Another disaster from the courts

Elaine and Jon Huguenins

Elaine and Jon Huguenin

The following comes from an August 27 story by Hadley Arkes on TheCatholicThing.com.

Another week, and another disaster for the cause of religious freedom litigating in the courts.  This past week the Supreme Court in New Mexico sustained the penalties meted out to Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin in Albuquerque when they declined to take photographs for the “wedding” of two women [Elane Photography v. Willock]. The Huguenins were charged with violating a law that barred certain discriminations on the part of people in business, engaged in transactions with the public – in this case a discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”

The Huguenins were willing to take pictures of all kinds of persons, but they were averse to taking pictures of two men or two women holding hands or engaged in gestures that marked a homosexual relation.  And so it became clear to the judges that, behind the refusal to take photos at a same-sex marriage, was a deep aversion, a disapproval of the homosexual relation, and that is what put the Huguenins in violation of the law.

The Huguenins invoked the claim of religious freedom, and once again the argument played out in this way:  The offense lay in refusing to recognize the rightness of the homosexual relation, and to visit on the couple the sting of reproach.  The protection of the same-sex couple now claimed the moral ground, the ground of rightness, and against those claims the Huguenins offered only religious “beliefs.”

And we must ask:  How many times must we have the same experience played over again before our friends litigating these cases come to the recognition that they need seriously to consider a recasting of the argument?   I have been joined by my friend Frank Beckwith in these columns in making the plea:  that we need to move beyond the claims of “belief” and come forth with the reasoning that would make our position defensible even to those who do not share our religious faith.

In that move we would recover also the understanding that Benedict XVI sought to restore in the Regensburg Address:  “Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature,” for “in the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God.”

But that move would also pose a challenge to the other side as we recover the classic understanding of the moral ground of the law:  those who would impose laws on others need to establish the justification then for overriding the private judgments made by individuals on the things that make their own positions rightful and defensible.

As the matter comes into play, say, with these cases on “sexual orientation,” we would point out at once that the law gives no clear account of what it would forbid.  The term “sexual orientation” is so abstract that it could include sex with animals or small children. Even the Gay Rights Parades have been reluctant to include the Man-Boy Love Association or the pedophiles.

The activists may retreat to the claim that the “sexual orientation” must be confined to “consenting adults,” but that doesn’t meet the point.  The pedophiles regard their orientation as quite legitimate – for if the matter is merely one of pleasure, the 15-year-old boy knows what gives him pleasure as well as anyone else.   The plain fact is that even the partisans of gay rights admit that certain orientations may be illegitimate.

If we had a man seeking to become an adoptive father, would we not have reservations about putting children into his hands if he acknowledged that he was deeply engaged in sado-masochistic sex or confirmed in the practice of pedophilia?  Which is to say:  Would it not be thoroughly defensible to draw certain morally adverse inferences about someone’s “sexual orientation”?  And would that judgment not translate into adverse judgments in the law – as in denying to this man the privilege of becoming an adoptive father?

But if all of this is tenable, it should be clear that there is no ground of justification for a law that would bar, in a sweeping way, all discriminations based on sexual orientation.  In that case, we would challenge the legislators to come forth with a more precise sense of the wrong they would forbid.  What would they put in place of discriminations based on “sexual orientation”?

There is no ready or plausible answer.  It cannot be that it is wrong to find fault with “the way in which people achieve orgasmic pleasures,” for that formula could encompass rape as well as many other things from which even liberals recoil. Years ago we were told that this matter of sexuality was mainly a matter of “personal taste” and it would be inapt to cast moral judgments.

And yet, if it is a matter of taste, then the claim is sufficiently countered by the report that the Huguenins do not share that taste.  If it is a matter now of casting judgments, then the Huguenins deserve to hear the compelling reasons that would justify the law in claiming that there is nothing tenable or defensible in the convictions they hold about the homosexual life and same-sex marriage.

In a comparable way, we would demand that law show what reasons it has for rejecting, as untenable, the reasons held by those who would reject the “contraceptive culture.”  The recasting of our arguments may rightly begin here, in restoring the sense of the moral demands that have to be met by anything calling itself “law.”

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. Abeca Christian says:

    I’m psst…how can we help this young couple to defend themselves. This is an outrage! Next will be forcing people to watch gay movies and stories at public schools too….oh wait that has already happened. Our country was once a country of reason and decency…not anymore. We must act quick and have a law that protects religious freedoms….it is not a protected one…..

    • If I were that couple I would have said, “Sure, I’d love to take the pictures. I only stipulate that all your guests must say the rosary and pray for the continual success of family and traditional marriage. Also, I must ask that you respect my beliefs and not have any physical acts of sexual attraction that might offend my sensibilities.” “Just sign the contract here, and we’ve got a deal, okay” Uh, wait a minute folks…come on back…don’t you want me to take your pictures? I’d just love to work out a deal…sigh”

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Cute Dana but to this couple I don’t think humor can help but I like what you said….but you know how the gay activist work, they may sue them as well for them forcing the rosary on them. They will find ways you know…..a person or persons in bad will never respond well to true charity and to the truth. Understanding this will help us understand sin and how it works. It will give us peace even more knowing that it is sin that is distorting the natural law that God handed down to mankind so mankind can be happy. We are not in peace when pride sets in but praise God that He is patient with us because He knows how these sins are also intimidating especially since they are ruling our land. It took guts for this couple to not back down. I hope they continue and to not cave in. I pray for them. My heart goes out to them.

        I would of sprinkled holy water….and say an exorcism since that it what it will take to destroy 0r at least intimidate the evil spirit curse of gayness.

    • Michael McDermott says:

      What can be done to help these Photographers & others targeted by Gaystapo Pander or Perish Pogroms?

      Perhaps Religious & Charitable Foundations providing Free Grants to Enable continuing their good work for others of Good Will – For Free / at Cost Only.

      Grants mean Freedom – and while deceitful scam artistes can take the money and run, so long as Caesar’s Coin is the token of exchange, the Gaystapo will have a club to bash the un-good.

      I say take that Big$ Club Away – using alternate ways to provide support to Good People, where Caesars Stooges can’t reach.

      The 9th USCA just upheld the ‘No Therapy’ law #1172 in CA – and the ruling pretty much violates – a whole buncha stuff.

      Hence the ‘Law’ is now just another political tool for the Gaystapo to enforce Mandatory Pandering.

      Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, saidL

      “SB 1172 locks molested children into homosexuality by prohibiting them from receiving professional counseling to understand the source of their sexual confusion.

      This bad law should be struck down for the protection of precious First Amendment freedoms for the benefit of children who seek help to recover their natural gender identity,”

      “All who support free speech and the right to choose should oppose this draconian Democratic law robbing teenagers of self-determination and trampling parents’ God-given rights to act in the best interests of their own children,”

      “Many children have benefited from professional counseling to help them overcome unwanted same-sex sexual or romantic desires, attractions, behaviors, mannerisms, or identity.”

    • Dana, I think you have a good point. Jesus said, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Matthew 10:16

  2. Michael McDermott says:

    Conscience Rohming Astray

    Hmmm… Lets See if I can find an analogy.

    How about If I buy a generic birthday cake from a Jewish Bakery and they sell it to me, and then tell them I want Them to put “Happy Birthday Ernst Rohm” in frosting…

    (Rohm was the world famous Boy Raping Homo-Anal Coprophile Pederast who founded the Homo-Nazi party – and led its Homosex Terrorist Storm Troopers in beating Germany in to “Tolerance’; as well as the ‘Hitler Youth’ after they destroyed the Boy Scouts – until assassinated in 1934 by his syphilitic prostitute protégé / boyfriend Hitler)

    Can I Sue them if they Refuse – because Rohm is a famous (and Heavily Censored) Homo-Anal World Historical Figure and refusing would ‘Reflect Adversely” on his sexuality?

    Rohm died After opening Dachau under his command, but Before the Death Camps were built (after the Nuremberg laws) and started specifically targeting Jews?

    In other words -because Rohm was a Homo-Anal Coprophile who died Before the Holocaust – Does that count more than his starting up the ‘party’?

    Is an Ernst Rohm Birthday Cake a matter of Affirming Homosex Pride, to be Ordered by the Courts…

    – Or a deal breaker – and treated unlike the disapproval of Behaviors by other members of his Misandrist / Exterminationist / Pederast Bund – by those Wedding Photographers.?

    After all – If they have No Right of Conscience in what they Must Support, why should anyone else – like Jewish or Catholic citizens?

    • GREG SMITH says:

      Naziism isn’t a protected class under the various civil rights laws we are discussing here. Religion and sexual orientation are.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        GREG that is a lie…..Religion is not a protected class anymore! It seemed like it was because there use to be people who feared the Lord and it was a given but now it is the opposite and they learned to find ways to go around that perception that religion is protected, which is not! It is not! So we need more direct laws that do protect freedom to an informed conscience due to their faith in God!

        But homosexuality is. That one is especially it is true in California….it has been said that too bad for those of faith because they too have to honor any gay indoctrination!

      • Michael McDermott says:

        And Not Either Or

        If GS is trying to be disingenuous it didn’t work; if simply Clueless, here are some more.

        My Analogy was not meant as an Either / Or proposition (either Rohm is rejected as Nazi Founder or Not) – rather Given that Rohm was a symbol of Homo-Anal Coprophile Pride…
        – Does this ‘good’ Overcome & Rehabilitee Rohm’s Homo-Nazi past?

        The first biography of “Ernst Julius Röhm–German military officer, commander of the Nazi Stormtroopers, and Homosexual”
        (by Eleanor Hancock) provides extensive Amazon background discussions – such as these Quotes Demonstrating Rohm’s Tolerance.

