his prose was evidently written for his own pleasure. He couldn’t even rouse support from his own ideological soul-mates.
        Now, THAT’S MAJOR FAIL.

        • Brian

          Did I say I love socialism? No. I only wanted you to look at the evidence that fascism is anti-liberal as well as anti-Communist. Furthermore, other writers have shown us Hitler’s boasts of promoting Christianity and tradition–but I don’t have time to get into that today since I promised to bow out of this thread.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate”, he said, to make sure his beliefs were absolutely unambiguous, and how they trumped those of the Kleins, and anyone like them…

    Or, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, to quote Animal Farm

  • Brian A

    Mixed race marriages were illegal not too long ago. After they were legalized, would bakers have been within their rights to refuse to bake for them, many who weighed in against mixed marriages certainly quoted the bible. I think once you open an enterprise on the public square you are going to need to treat your patrons equally. I would think the bakery could have stopped serving wedding cakes altogether for instance. The civil rights act of 1964 would seem to be pretty clear on this.

    Certainly death threats are despicable and ought to be prosecuted to the full extent possible.

    • Jacob Suggs

      1) Gay “marriage” doesn’t exist there. So that does not apply in this case, though there are other cases in which such an argument could be made.

      2) Even in such a case where your argument does apply, what the law is is different from what the law should be. Relativism doesn’t work here – interracial marriage is not just legal, it is in fact a real thing that is good, whereas gay “marriage,” legal or not, is not a good thing. Prohibiting people from doing bad – discriminating based on race – can be good. Forcing people to do bad – celebrating as marriage that which is not marriage – is always bad. The law should be set to reflect this. If it did not reflect this, then it is unjust, regardless of whatever it actually says.

      So yeah. Maybe the the law is, it would be illegal to refrain from selling wedding cakes for gay ceremonies. That is a reality in some places, and a potential reality in others. But it is unjust.

      • FW Ken

        Being gay is not like being black. The latter is an objective scientific fact. The former is a self-reported subjective psycho-social complex of feelings, behaviors, and -yes- choices.

    • http://doverbeach.blogspot.com Bob

      The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about four conditions over which people had no control — race, color, sex, and national origin — and about one very specific choice of behavior: religion.

      Same-sex attraction may be a condition over which people have no control; the jury’s still out. But ‘marrying’ another person of the same sex isn’t a condition, it’s a chosen behavior over which people do indeed have control.

      An inclination to steal is a condition, but stealing is a behavior. The inclination isn’t illegal, but acting on the inclination is.

      The bakers evidently didn’t discriminate against potential customers who appeared to have the condition. But they did draw a line when they were asked to sell their skills to help celebrate capitulation to the condition, necessarily involving conduct which they believed to be deeply immoral.

      I hope that all Americans — even bakers! — will always enjoy the right to decline to participate in acts that they believe to be immoral.

      • Brian A

        I would argue that this is a religious matter, which largely explains the forum in which we are discussing it. While the baker’s religious beliefs forbid this type of marriage, their customers’ beliefs clearly allow it. Under your construction, a Muslim might refuse to serve anyone that ate pork, as they engaged in a behavior that was repugnant to Muslims. For that matter, some Muslims might refuse to serve any woman that came in without wearing a burqa.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    Meet the new Empire of Evil.

  • Glenn54321

    Just wait until same sex marriage is legalized nationwide at the federal level… the real war will start against the churches who refuse to do it. First, those churches will lose their 501(c) status. Next, due to the resulting tax burden, many will shutter and the remaining ones will be brought up on civil rights charges and forced to close and the clergy fined or imprisoned. I think the public is primed for this and it will happen with almost no serious resistance. I don’t see a way out of this… it’s not going to be fun.

    • Howard

      The real problem is that there will be the temptation to surrender on this point for the sake of the “big picture” — there will be compliant ecclesial bodies (not worthy of the name “church” in any way) with all the familiar trappings. THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING. It will be the Jody Bottum story again and again.

  • James Patton

    Where have I seen tactics like this used before…?