        “The Bath House is… in my view the peak of all human happiness. At any rate the type and manner of intercourse there pleased me exceptionally.” (P-89)

        One of the most ‘Tolerant’ quotes from could have taken place in any Frisco Dungeon, or Hollywerid – and is Now Promoted by the US Military:

        At the Homosex nightclub Eldorado:

        “a Transvestite Hostess sat down at the table and began to talk to Rohm about a party they had been to together…
        When (his companion) commented in the indiscreetness of such an approach to an ex-client in front of a stranger,

        “Rohm, who normally was open and unashamed about his pickups and enjoyed joking about his ‘weakness’ was suddenly huffy.

        ‘ I am Not His Client. I am His Commanding Officer.’ he said with complete seriousness. ‘He is one of My Stormtroopers.’ ” (P-89)

        SEE – The Strange, Strange Story of Gay Fascists – by Johann Hari.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

  3. Your Fellow Catholic says:

    It’s too bad the author of this article didn’t do his homework. New Mexico has a very clear definition of sexual orientation, in contrast to the claims made here. “Heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived.” N.M. Stat. Ann. 28-1-2(P)”

    • Abeca Christian says:

      Lord have mercy…….so now they are scientific and factual….its their opinion to what is homosexuality….just like you….in error.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        I’m in error over my definition of sexual orientation according to New Mexico statutes? Seriously?

        The article made a claim that sexual orientation could mean pedophilia or bestiality. Which is clearly explicitly not the case according to New Mexico statue. Take it up with the author, not with me.

  4. Please!
    Don’t we have the freedom to take jobs or not, as we choose?
    What is this country coming to?

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      No it’s called operating a public accommodation. People used their “conscience” to refuse service to blacks until they were clearly included in the public accommodations laws.

      • Exhibit two: In using a particular example to make a point, it is fraudulant and particularly dishonest to mix metaphors, oranges and bananas, true speak with double speak and other such peccadilloes. Race is particular term used to identify genetic populations. After many years of study and efforts of really stretching and abusing studies, legitimate science has failed to find a homosexual gene. What has been found however that this particular population , united by sexual behaviors non-conducive to species propogation or longevity, share several behavioral characteristics learned after birth, much like you have Goldwing or Harley motocycle travelling groups or Airstream enthusiasts. Then there are broader distinctions like ALL motocyclists as opposed to bicycle riders, and their diametrically opposed understanding of who rules the roadways. Please do not insult black people by uniting your little behavioral distinctions with something far more important.

      • YFC…Race is innate, sexual orientation is not. There’s a big difference…And by your logic public accommodation would include a threesome’s conterfeit union?…
        First Amendment:…Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religioun “or prohibiting the free exercis therof”…What don’t you get?

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Ronnie and Pete – People cannot determine their own sexual orientation. Even the official teachings of the Catholic Church support that the number of people with innate sexual attractions to the same sex are not insignificant. Please try to eduacate yourself in official Catholic teaching. CCD is a good place to start.

          • YFC, whether or not a person can determine his or her own sexual orientation is up for debate. Marriage is a different matter. People choose not to marry for all sorts of reason. Priest and Ministers choose not to marry some couples for all sorts of reasons as well.

          • No, the Cathechism does not mention ‘innate’…Please don’t misinterpret this. It is you who needs an education. Why not purchase a copy for yourself?…

            Basing itself on Sacred Scripture which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law…..The number of men & women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not neglibible. They do not choose their homosexual condition for most it is a trial..They must be accepted…etc..

            An example…a relative of mine did not choose to become an alcoholic, it wasn’t innate. He did made a decision to turn his life over to God and recover from this disorder……

            No where does it say it is ‘innate’ And if it were how to account for all the ‘former’ homosexuals?

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Tracy – If you believe that the notion of whether people choose their sexual orientation or not is debatable, then you probably also find the notion of a round earth debatable, or the notion that the earth is the center of the universe to be debatable. I bet you also believe it debatable that humanly generated carbon dioxide is changing the climate of the planet, or you may with to debate whether evolution through natural selection perfects species over time to face environmental challenges. Fine, anything can be debatable. But it would be a debate you would soundly lose.

            Ronnie, you are correct that the catechism doesn’t use the word “innate”. We are not robots who memorize the Catechism rote and only use the specific verbiage of the text. But even within the quotes you provide support the concept of the innate nature of sexual orientation. And as for “former homosexuals” — I’m waiting to meet one. Even one. There was supposed to be an ex-gay pride month this summer, but was canceled due to lack of participants. The organizers tried to hold a gala dinner and a public press conference with “thousand and thousands” of ex-gays. The only people who showed up were the organizers themselves.

            There are bisexual people who fall in love with and to marry people of the opposite sex, and they may forgo sex with all others including those of the same sex, but they haven’t changed their sexual orientation.

          • YFC, I don’t expect you to agree with my statement that “whether or not a person can determine his or her own sexual orientation is up for debate.” I do, however, expect you not to belittle me for making such a statement. Since the “religion of tolerance” is what you preach, I expect you to practice what you preach.

            I hope, however, that you can agree with my other point that marriage is a choice some people have, if they meet the criteria for such an arrangement.

      • People can not determine their own skin color, but they can choose whether or not to commit MORTAL SIN. Like Lucifer they can choose to go to Hell for Eternity by their own free-will actions.

        • Charles Robert Donaldson, SR. says:

          Just remember being gay is more than just sexual behavior. So stop equating being gay with sin. My confessor pointed out that God does not make junk people. Gay people were created by God, and that was good.

          The research at UCLA seems to confirm that the gay man is a product of something in the brain that develops before birth. As a father of a gay man, gay people have said, “Why would anyone want to be gay given what we face.” Helping a young person accept who they are and grow with that understanding is a ministry in itself.

          Personally, I prefer Father Rolf’s Franciscan spirituality in dealing with these hard issues. Once the connection is made through Christ,our brother, the sin issues seem to fall away.

          • Homosexuality is not sinful. Homosexual acts are. All sex acts outside of a man-woman marriage (and if you are Catholic, a sacramental marriage) are sinful.

          • Nothing your professor has told you has been proven.
            The US CDC has done much research and none of what you state has been proven. – They have been unable to find any biological causes for homosexual desires. It is merely someone’s wishful theory at this time.

            Everyone has control over and responsibility for the their own behavior/actions unless seriously mentally ill – which prohibits them from knowing right from wrong.

            For accurate CATHOLIC CHURCH teaching regarding homosexual ACTS, read the Bible and your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.

            What you prefer could send yourself and your Son to Hell. Check things out before you spread the gospel of Lucifer.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Charles I pity your comments, to assume evil by saying that God created “gay” people. It is highly in error…”gay” is a new term now used by the homosexual rights activist….so no such thing, God is not an activist for that evil cause. He does not contradict himself. and also God gave us the natural law…so your comments is proven to be a lie because of the natural law that our Lord has handed down to humanity! You are walking in deception and you are also preaching it. It is a sin to use our Lord in such a way. Please repent.

      • YFC, You cannot marry two people who are of the same sex, an adult brother and sister, six year olds, individuals who are currently married to one person, a dog and a man, a dog and a dog,………..

        These photographer’s, being true to their Christianity would have surly refused to photograph any of the above individuals engaged in the process of making a mockery out of marriage. It is the event which they oppose, not the individuals. I wonder YFC, are there any “events” you think this couple should have the right to refuse to photograph without facing the risk of personal and financial ruin? (I expect that this will be a hard question for you to answer) So I’ll give you one, which you hopefully would agree with: A group of witches making a mockery out of the Holy Mass and the Priesthood.

        Homosexual activists are Hell Bent on forcing onto society a false definition of Marriage and eliminating any of their opponents, using any means necessary, including fines, imprisonment, property damage, and bodily assault until society caves in and accepts. Homosexual activist hate marriage as much as Communist hate marriage and the family.

        Oh Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee, And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee Especially The Enemies Of The Church.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          I think you are quite clearly wrong that gay people hate marriage. Some do, for a variety of reasons. And so do some straight people hate marriage. But most gay people actually want to find a spouse for life and work very hard to find a spouse and the legal right to be married. It just defies logic to think gay people hate marriage: If we hated marriage, why would we work so hard to win the freedom to marry? Doesn’t quite make sense, does it. If I hate broccoli, I’m not going to raise broccoli and serve it for dinner, would I? And your notion that violence is being used to win marriage rights is simply utterly unfounded in fact. There is absolutely no record of violence being used to win marriage. There was a riot after Harvey Milk’s assassin was nearly acquitted in the 70s, and there were some skirmishes to get funding for treatment for AIDS in the 80s, but there have been no similar violent incidences over marriage, even after Prop 8.

          Tracy, as to your questions about refusing to photograph certain things. I think those are good questions. I’ve actually answered them already, but CCC elected to censor my answers for an unknown reason, but they did not violate the rules of the blog, and I think you’d find them to be sympathetic to the questions you raise. The answer is that photography, like owning a bar or restaurant or a hair salon, is a public accommodation not a private endeavor. Public accommodations in New Mexico are prohibited from refusing service to people on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation. Just as there are no “whites only” water fountains anymore , there should be no “straights only” businesses either.

          • Anonymous says:

            YFC, after Prop 8 won a group of Christians were assaulted in the Castro district.

          • YFC, anytime a definition of any word is fundamentally changed, the original intent of the word is destroyed. Once the definition of Marriage is fundamentally changed then necessarily Marriage becomes something else. Homosexual activist are intent on destroying Marriage.

            Your comment of “There is absolutely no record of violence being used to win marriage”, is puzzling to me. Then tell me why the TFP folks and others have been assaulted by homosexual activists just because they stood on a street corner exercising their freedom of speech that marriage is between a man and a woman?

            As to your last remark, then I am to presume that you believe that a Catholic photographer would be obligated to photograph A group of witches making a mockery out of the Holy Mass and the Priesthood. After all even witches would have a right to their religion and the state should not have a say in what their religion chooses to do on any given day. Right?

          • Try ‘Courage’ before you dismiss all those ‘former’ homosexuals and lesbians…. Of course, I cannot name names for fear of the intimidation from the radical gays. Some are quite vicious, no wonder they cancels that event….. And in my view it’s quite apparent that your heart and mind are closed to the truth and you’re not willing to be open-minded and let God in…Hey, but at least your searching and that’s a good sign….

          • A man in the Knights of Columbus who was here legally from Mexico was beaten when he passed out signs for Prop 8 in front of a church. It was reported on this site at the time. Also many people had pro Prop 8 signs stolen from their yards. One person parked a large truck in front of someone’s house, so the Prop 8 sign in their yard could not be seen from the street; websites of pro traditional marriage organizations were hacked and offices vandalized and on and on.

          • YFC you will never admit to what wrongs you sodomites do never,,, you are detestable

    • Indeed Michael. What is the difference between the Huguenins refusing to do business with the lesbians, and the Catholic church refusing to marry them? YFC (Your Fallen Catholic) naturally avoids this question, which goes to the heart of the matter.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Dan, this is actually a good question. The answer is that the Huguenins offerred a public accommodation. The Catholic Church is a private group. If the Huguenins offered there services to a select group…say…explicitly to members of their homeowners association, then there would be no case against them. But insofar as they offerred there services to the world at large, they offerred a public accommodation, and as such were not permitted to discriminate on various bases including race, religion, national origin, sex, and at least in New Mexico, sexual orientation. The law treats public accommodations differently than private clubs or groups.

      • You have got that right, Dan. As night must follow day, that is the next thing on some of their agenda — make priests and ministers and rabbis marry them. If we do not stand our ground, we will fall for anything.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Anne, just so you know, it is not a part of the “gay agenda” to force ministers to marry same sex couples. I’m not sure there is any gay agenda, other than to be treated in society and law the same way any other person is treated. Thus, in the US, no minister or priest is required to marry any couple, gay or straight. Two Jews cannot walk into the Cathedral and demand that Archbishop Cordileone marry them. Ain’t gonna happen.

          On the other hand, there is a fellow who tried to put “The Gay Agenda” into book form. I think it is on Amazon, if you care to look into it.

    • Michael McDermott says:

      Hire Consciousness

      A more contemporaneous Analogy exploring the ‘Range of Conscience’ citizens are now Limited to, in this Age of Abomination…

      – I think the LARRY BRINKIN case provides a Very Un-Good one, as shown by evidence seized during his Second Arrest:

      “The search warrant is a comprehensive list of terrible images of young infants subjected to sodomy and oral sex, and perverse racial comments including:

      “I loved especially the ‘n-word’ 2 year old getting nailed.”

      “Hope you’ll continue so I can see what the little blond b***h is going to get.

      White Power! White Supremacy! White D**k Rules!”

      http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2012/06/27/no-shame/

      BRINKIN was a Frisco ‘In-Human Rights’ Commissioner under Sparky the Drag Queen (former porn shop owner / police commissioner, Turned Law Giver) – and is included in a Discrimination suit by a Black Heterosexual Male (CV#12-0231 Willis V SF; N.D. CA).

      Sooo… Suppose Sparky goes in to a bakery run by Minority Male Survivors of Homo-Anal Pederast Rape, and orders a Birthday Cake (or Bouquet…) –Demanding They write on it “I Support Larry Brinkin 100%” (actual quote).

      Do these Rape Survivors have the ‘Right to Refuse’ providing the ‘sentiment’ – based on Their Rejection of Larry’s Homo-Anal Coprophie Behaviors?

      How about as Racial Minorities – Can they Then Refuse to produce the “100% Support” slogan?

      Hence I ask the PC Thought Police here (*you know who you are) –

      Are there Any Grounds to Refuse Helping Promote something they consider Truly Evil – Or does ‘tolerance’ for a Homosex Icon like Brinkin Trump All?

  5. The court apparently ruled the New Mexico statute was similar to a “public accommodation”—which was used during civil rights battles in the 60’s to prevent refusing to serve blacks in diners or restrictions on transit and hotels. The statute, though, does seem broader than “public accommodation” when they wrote transactions with the public.

    I’m not sure I agree with this decision. My intuition tells me a wedding photographer should be different since what they do is within the realm of “art” and requires an active participation in a religious ceremony that they do not agree with. That, to me, seems a bit different than an arms length transaction with the public. Hence, I do think that their freedom of religion should trump the non-discrimination statute here.

    If, for example, a grocery store were to refuse to sell food to a gay wedding, I would see that differently. I consider that as an arms length transaction. But, to me, wedding planners, wedding photographers, caterers ect, all have at least some level of participation in the event and so should have the freedom to refuse based on religious objections.

    Yet, the way the New Mexico statute has been applied here is like forcing a Jewish caterer to provide food to a Neo-Nazi rally. Even if there were a statute forbidding businesses to exercise political bias in services offered to the public, I couldn’t imagine a court ruling that forced a Jewish caterer to perform such an act.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      JonJ I was with you until the last paragraph. The notion that photography is an art or an expression akin to speech is one that courts take seriously. I think some courts have ruled along the lines you suggest, and I think everybody would agree that photography is maybe a slightly different case than, as you say, a caterer. or a taxi driver. or a lunch counter at Woolworths. Most people, including me, would grant that it might be a gray area.

      Assuming that I contracted with this firm to photograph my wedding and they pulled out for what they believe to be religious grounds after the contract was signed, if there was enough time to get a good alternative photographer, personally I would let them walk. In fact, I would want them to walk. I wouldn’t want that kind of negative feeling, emotion, sentiment, and religion at my wedding. Who needs it?

      • YFC, analogies are always imperfect. What I was trying to convey was simply two groups who have incompatible beliefs about one another.

        I did not mean to say that gays were like Neo-Nazi’s—I think you have read enough of my posts to know I do not believe that. To me, gays are people whose sexual desires are aimed at the same sex rather than the opposite sex. I don’t think gays “ask” to feel that way, any more than anyone really “chooses” what they find attractive. I also do not think gays intend to harm others by acting on their desires—which is very different from Neo-Nazi’s.

        • Catherine says:

          “I think you have read enough of my posts to know I do not believe that.”

          “I also do not think gays intend to harm others by acting on their desires—which is very different from Neo-Nazi’s.”………

          This is another example of potentially lethal broadmindedness from Jon J. Jon J’s statement is erroneous and extremely irresponsible. This is an example of fear of the loss of respect of men over respecting God’s TRUTH first. All at the lying risk and expense of killing both the body and the souls of men.

          Taken from AVERT an International AIDS Charity

          THE CRIMINAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV

          “An increasing number of people living with HIV are being prosecuted for transmitting the virus to their sexual partner(s). Stories of people ‘deliberately’ or ‘recklessly’ transmitting HIV to others have appeared in the media since the epidemic first began, and some of the individuals concerned have even been criminally charged and imprisoned.

          Intentional, reckless or accidental?

          Intentional (or deliberate or wilful) transmission, is considered the most serious form of criminal transmission. Some cases have involved individuals (both HIV positive and HIV negative) who have used needles or other implements to intentionally infect others with HIV. Others have been based on HIV positive people who have had sex with the primary intent of transmitting the virus to their partner.”

          • Michael McDermott says:

            Conga Line of Buggery Bail

            Catherine – Have you a link to your source for the allegedly “increased prosecution” of those who spread (Aids / Rectal Gonorrhea, MRSA, Syph…) via Homo-Anal Coprophile Behaviors?

            All too often the ‘Law ‘(like the Turkey Baster Creationist Pogroms in the legislature, denying any connections between Sperm and Male xy Gender) – Targets Heterosexuals Only.

            In CA there was a ‘Law’ passed over a decade ago by the legislative Gaystapo –

            – Intended as window dressing to cover up of the Fact that ever newer and more treatment resistant strains of STDs were continuously vectoring out of the Nexus of Pathology that Sodom by the Sea is notorious as.

            Here is a link to the article, and I attach relevant excerpts as a follow up, as the 250 word limit looms – and the Anti-Catholic Harpies who roost here get really tweaked if anyone defends the Truth – particularly at length.

            HIV transmission case tossed out / Man didn’t intentionally infect, judge finds

            http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/HIV-transmission-case-tossed-out-Man-didn-t-2525277.php

            Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer December 10, 2003

            A San Francisco judge Tuesday found insufficient evidence to support charges that a former San Francisco health commissioner had intentionally infected sexual partners with the virus that causes AIDS.

            The ruling by Superior Court Judge Kay Tsenin to throw out a grand jury’s indictment in the case marked the first-ever judicial review of a 1998 state law against knowingly and deliberately infecting partners.

          • Michael McDermott says:

            The New ‘Normal’ = Same Ole Misandry
            Catherine – Note the Winning Legal Argument – that such Behaviors are “Normal” – for Some…

            “HIV transmission case tossed out / Man didn’t intentionally infect, judge finds (SFGate)

            marked the first-ever judicial review of a 1998 state law against knowingly and deliberately infecting partners.

            Hill = pattern of soliciting sex with men on the Internet and falsely telling them he wasn’t infected…

            At least two men infected with HIV told the grand jury – Hill repeatedly told them he didn’t have the virus.