  • Lynda

    This is an example of out and out persecution. No one has a “right” to a particular service from an independent business. Moreover, no one may force a person to provide a personal service via his business that is against objective moral reason/law. Any law that purports to do so, or penalises those who refuse to comply with such evil mandates, is invalid, null and void. I hope the whole local Church is fighting the persecution of these good people. We cannot look away. This direct persecution, and denial of basic human rights and freedoms to Christians is becoming more and more common. We must fight together against it – we are morally obliged to. Besides, if we don’t, we’ll be picked off, one by one.

    • Rationalist1

      “no one may force a person to provide a personal service via his business that is against objective moral reason/law. ” If they are operating a business offering service to the public, they may not refuse service to a group of individuals based upon their own personal moral beliefs. Imagine the world we would live in if that were the case. I grew up in a very anti-Catholic area. My father and mother were refused service in stores because we were Catholic. We soon learned which businesses to avoid. Now that is unheard of and should be, even though there are people out there who hate Catholics, Muslims, Jews, atheists and gays.

      • Tog

        You’re missing Ho the fact that they are not refusing service to a group of individuals at all. While I do not know the full story in it’s entirety, it does not appear that they are refusing service to Homosexuals, simply that they are refusing to provide a cake for a Homosexual “wedding.”

        Now, if they were refusing to provide Homosexuals service, the government would be more then within it’s rights to penalize them. I fact, they wouldn’t even be in compliance with what the church believes. However, refusing to serve at a wedding is not discrimintory since it’s not against a group.

  • Guest

    Ironically, the zombie apocalypse has become reality. The brain dead on the left are coming for your brains.

    • Brian

      Before I bow out of this thread (I simply don’t have time to respond to every post), let me warn you that this person posted a disturbingly dehumanizing post.

  • DeaconBillG2006

    There is something inherently wrong in the inability of people to respond out of conscience. During times of war, some have responded against the war in question as a matter of conscience. Certainly when a person’s conscience is contrary to moral standards there may be a moral difficulty. However, even though the concept of homosexual marriage has become legal in some jurisdictions, legally right does not necessarily imply morally right, Marriage is actually a privilege, and not a right. No one has the actual right to get married, but exercises the privilege since it is based on mutual consent, not upon forced coercion. If marriage or marital union were a right, then a certain convict in Cleveland should never have been sentenced to life and the girls he preyed upon would have no legal ground for prosecution. Unfortunately, in our times of over-abundant self-entitlement, there is in the public eye little difference between right and privilege. Homosexuals have actually no right to marry, even though they are looking for a legal acceptance of the privilege they have assumed in a same-sex relationship. The owners of the bakery have the right, as owners of the business, to make any product they wish. If a requested product is seen as a moral or professional infringement upon their ability to do their job as they view a correct, they are within their rights as the owners of the business. If they choose not to make a cake for a couple seeking legal justification for that which the bakers do not morally agree, they should have no recourse. If it were the carpenters union rejecting to build the Brooklyn Bridge out of 2×4′s because they do not believe in building something that they see as a moral dilemma of safety, would they then have to build it if the steel workers union requested it so as to walk unhampered across the East River? Invariably when people are wrong, they most often resort to resentful acts toward those who are not, and God have mercy upon those who disagree in the name of morality.

    • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

      Indeed, one’s right is someone else’s duty. My right to life is someone else’s duty to not violate it. My right to property is someone else’s duty to not trespass. That is because may rights nowadays are not. There is no right to marriage – any kind – for then it would be someone else’s duty to marry you. There is no right to work, for then it would be someone else’s duty to employ you. And so on.

      Dismissing the natural law and replacing it with whatever whim, be it sentimentalist or utilitarian, is at the root of our malaise.

    • eddiestardust

      And as such not everyone marries period, not because they don’t want to but because God chooses a different path for them.
      Most gays don’t marry either but I am certain they will find a way of weaseling out of that too:(

  • Danielck

    When will we all learn that homosexuality is defined by sex. It cannot be defined by love. It cannot be defined by marriage. And it cannot be defined by children. It is defined at the moment of perverted sex between two folks of the same sex. Were sex not involved in the relationship, it could not be homo-sexual. Homosexuality is defined by sex. Heterosexuality is defined by God.