            Hill took advantage of his position as a health commissioner to stave off questions about his HIV status.

            Hill’s attorney, Peter Fitzpatrick, argued – there was not enough evidence to show his client had intended to infect anyone.

            He said that the contacts between Hill and the two alleged victims – were “normal relationships.”

            Fitzpatrick argued that even if Hill had lied about his HIV status, such deception would not meet the standard of illegal acts under the law, which requires the specific intent to infect someone.

            “That does not rise to the level of specific intent,” Fitzpatrick said.

            … Prosecutors lamented that the state Legislature set the bar high on the law so that someone could not be prosecuted simply for withholding his or her HIV status from a partner.

            Hill, a onetime registered nurse, former florist and funeral home director, was appointed to the city Health Commission by Mayor Willie Brown in 1997.

          • Michael McDermott,

            I came across this website when I was researching a truthful response to JonJ’s outrageously irresponsible post. JonJ wrote, “I also do not think gays intend to harm others by acting on their desires—which is very different from Neo-Nazi’s.”
            This is definitely playing Russian Roulette with the body and if left unconfessed the potential risk of losing one’s immortal soul for all eternity. Now our courts and our political systems are filled with those who are swept up in the diabolical disorientation of constantly finagling the legal protection of deadly homosexual behaviors including the murdering of innocent babies in the womb. They may think that they are in charge but this is only happening because God is allowing it. God’s Supreme Court will exact the final ruling for each and every promoter of wickedness.

            The website Avert is an International AIDS charity, so if an International Aids Charity is posting this information then you know that this is happening globally. There are many different kinds of cases listed.

            Here is the title of the article and the link. Criminal Transmission of HIV – Avert
            http://www.avert.org/criminal-transmission.htm‎

            “Arguments surrounding the criminal transmission of HIV or intentional and reckless transmission of HIV, including case studies of prosecutions and laws ”

            Here is one of the many different cases listed.
            Gay man jailed for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission…..cont.

          • by Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk
            16 February 2010, 11:59am

            Mark James was sentenced to more than four years in jail. A gay man who absconded to France after being convicted for recklessly infecting his former boyfriend with HIV was arrested when he returned to the UK for cancer treatment. Mark James, 50, was on the run from police for three-and-a-half years after becoming the first gay man in the UK to be accused of “recklessly” passing on the virus. Hounslow police arrested him in a hospital bed in Brighton last Wednesday, where he had gone to receive treatment for an aggressive form of lymphoma.

            James, who lived with the victim in Brentford, was sentenced last Friday at Isleworth Crown Court to four years and two months behind bars.

            He had pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm before he fled the country.

            Judge Jonathan Lowen said: “During the three-and-a-half years while you roamed out and about, you represented a substantial risk of serious harm to members of the public were you again minded to commit the shocking crime to which I sentenced you in your absence on August 4th, 2006.

            “The victim of your offence has suffered a great deal of extra anxiety and stress, and I have been told it has affected his health, all while you enjoyed your undeserved freedom.”

            The court heard that James spent nearly all the time he was at large in Narbonne, south-west France.”

            cont.

          • Michael McDermott, Here is another example of the truth behind the legal finagling of “the new normal” evil. This Minnesota court reversed a conviction only to have others come out of the crowd to say that this man had infected them too. California is essentially always working to finagle the same kind of laws that excuse and protect these particular evil behaviors. Meanwhile, as you read below, even though Calif. courts continue to finagle legal excuses, the reality IS more lives and souls are being destroyed with the co-operation of the courts and politicians……cont.

          • “The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of an HIV-positive man who was accused of first degree assault for passing the virus to another man through unprotected sex.
            Last fall, Daniel James Rick, 31, was found guilty under a Minnesota law making it a crime to knowingly transfer a communicable disease like HIV through “sexual penetration with another person” without informing the partner of their status.
            The judge reversed Rick’s conviction because he had proven he disclosed his HIV-positive status before engaging in sex with his alleged victim

            Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/mn-court-overturns-gay-mans-conviction-for-hiv-transmission-2012. UPDATE: Ultimately, the overturning of this conviction may set an important, beneficial precedent. But don’t think he’s some Rosa Parks: Rick faces more charges for sleeping with other men unaware of his status, including one case allegedly involving date rape and another involving a minor: Now a second man has come forward, saying he and his boyfriend met Rick online. Robert O’Riley says just weeks after their sexual encounter, he came down with flu-like symptoms, and after testing positive for HIV his doctor told him he likely contracted it in the past few weeks. But it took a television report, with Rick’s photo on screen, for O’Riley to learn his alleged infector’s true identity.
            There are separate charges involving Rick and a 15-year-old boy who sneaked out of his house to have sex with Rick. Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman says he plans to appeal the decision: “Mr Rick is a very dangerous man, who knew he was HIV positive, running around and giving it to people.”

        • But they do harm others, Jon J. You know that. Putting body parts where they do not belong IS both harmful and dangerous to the body and disease ridden. They can never get away from those facts. There are all kinds of injuries done to the body from such continual behavior. He is just one man abusing another. I remember when one woman told me proudly that her son was the “male” in his same-sex partnership. All that told me was that he was the one doing most of the abusing to the other one. I thought how pathetic it was that she had bought into her son’s emotional blackmailing of her.

      • Catherine says:

        YFC writes, “JonJ… I was with you until the last paragraph.”

        BIG DEAL! It is obvious to many that you were also with Jesus until the last sentence of ……”GO, AND NOW SIN NO MORE! ”

        The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to St. John Chapter 8 Douay-Rheims

        John 8:10] Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?[11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

        • Catherine, your argument might make sense IF heterosexual people could not get AIDs as well.

          Do you really think that no heterosexual person with AIDs has ever lied to a sex partner about their infection status? Get real. I’ll give you one such candidate: the just deceased boxer Tommy Morrison—who denied HIV caused AIDs and called it a scam. He stopped treatment, then died at age 44 for undisclosed causes.

          If the gay people above generally are intending to harm others because of the individuals you mention, then heterosexuals are generally trying to harm others by having sex due to Tommy Morrison.

          What about heterosexual rapists? Since these individuals intend to harm others through sex, does this mean every heterosexual intends to harm others by having sex? Your failed logic reveals your need to vilify homosexuals to the point where you are crossing the “bear false witness” threshold.

          • “Catherine, Your failed logic reveals your need to vilify homosexuals to the point where you are crossing the “bear false witness” threshold.”

            The homosexuals who contracted AIDS and sorrowfully repented of their sins before they died would certainly disagree with your deadly lies and misguided logic. YOU are a vilifier of God’s Divine Laws. The most important evidence of failed logic is to use one’s free will to completely reject God and His Divine Laws. All sin offends God. The devil is an equal opportunity destroyer. The devil has used our courts with the assistance of activist minions such as yourself. Many have been fooled into thinking, pretending or fantasizing that Gods Divine Laws have been recalculated and reformed with modern times. Big mistake for your soul. The devil loves your help and assistance in leading yourself and others away from God’s Divine Laws. You are also swept up in the diabolical disorientation of these times and you have chosen to be a useful minion who sides with the father of lies and rejects the Wisdom and Perfect Logic of God. You’ve been cruelly tricked by the devil into making up your own versions of Sacred Scripture. There is nothing new under God’s sun. You are repeating history and your logic is compromised. Homosexual activists were totally inhospitable to God’s Laws in Sodom and Gomorrah and this is why Sodom and Gomorrah was obliterated into ashes. Your failed logic pretends that this obliteration did not take place.

          • Michael McDermott says:

            Catherine – Don’t be fooled by the ‘bait & switch’ sophistry of the Gaystapo, who push upon society scams saying Feces Focused Homo-Anal Coprophile Behaviors are equivalent to Normal Heterosexual Marriage.

            The crux of the scam is to pretend that Heterosexual Behavior has no objective good to it (like creating future generations) – and thus when Some Heterosexuals engage in aberrant (Hetero-Anal) behaviors – that ‘defines’ Heterosexuality.

            Contrary to the Maxim that: “The Use of Something is Not known by its Abuse.”

            Consider – People take eye exams for a drivers license to help avoid accidents. Some people with good vision still get in accidents….

            Hence -Gaystapo ‘Logic’ says that because Blind/ ‘Happy’ people are just as capable of getting in car wrecks / buggery as those with good vision / morals – It is ‘Discrimination’ to demy Drivers / Marriage licenses to them.

            The Intrinsic Pathological Nature Homo-Anal Buggery provides its Own Argument Against Pandering – and is not cured by claiming others can do as bad – or worse…

            Consider the following article about those who spread infections to promote ‘bareback’ style Happiness.

            SEE
            Bug chasing: Men deliberately try to catch HIV for sexual thrill in astonishing craze 7/9/13 – KNEWS

            “The reckless practice, known as bug chasing, started in the US as a bizarre means of getting a ¬sexual high from risk-taking.

            An investigation by Rolling Stone magazine in 2003 claimed a quarter of all new HIV transmissions in the US could be attributed to bug chasing.

          • Catherine,

            Where does Church doctrine state that I must believe that gay people intend to harm others by acting on their desires? Please point it out to me. Yet, for this statement you say I’m doing the work of Satan.

            The fact that the Church teaches that having same sex attraction is not, itself, a sin proves that what I am saying is true. Because if a person necessarily intended harm by experiencing homosexual desires, then those desires would themselves be sinful.

            You, Catherine, are a hypocrite. If you truly believed in the perfection and current applicability of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, then you would object to “flat nosed” people approaching the altar of God. You should have already stoned numerous individuals for offenses such as taking the name of the lord in vain, openly practicing witchcraft. and females willingly engaging in fornication (males, btw, don’t get stoned). You would be sitting with a pile of stones asking rape victims inside a city if they had screamed. Where is your trail of corpses?

            The fact is you correctly recognize following those rules are (at least) immoral today. Yet you pick and choose to obey the strictures vs. homosexuals, not out of obedience to God, but because they justify your hate.

  6. Father Karl says:

    As in biblical times, we will be punished for doing good (by men), and those who do evil will be extolled (by men). Just because something is legal, does not mean it is moral. But most North Americans believe that man’s laws have precedence over God;s divine immutable law. Unfortunately, things will get much worse before they get better. God, however will not be mocked, and all these moral degenerates will be punished for the evil and wicked sinful practices they promote.

    • Father, let me ask you this, to what extent is it moral for the state to compel others to obey God?

      At a certain point, compelling others to obey God is a bad idea. Indeed, it can end up abusive—as the Spanish Inquisition showed. For example, the Church considered masturbation a mortal sin. Would you want the state to enforce a criminal ban on masturbation?

      Before you answer, consider what the state would have to do to enforce such a ban. You’d have camera’s in every bedroom, with state officers able to call up your bedroom cam on demand. Do you truly believe that the state will only use the information they gain through these cameras to just stop masturbating? Or would power hungry government officials be tempted to use this data collection gain all kinds of information to use against their political opponents?

      Aside from the practical, what of all the people who DO NOT agree that masturbation is a mortal sin? Should we force them to obey, when masturbation cannot be shown to inflict harm on any third party? When you try to enforce religious beliefs that have no objective basis in harm caused to society, you’ll end up with a state that cannot practically function because every religious group will try to take over the state to impose their view of God’s truth.

      You’ll end up with endless civil war. Will that really help people choose to obey God—especially when you consider that compliance gained by force when they truly will otherwise, gains them no moral benefit in heaven.

      • Positively vomitous! Wars, the scourge of abortion and unbridled chaos in society are ALL punishments for sin and for man’s rejection of God’s Laws. Hundreds of innocent people were just evilly exterminated by Sarin nerve gas and the JonJ’s of the world let God and everyone know where their hearts are. This is another example of the shameless modern day curse of broadmindedness and a disordered concern about the freedom to commit particular sins. How utterly thankless and unappreciative of of the Supreme Goodness of Almighty God. “O Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse to Thee!”

        Taken from Catholic Bible 101 ‘THE DEVIL’S TACTICS ‘

        “And always remember that satan will show you a great physical time, for a while. He will give you money, sex, power, or whatever, to convince you that you have the secret of life, and that the Mother Teresa’s of the world who are God’s servants are stupid and dumb. But he will ALWAYS pop your balloon after he has blown it up and puffed you up with pride. He will let you get away with your favorite sin time after time after time, but one day, you will not get away with it. Either you will be devastated in this life because of your sinful lifestyle (death of a loved one, jail time, depression, etc.), or even worse, you will die unexpectedly and go straight to hell. The bible says that it IS IMPOSSIBLE to please God if you live in the flesh (Romans: 8:8).

        “So always remember that you have 2 choices in life: 1. Either your body can drag your soul to hell; 2. OR, your soul can lift your body to heaven. CHOOSE WISELY!

        “For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.” – Matthew 6:21 Douay-Rheims

        • Catherine, I find it interesting how someone who ardently professes to revere the Catholic Church can botch its doctrine so badly.

          You say that wars, abortion and unbridled chaos are “punishments” for sin and rejection of God’s laws. Yet, you seem to forget that Jesus went out of his way to tell the Jews “blessed be the poor” and to embrace the sick, unfortunate, and poor. The Jews of that time believed that wealth and success was a sign of God’s favor as a reward for adherence to God’s law, while poverty and disease were the result of failure to obey.

          Thus, the rich could justify treating the poor and sick with contempt—while pretending that the rich got richer through virtue and the poor and sick were that way due to vice. Are you really that blind?

          Thus, Jesus taught us that worldly status and fortune can be completely disconnected from moral standing. Historically, wars have been frequently been justified by those wishing to impose God’s law on others by force—when in fact all they want to do is seize power for themselves.

          In fact, wars and unbridled chaos is exactly what you get when man tries to take away the free will God gave us and compel obedience to God’s law through worldly force.

          • peter/JonJ/BrianS/YFC=anonymous trolls =rebellion+disobedience aimed directly at Christ and His True Church. These are the instruments of the counterchurch and the mystical body of the AntiChrist.

            ” I’ve never understood the intensity of the hatred toward Alinsky here. He fought the corrupt system of Chicago on behalf of folks that system oppressed and against heavy odds, had some success.” – “I’m happy to see that Dorothy Day might have appreciated him.” ……BrianS

            JonJ’s reversal of truth. “In fact, wars and unbridled chaos is exactly what you get when man tries to take away the free will God gave us and compel obedience to God’s law through worldly force.” More counterchurch lies. It is the counterchurch activists and courts who are now removing the free will of man to compel disobedience to God through worldly force.

            “I asked for proof, Tracy, not hearsay”……peter

            “So I do respect people who truly abide by their consciences and engage in civil disobedience while doing so.”….YFC (meaning respect for disobedience to God)

            “He [Satan] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. . . .But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it [the counterchurch] claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra” (Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25).

            “IN THE END MY IMMACULATE HEART WILL TRIUMPH!”

      • JonJ – God gave each of us a free will. Based upon our own actions determines where we will spend our eternity – HEAVEN or HELL.

        Government should not enforce any particular Religion – however – they should not force people to violate their Faith either. Forcing the violation of Christian principles is what is at stake today.

        CCC: ” 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
        Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.
        This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. “

        • MAC, scroll back and you’ll see I think the New Mexico court got it wrong.

          And Mac, since you note that God gave use free will, how is it that “good christian men” seems to think the state should take it away? Does the state possess more wisdom than Jesus such that it is capable of doing what Jesus declined to do while on earth?

      • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

        Father,

        I will answer JonJ for you. There will never really be peace until Russia by name is Consecrated to the Immaculate Heart! Plain and simple!
        Those who write here in favor of the sexual aberration of Sodomy would not even believe God himself if He decided to speak to them personally. He has spoken to them through His Scriptures but they would rather listen to crackpot heretic “theologians” than to God and His Church.

        May God have mercy on America.

        While I am visiting my nephew in Michigan this week, I will also be going to the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help while I am there, anyone who wants me to take their Petition to Her, can do so by emailing it to me at: crcoa@att.net.

        I will also be visiting my good friend Joe Scheidler while I am there and it just so happens that Saturday is his Birthday and I will take the Banner you see on the right side with me when I join Joe at an Abortion Killing Center!

        Please pray for the success of my trip and for my nephew who is undergoing a terrible divorce.

        Viva Cristo Rey!
        God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
        Kenneth M. Fisher

        • That’s no answer at all, Kenneth.

          First of all, my question doesn’t really have anything to do with homosexuality. It’s aimed at what seems to me to be an undeveloped area of theology. When is it moral to use state force to compel obedience to God?

          Typically, “God-squad” types who want more religion in government simply state some moral rule and then presume that because it’s moral that means the state should enforce it.

          But, the CCC tells us this isn’t true. The CCC clearly states that it is immoral to compel attendance at Church using criminal or civil penalties imposed by the state. Thus, it is immoral to use state force to compel obedience to a divine law—that if you violate is considered a mortal sin by the Catholic Church.

          At the same time, Catholic some moral rules like “thou shalt not kill” are intuitively obviously proper to enforce using the power of the state. So, how do you determine a moral rule that is proper to be enforce by state compulsion and one where enforcing through state action is immoral?

          I used masturbation as an example simply because I think that’s a rule that if you empowered the state to enforce, you’d have a tyrannical state. I think effectively enforcing a masturbation ban using the power of government would be virtually impossible without a cure being worse than the disease.

        • That’s no answer at all, Kenneth.

          First of all, my question doesn’t really have anything to do with homosexuality. It’s aimed at what seems to me to be an undeveloped area of theology. When is it moral to use state force to compel obedience to God?

          Typically, “God-squad” types who want more religion in government simply state some moral rule and then presume that because it’s moral that means the state should enforce it.

          But, the CCC tells us this isn’t true. The CCC clearly states that it is immoral to compel attendance at Church using criminal or civil penalties imposed by the state. Thus, it is immoral to use state force to compel obedience to a divine law—that if you violate is considered a mortal sin by the Catholic Church.

          At the same time, some Catholic moral rules like “thou shalt not kill” are obviously proper to enforce using the power of the state. So, how do you determine a moral rule that is proper to be enforced by state compulsion and one where enforcing through state action is immoral?

          I used masturbation as an example simply because I think that’s a rule that if you empowered the state to enforce, you’d have a tyrannical state. I think effectively enforcing a masturbation ban using the power of government would be virtually impossible without a cure being worse than the disease.

  7. Robert Bushlow says:

    It doesn’t sound like their attorney had much on the ball. They, or anyone else in such a situation, need to retain competent legal representation. The Thomas More Law Center (http://www.thomasmore.org/) and American Center for Law and Justice have successfully defended religious liberty cases up to and including SCOTUS.

    • These people unfortunately hired “Alliance Defending Freedom,” (James Dobson, et al) the same people who couldn’t muster a competent defense of Prop 8 in California and who had their own witnesses turn against them. It’s no surprise this couple lost and had to pay court costs.