  • Mike

    Let’s find a gay business and demand they provide publicity for a support-traditional-marriage rally.

  • Anne

    The Catholic Church also needs to deal with issues of homosexuality within its own backyard. I suppose if we Catholics ourselves allow for homosexual behaviour in our own Church without standing up to it, the Lord will allow us as Christians to be persecuted by the world. We can’t have it both ways. There is a lot of corruption within our Church which is damaging and hurting many souls which remains unquestioned. But we must question it in charity but question it nonetheless. I wiil pray for the Kleins and I pray that they get the support that they need at this time. They are people of great courage and backbone and may the Lord bless them. We need more people like them. It is people like them who suffer for the sins of others and for the Church also. (Both Christian and Catholic Churches)

    • Xenophon

      Ann, though I agree with most of your post, your last line is jarring. Catholics ARE Christians, the original Christians. The distinction you made is a very odd one, implying a nonsensical difference between Christians and Catholics, and this sort of language is confusing to those outside the Church. You probably meant to say, “both Protestant and Catholic Churches,” or “both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.”

  • fondatorey

    Yes, this is how persecution in America will be carried out: by economic punishment. I can see things like professional and business licenses being denied to Christians who won’t sign on to ‘statements of ethics’ that require specifically anti-Christian behavior or statements.

    The average person in the street who is happy to go along with the powerful will say ‘first of all its not happening and second of all you deserve it.’

  • Matthew

    Jesus says to those that choose to follow Him, “You are forbidden to have those values of the world such that the moth can consume, such that the rust can tarnish, such as the thief can break in and steal; I call upon you to have the values of My Father’s Kingdom that the moth could never consume, the rust could never tarnish, and the thief could never break in and steal.”

    Fr. Longenecker says, “Americans need to wake up. Our basic freedoms are being eroded as fast as a mud hill in a monsoon …” Translation: “Out of one side of my mouth I call myself a Christian; out of the other side I reject the values of Jesus and embrace the values of the world”

  • Al Bergstrazer

    1Peter 4:12-16

  • Highland Cathedral

    During those times when people were drafted into the US armed forces were people allowed to exercise conscientious objection? Certainly, the principle has been recognised in many European countries.

  • Sus_1

    I have a question. Would it be a sin for a Catholic baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? Would they need to go to confession for it? It’s hard to know where the line is drawn when you have gay friends, your children have gay friends or friends with gay parents. It seems like no one ever talks about that.

    I understand why they don’t want to make wedding cakes and think their feelings are reasonable. If they put a “No Gays” sign in the shop, I’d say that’s not okay but you enter into a contract with a baker for a wedding cake.

    • Dave

      I think that’s a good question. I’m not sure if it’s really objectively a sin if someone were to do it (that would be a question for a moral theologian) but it’s certain that it would be a sin to do it if one felt in conscience that they should not.

      I think the best idea I’ve heard so far is that the baker should put up a sign saying “All proceeds from sales of gay marriages go to support NARTH.” That would probably do the trick.

  • Rationalist1

    Religious people are free to discriminate against whomever they wish within the confines of their religion but if they are operating a commercial business or in public service they have to recognize the current laws against discriminating against groups of people. It may be that a Catholic bakery will have to bake a cake for a couple being remarried, or a strict Muslim may have to be waited on at the DMV by a women in Western attire or a Jewish waitress may have to serve pork in a restaurant but that’s how we run society.

    Does the Catholic Church really want to champion discrimination like this. Oppose homosexuality if you want but don’t endorse religious prejudice in commercial or public interactions..

  • Headstand

    I don’t think I’m being paranoid when I recall that the Germans had a word for this very kind of forcible-coordination: Gleichschaltung

    • kmk1916

      Yes, and they are continuing it with their persecution of homeschoolers over there. Pathetic, I wonder how many billions of dollars spent (and still spent) in Germany–and of course our government is not supporting the freedom of parents to direct their children’s education.

  • Rationalist1

    you had best adjust your “morality” or you WILL end up behind bars being re-educated.

    Don’t be surprised when we atheists show up at one of your weekly shows (“the Mass”) and impose our legal morality on you.”

    Total nonsense.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X