      • Michael McDermott says:

        SSAD but True Dave – and it was Von-Wanker who chose them to ‘represent’ – when he knew full well there were other groups who would have put up a Complete Case with Many Witnesses…

        But it wouldn’t have been as ‘Nice’ as all the horrid and Bogus Stipulations agreed to by the judge’s choice, so they could Defend a Word Alone ‘marriage’ – if Not the Rights of the People or the Institution iteslf.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Judge Walker did not chose the attorneys to represent those who brought Prop 8 to the ballot. Please don’t make things up, Micheal McDermott. What an absurd statement to make, especially being an attorney yourself.

          • Michael McDermott says:

            Harpy Tales 2 U – Until they bleat again…

            ‘Debating’ with ‘anonymous’ Harpy Trolls is as productive as shoveling flies across a room…

            And far less interesting

  8. I own a small catering business. It’s open to the public. If a customer walks in and we discuss menu, schedule, price etc. and then she tells me the event is a bat mitzva and I turn her away because I have “religious” beliefs against Jews, should I be allowed to under law? If I go to a flower shop and want to order flowers for my church and the florist doesn’t want to serve Catholics, is that OK? I mean really, it seems to me what’s good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

    • C&H….Your examples are absurd…..This is based on gender identity disorders not race or religion….Special rights for sexual disordered unions is different…..

    • If your religion teaches that to participate in the sin of another is also a sin, then you should have the right to refuse to participate in a sin. I live in an area of strict fundamentalism. In the ’80, a young person died and his family wanted a rock song played at his funeral. They had to ask a dozen preachers before they found one who would agree to say his funeral with the rock song in it. Many churches here believe that rock music is evil. It was frustrating for the family. Most people felt that the preachers should have accommodated the bereaved, but their conscience would not allow it.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Your example, k, is of a private group – a church – not a public accommodation such as a hotel, a restaurant, a hairdresser, or in this case, a photographer. From a legal perspective, those ministers were allowed to refuse service to people because they were a private group, not a public accommodation. If those same ministers had side jobs as a bartenders, they would not be allowed to refuse service to your friend or the rock musician, no matter what their religious beliefs. When you walk into a store or a bar or a hotel or a photographer, you cannot be refused service because you are a race they don’t like, a gender they don’t like, a religion they don’t like, or, in New Mexico, a sexual orientation they don’t like.

        • Anonymous says:

          Believe me, those ministers are not going to have side jobs as bartenders.

        • This is why the Church opposes these laws-because Christians end up being persecuted by them. What kind of people do stuff like this? I am Catholic in an area where people are afraid of Catholics. If someone denied me a service because they were uncomfortable with us being Catholic (there used to be only one funeral home that would serve Catholics and one cemetery; there are Christian schools who will not admit Catholic children), I would just go somewhere else. Why make a problem for people? When I was younger, I was refused service in a store and an emergency room, probably because we were students in a small town where some people didn’t want to deal with the college students. It was maddening and I didn’t think well of the people, but I didn’t cause them trouble. This article is about what mental gymnastics Christians will have to do to protect themselves from people standing up for their rights while violating someone else’s. Is it not OK for the photographers to be who they are?

        • YFC, no one including Business people should EVER be FORCED to knowingly participate in anyone else’s mortal sin.
          Remote participation is a sign of approval, remote material cooperation is a sin.

          CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices. “

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            I don’t think the Church has declared snapping a photograph with a bunch of people in tuxedos to be a mortal sin.

          • YFC, you should support your fellow Catholics and be grieved that a government would force someone to do something that violates their conscience, even if you don’t agree with this particular circumstances.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Anonymous, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the government forces me to violate my conscience every time it forces me to pay taxes to support the unjust wars of the last decade. I violate my conscience by supporting a government financially that spies on its own people. I have a choice: I could not pay my taxes and suffer the consequences. So I do respect people who truly abide by their consciences and engage in civil disobedience while doing so. I don’t think I’ve ever shown any lack of respect for the photographers. I just disagree with their position.

    • C & H, Yes, I think you have the right to refuse service to anyone. The Jews and Catholics also have a right to boycott your business. The American Constitution does not give the government the authority to regulate who one chooses to do business with or not.

      • C & H, Yes, I think you have the right to refuse catering a Bat Mitzvah, IF you are compelled to participate (at some level) in the event to do your job. Religious freedom should allow you not to participate in religious ceremonies and celebrations that are offensive to you.

        If, however, the Jewish group asks you to provide food that they will pick up, my answer is no. You have no participation then.

        • JonJ. For the record I do cater Jewish events as well as at my own parish and some other churches and my staff often serves the food as well as delivers. What I gave was only an example

          • I understood that C & H. You were providing an example of where refusing would be an example of unjust religious prejudice and that the law might have good effects.

    • If someone does not wish to serve “Catholics”, I would merely take my business elsewhere.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        What if someone does not wish to serve “coloreds”? Should they take their business elsewhere?

      • And what would you do if no one wishes to serve “Catholics”? What then?

        • You do without.

        • peter, Catholics own their own businesses as do homosexual activists. So your question of “what would you do if no one…..” is a silly question, that is unless our government one day makes it a crime for either of these two groups to own a business.

          • Not silly at all. Depends where you live. And you’re either naive or being disingenuous suggesting that it’s OK to discriminate on the basis of religious belief because someone of your “ilk” is likely to offer the service . . . .

          • Michael McDermott says:

            Color Me ‘Happy’

            Can ‘We’ at least Please End the Racist Hate postings here – that cravenly aim to trash and tar Persons of Color…

            – With the Despicable Lie that their being born with a certain hue to their skin – is the same as choosing to romp around in a “Frothy Mix of Feces & Lube”?

            While it is undeniably true that the Obama Administration’s own tax subsidized Bio-Terrorist (Dan ‘The Savage Lickspittle’ Savage) – Did after conducting a thoroughly exhaustive survey – publicly state that:

            The Most Important Shared Common Bond of ‘Affection’ between the Savage Lickspittle & POTUS Barry (Soetoro / Mastahll Davis / ObamAcorn… Whoever the guy really is) – & the rest of Their Homo-Anal Coprophile Caucus…

            – Was their shared ‘love’ of said “Frothy Mix of Feces & Lube”.

            BUT – and like they say Frisco Fashion Circles, this is a Big Butt – this Choice of Behavior has Nothing to do with Race or Ethnicity – although admittedly aggressively rubbing it in might disguise certain skin colors –at least in the dark.

            And One would have to be a pretty depraved racist hatemonger to claim it does.

            Perhaps it is time to call the roll – of shadowy Anonymous Trolls here…

            If only to see just who has been rubbing it in – in the dark.

          • Michael, you posted: – With the Despicable Lie that their being born with a certain hue to their skin – is the same as choosing to romp around in a “Frothy Mix of Feces & Lube”?

            If more of us posted these disgusting truths instead of trying to reason with the homosexual activists on this site, those activist would have nothing to comment on. I have noticed that they avoid any conversation involving the homosexual sex act like the plague.

          • When a woman has lost modesty she has lost everything. Modesty is not just about dressing appropriately, but also about speech and behavior. A good Catholic woman should never write such a thing. And a Catholic gentleman should not either. This faithful Catholic website has very low standards on what it will print. It is a sign of the times.

  9. Let me be clear. Religious liberty is one of our most cherished values.
    It guarantees all of us the freedom to hold any belief we choose and the right to act on our religious beliefs. But it does not allow us to harm or discriminate against others. Religious liberty, contrary to what opponents of racial equality argued then and LGBT equality argue now, is not a license to use religion to discriminate.
    Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP

    • Discrimination based on sexual disorders is different than race, religion, gender, etc…..This is a disorder that is not innate and can be changed in some cases or at least there is hope of recovery….That’s why the radical gays want conversion therapy banned. They know it works and they are not willing to let Jesus heal them…They want to continue down a path which will only lead to death and destruction…But there is hope….

      • Nonsense.

        • Open your heart Peter and let God in…..

          • God is welcome any time; just not bigotry in his name . . .

          • Ronnie, for Peter the phallus is his god, he will not bow down he will not serve, God must accept his sodomy..God must affirm his sin…..

          • peter, those who are intolerant of sinful acts do not meet the criteria for the definition of a bigot. On the contrary, they are disciples of Jesus. Since you, peter are the one who is intolerant of what the Catholic Church teaches on the immorality of the homosexual act, then it is sadly you and those who agree with you who fit the definition of “bigot”.

            Bigot – A person who is intolerant, esp. in matters of religion, race, or politics.

    • Julian Bond is not Catholic.
      He does not adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
      When people choose to act immorally, it is not the job of Catholics or other Christians to support their sinful lifestyles – in any manner, shape or form.

      • You are right Maddy. We must NEVER TOLERATE SIN.

        This is what everyone needs to understand. Not Tolerating Sin has nothing to do with race, gender, specific religions, etc.
        Not tolerating sin has nothing to do with ‘discrimination’.

    • peter, do you ever discriminate? I hope so! Have you ever held a prejudice? If no then you were at the very least an extremely exceptional child!

      Discriminate- To make a clear distinction; differentiate.
      -To act on the basis of prejudice.

      Prejudice- A strong feeling for or against something formed before one knows the facts; bias.

      peter, I do discriminate between real and phony marriages. Since I know the facts about what does or doesn’t entail a real marriage, my discrimination is not based on prejudice.

      • No, Tracy, clearly you don’t; and clearly it is.

        • peter, I do discriminate between real and phony marriages. This is based on fact not prejudice. By the way, I also consider anyone who goes through the motions of a marriage ceremony with the intention of contracepting as having a phony marriage. Sad to say this is the norm today. Contraception changes the definition of marriage and we have the statistics to show how this change in the definition of marriage has already destroyed marriage. I would say that true marriages are truly rare today.

          • Excellent post Tracy!

          • I agree, Catherine, and when I think of all the marriages of my mom and my aunts, open to life, letting God be the focus of their lives, my parents 56 yrs of marriage and 5 kids, my Aunt Laura,68 yrs. and 9 kids, my Aunt Beulah, 55 yrs. 7 kids, Aunt Kathryn, 52 yrs and 5 kids etc. and their children all had 2 or 3 kids and many divorces. It’s so sad how we’ve all bought into this culture of death. How we’ve wounded the Sacred Heart of Jesus and rejected our beloved Father’s gifts. On so many levels, our contemporary view of marriage has become such a travesty.

    • By the government forcing the requirement for people to PARTICIPATE in acts that violate their proven Religious beliefs – whether it be paying for someone else’s abortion, contraception or voluntary sterilization, homosexual marriage, etc., is wrong.
      No one should be forced to violate a moral and well formed conscience. No one should be FORCED to participate in someone else’s MORTAL SIN.

      • Anonymous says:

        Please let me know that address I should use to bill you for my marriage. And perhaps I should also bill you for the taxes I pay to educate and vaccinate your children.

        • Anonymous – Children are important to society. They are important to you as they become adults – to assist financially in your old age if you should need it – ie paying for Social Security and other benefits.
          Children are a boon and good for society.
          You do not pay to vaccinate my children. I pay for this myself.
          Good parents are very unselfish; and the cost of raising children is very expensive.
          Families with children deserve tax breaks for the continuance and good of our society.

          • Matt I don’t disagree with you (except that many childhood vaccinations are funded with tax dollars and therefore I do help pay for them). I say what I say for the sake of argument, since others claimed that they were paying for gay marriages, which is of course nonsense.

    • peter, there is a difference between orientation and behavior. If a photographer refused to take a picture of a person because they were gay, that would be discrimination. Taking part in a gay wedding is participating in a behavior which is wrong (I know you don’t see it that way.) Catholic photographers might refuse to shoot pictures if a Catholic chooses a civil wedding. I know people who were asked to photograph or sing at weddings of friends who declined because they didn’t think the person was doing the right thing. It bothered their conscience to be involved in the wedding. Some people take marriage very seriously as a lifetime commitment and a vocation. It is not a frivolous thing. It is an honor to be asked to participate in a wedding especially a Catholic sacramental wedding. Catholics and other Christians often see their work (photography, singing, florists) as a service to God. Most employers or fellow employees can accommodate religious beliefs without too much trouble. All people of faith (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sihk Buddhist on and on…) know that living their faith will cost them something. It is just too bad that some people don’t respect other’s faith.

      • It’s also too bad that some people people don’t respect all people. That would serve God better. Go figure.

        • You are right. All people should be respected.

        • You mean the way you don’t respect Faithful Catholics.. unlike you Peter I lay my cards on the table… I do not like homosexuals I think you are most self absorbed and perverted people on the planet. You demand we accept your perversions no matter what… deny the Cross but accept the phallus that is what you people are about… you demand we accept your sin in the name of “tolerance” …may there be eternal conflict between us

        • peter, here is another definition for you:

          Respect: differential or high regard; esteem. To have esteem for.

          Esteem: To place a high value on; respect prize. Favorable regard.

          peter, where is your proof that God “respects” sinners? Can you find any proof that God “admonishes” sinners?

          • Tracy . . . where is your’s?

          • peter, here is my proof: the Gospels are full of examples of Jesus being intolerant of unrepentant sinners. Jesus warned them on numerous occasions prefacing his sentences with “Woe to you….” He also called these individuals “Brood of Vipers”.

            Oh Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee. And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee Especially The Enemies Of The Church.

          • Well done Tracy, well done… nothing like shutting up a sodomite

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Way to go Tracy. God bless you for your faithfulness…I am grateful for you and others who are faithful.

          • I asked for proof, Tracy, not hearsay . . . .

          • Abeca Christian says:

            peter what a bunch of crock that you ask for Show us the proof that God exists?

            peter even if proof was shown to you (and every time it is right in front of you but you dismiss it)…you won’t see it not until you turn away from immoral sins. God bless.

    • Pay attention to the trolls who consistently use the words “nonsense” and “bigotry”. DEAD GIVEAWAY! Their wisdom is not quite as Catholic as they are are cleverly pretending to be.

      “Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere”…..G. K. Chesterton

      Corinthians 3:19 ….Douay-Rheims
      “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written: I will catch the wise in their own craftiness.”

  10. Michael McDermott says:

    Pander or Perish – is The Order from ‘our’ Turkey Baster Creationist Courts in this Age of Abomination.

    Just like the ‘legal system’ n the 1930s in Germany, when Ernst Rohm’s SA (Homosex Terrorist Storm Troopers) – a fair number of whom were themselves Drag Queens, would also take over Bars and Extort…

    = Whatever the Gaystapo Wanted, just like they do today:

    “Oregon bar owner to pay $400G to banned cross-dresser
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/30/oregon-bar-owner-to-pay-400g-to-banned-cross-dresser/? 8/30/13

    PORTLAND, Ore. –The Oregonian reports the Bureau of Labor and Industries civil rights division imposed the penalty… the first imposed under the 2007 Oregon Equality Act.

    The law protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender Oregonians in employment, housing and public places…
    – also requires Penner to pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

    The complaint lists 11 aggrieved persons, 10 of whom self-identify as cross-dressers.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/30/oregon-bar-owner-to-pay-400g-to-banned-cross-dresser/?

    • To work for a Catholic Diocese, one must obey morals clauses, and respect the teachings of the Church.
      The Church is not required under any law to support IMMORAL Behavior.

  11. Apparently in the State of New Mexico, all Catholics, all Christians who adhere to the teachings in the Bible, all Muslims, all Jews who adhere to the teachings in the Old Testament – – – all are guilty of breaking IMMORAL LAWS perpetrated by the State of New Mexico.

    It is horrible that any State would impose their own religious beliefs upon others.
    (Yes, the Obama Attorney General’s Office has stated that atheism is a religion.)

  12. This is just another authoritarian crack down on those who dare to refuse to participate in a ceremony that celebrates sodomy. Hijacking the definition of marriage is one of the means that they use to accomplish a police state crackdown on those who have the nerve to believe that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. The sodomy mafia have proven themselves time and time again to be an authoritarian bunch of jack booted thugs. If you own a business and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, they are coming for you. Soon you will not be able to hold a job if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. By depriving those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman of a means of livelihood, they are depriving them of the necessities of survival, therefore denying them the right to life. The sodomy mafia despises those who find sodomy revolting and will not rest until they impose acceptance of sodomy on everyone. Those who have read the book of Genesis should not be surprised by this. God was justified in wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah. All of his judgments are true. Every one of them are just.

  13. When are ALL US Bishops going to teach and require their Priests and Diocese employees to teach – 100% according to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” ?
    This is when we will have ACCURACY and UNITY within our Church.

    Any Catholics who publically choose to violate these teachings should be excommunicated according to Canon 915 and 1399.
    See: 1 Cor: 9-13 from St. Paul.

    Also let us remember that ALL persons posting on this site may not be “Catholic” but trolls who spread lies and confusion about our Faith.

  14. At the very heart of the matter, no matter what anyone’s personal views are, this is a clear cut case of a violation of the state against the first amendment right to freedom to practice one’s religion according to one’s conscience. This has first priority and the fact that this couple lost the case means that our courts have lost complete sight of what liberty and the rule of law (as based on the CONSTITUTION and NOT on one’s personal views, which has take illegal and fascist priority) . The willful misunderstanding by those who side with the state shows their bias because they’re not living according to their conscience but according to their base animal natures and not higher reason. And for those who claim parents should love their children no matter what, no one would argue but I would also say they SHOULD never accept sinful behavior from their children…that is why God commanded us to HONOR OUR MOTHER AND OUR FATHER…He did not say HONOR THY CHILDREN, and those children who have chosen to live by carnal desire commit grave sin against their parents as well as against their Father in Heaven. Go ahead and deny you break your parents heart you selfish, self absorbed know-it-alls. You care for NO ONE but yourselves, so stop pretending you have a love for God and the Church…liars, all!

    • Loving one’s children, and loving one’s neighbors does not mean tolerating sin.
      In fact if you want them to get to Heaven for eternity – which is true love, – you will not tolerate sin.
      Admonishing sinners, Instructing the uniformed, and Counselling the Doubtful are 3 of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

      The US Constitution merely states: ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof “; ….Amendment I.
      When we elect immoral politicians they appoint others of like mind. This includes appointed Judges.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Also remember Abraham was tested and was asked to offer up his son Issac. This meant that we are to love God more…of course our Lord would not have us sacrifice our children at all, but as parents we are to help our children in ways that honor God. A parents goal is to apply with love what is honoring to God. To truly love our children, is to truly do what is most honoring to God, even if the this secular world has approved many sinful behaviors that endanger ones salvation, if we are walking in the light, then we would know that sin affects our relationship with our Lord and going along with sinful behaviors would mean our separation from God, and if we acknowledge that as truth, then we can not ever encourage or condone serious sins ever. We can still love our children and not approve of their free will choices away from God, we can express this love with real concern for them. A good parents knows this and does suffer because of their fallen away children, will definitely bring forth division. Its the consequences that come with the choices……its the same for children with parents who are living immorally…..a child suffers too when their parents are living very immoral lifestyles. Same thing…..but if you already know some children do not say “but love my parents even if….”…….nope if the parent is abusive, then that may cause that child to separate from them and hopefully that child will love their parents enough to honor that parent by praying for them and be concerned for their salvation. Same thing for parents…they pray for their prodigal children.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Our children do not belong to us…..they belong to our Lord…who are we to undermine what our Lord has already pronounced as sin, who are we to undermine His natural law.

          Our children are borrowed, we are to teach them the ways of the Lord, if they fall astray, then we are to still remain faithful with love….hopefully when they mature, they will look back and appreciate their parents faithfulness, its all done in love for their sake. We are not to love selfishly! Don’t we know that this life is temporary? 50 years from now, 100 years from now…we will not exist…..we are not eternal.

          Then how dare we undermine what our Lord has handed down to us to help us be happy here on earth and to help us gain heaven……..living in true harmony is embracing these truths…not the temporary lies that man has come up with due to what is hype today.

        • Abeca, you’ve really grasped the essentials of good parenting! Too many parents these days have turned their children into idols and make the children feel the world revolves around them. It’s sure gotten tough to make right choices these days…especially when you’re criticised and persecuted. These young people show such courage in their decisions and are what made this country great, as are you and other young people who are living according to God’s Word no matter what the consequences. God bless you! (hugs all round. haha)

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Thank you Dana. I’m trying. Its sad but they have us trained….so we must separate from those secular things and get a grip on what is really happening. You are sweet, thanks for your encouragement for all parents…God bless you. : )

  15. Charles Robert Donaldson, SR. says:

    Back in the sixties these same remarks complaining about this court decision would have instead of “gay couple”, the words black, negro, or colored when decrying the penalties given for discriminating against this couple in the market place.

    We have a right to our beliefs but in public the government has the right to regulate our actions. The court got it right.

    • The government has a right to force us to violate our conscience?

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Yes, every single day. I pay for things through my tax dollars every day that are an abomination.

        • So I guess when the Church face direct persecution you will be siding with those running the camps, right YFC????

          • Always a breath of fresh air . . .

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Um, no, I won’t and I think you have a very active fantasy life to imagine that the Church in the US is facing direct persecution and camps.

          • Yeah sure. It is just our imagination that photographers and bakeries are being stomped on in an authoritarian manner because their religious beliefs prevent them from participating in the promotion of sodomitical relationships. It is just our imagination that Obama Care mandates that Catholics buy things that go against Catholic teaching. It just our imagination that Catholic Churches were vandalized with pro-sodomy slogans. It is just our imagination that Chick-fil-A was targeted by dictatorial government officials for upholding traditional Christian values. It is just our imagination that atheist groups are waging a war on Christmas. We just have lively imaginations here. We just want to escape the paradise of the real word and enter into a world where we are persecuted. That’s it.

    • Your statement just reeks (‘litter’ ally) of arrogance and prejudice, Charles. Please read my post on Aug. 30. What homosexuals do is learned behavior …disordered and totally within the capacity of those so afflicted to control. Are you saying that their behavior is beyond their ability to suppress, such as compulsive disorders? Any heterosexual can attest that he can control his urges, even when diagnosed with sexual addiction. Are you saying that preferring backdoor sex is comparable to one’s skin color? If you are a Catholic, you should not be taking communion and should go to confession, and if you absolutely refuse to accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality you should be attending the episcopalean church and stop contaminating Mother Church with your heresies.

    • Please identify the exact part of the US Constitution that you believe gives the Government the right to regulate our actions regarding religious beliefs and morals.

      There is no such thing, so stop making things up.

  16. Charles Robert Donaldson, SR. says:

    Let us not mix pedophiles into this discussion. Some are pedophiles and there are more than we probably know because some do not act on their impulses which is really the crime of rape. They know that violating another is wrong. That is true of all sex whether gay, pedophilia, or heterosexual. The issue here is a denial of service in the market place because the photographers have not come to grips with issue.

    In the sixties the story would be about a mixed race couple instead of a gay couple. Time to grow with the times. No one asks is asked to change beliefs but to change public behavior.

    • Michael McDermott says:

      Quite Right – Being ‘Happy’ isn’t a Sin…

      ‘Happiness’ should Never be confused with getting your jollies from Feces Focused Homo-Anal Coprophile Perversions, lest terminology distract from coning to grips with the Real Issue.

      Whether there is a Coprophile Gene / Gestational Anomaly that orients people towards Fecal / Anal Behaviors – is a separate Issue from the Pathological Consequences of Anal / Fecal ‘sex play’ – which Evil always counsels Against promoting such perversions.

      Deeply offensive Racism equating skin color with such Fecal / Anal perversions, is little different from other stereotypical slurs – like saying ‘happy’ people are addicted to fried chicken and watermelon, only different.

      Courts repeatedly refuse to permit Distinctions like ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ arguments, despite hiding their own rulings behind sanitized misleading ‘happy greek islander’ euphemisms.

      PEDERASTY – Like the LARRY BRINKIN Racist Homo-Anal Toddler Boy Rape Ring, run out of the ‘In=Human-Rights’ comm in Frisco, is often covered up under a generic blanket of ‘pedophilia’…

      Despite being a Central Causative Factor.

      Author Tammy Bruce observed:

      “Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood –
      – molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.

      The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the ‘coming of age’ experience many regard it as being.”

    • No, it is not the same thing. It is not prejudice and bigotry. It is a tenet of our religion that homosexual sex acts are offensive to God and that Marriage was instituted by our Creator as being between one man and one woman. It is a tenet of our religion that to participate in the sin of another is to sin. Sin is something that offends God and is punished by Him. Guilt is not imputed to those who do not have the knowledge that what they do is sinful. Obedience is expected of those who have the knowledge even to the point of being punished by man. It is our duty to our God and to mankind not participate in things which are offensive to God and destructive to humankind.

      • Our tenets and beliefs have about as much respect and concern to these people as they did to the nazis, Anonymous. They will stop at nothing to gain their ends and they’re not restricted by little things like conscience or qualms like people of faith.

    • “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” G.K.Chesterton

    • Charles Robert Donaldson, SR,

      LET US NOT MIX DIABOLICAL DISORIENTED LIES WITH TRUTH!

      How extremely tragic, yet sadly not uncommon, for a SR. to be spiritually and morally such a junior.

      “Time to grow with the times.” = An empty vessel for containing all seasons of immoral lies and immoral laws. The road to hell is paved with those who grew with the times. The floor of hell is full of those who blindly traveled that cursed broadminded road right until their death.

    • The photographers have come to grips with the issue.
      They choose not to participate in, or encourage, or promote, or tolerate the Mortal Sin of Sodomy.

  17. Michael McDermott says:

    Tolerance Macht Frei

    Pander or Perish is the Pogrom in this Age of Gaystapo Abomination:
    “**Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests 9/3/13

    A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.

    “Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” (they posted)

    “It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”
    “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

    Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts.
    Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

    – protestors then turned on other wedding vendors…
    Klein said the closing of their retail store was a small price to pay for standing up for their religious beliefs.
    – warning to other Christians across the nation.
    “This is a fight that’s been coming for a while,” he said. “Be prepared to take a stand.
    Hopefully, the church will wake up and understand that we are under attack right now.”

    Denver baker Jack Phillips is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests

    • Michael McDermott says:

      Jail Time for Thought Crime = Next ‘logical’ step promoting ‘tolerance’

      How Many Will Face Death in Prison as the price of Conscience?

      – Not from the ‘Death Penalty’ (which requires a Capital Crime and decades to carry out, if at all) – rather by Gaystapo contracts for Prison Gang Murder while inside the camp.

      Prison for Failure To Pander based on “Contempt” (which has no sentence limit) ordered by Gaystapo Enforcers on the Bench, can find Anyone guilty of “Ism-Obia”, and there is no appeal.

      The Target of “Contempt” is presumed to be able to ‘cure’ the problem – by Publicly Adopting the Gaystapo Party Line – or else.

      Regarding targeting Prisoners of Conscience by Gangs once inside – in CA even the Demicrat Attorney General (Bill Lockyer) supports Homo-Anal Prison Rape of Males (only) – as a State Policy…

      And if the Target Dies during ‘rough sex’ – its their own fault for being intolerant.

      SEE Baker Faces Jail Time for Refusing to Bake Cake for Homosexual Wedding
      THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE

      A baker in Colorado is facing a possible jail sentence because he declined to make a cake for a gay wedding.

      At the time of the incident last year, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was a criminal offense in the state.

      lawyer for Christian baker Jack Phillips says,

      “The complainants can sue him civilly in the regular courts system or he can potentially be prosecuted by the district attorney for up to 12 months in jail.”

      • And the dear little bakery in portland oregon Melissa’s Sweetcakes has been forced out of business because of the homo-nazis harrassing any customers or suppliers who dared do business with them. It reminds me of how Al Capone did business in Chicago, where if little businesses didn’t pay for protection they lost not only their business but their very lives …or how about how the nazi brown shirts would go into a Jewish business and tear the place up, and humiliate them before forcing them to close…all legal and aboveboard thanks to the laws passed by pro-nazi judges. Gee, are we seeing a pattern here? By the time the average American sees the true character of homosexualism and its scary inhuman face, it will be too late. And the entire media has been completely complicit with this brutal and inhumane treatment. These heartless fiends have been doing this since they ruined the successful career of Anita Bryant…and look now how they’re attacking Coke. Buy Coke everyone! Stop letting these wicked little toads from ruining this country.

        • And I”m sorry I called them little toads. I was hoping the editor would tone down my rhetoric a notch. ha. My husband’s garage is called ‘toad hall’ , and in the evening they come in to be fed worms…pretty cute little guys. For his birthday I made a parking sign…’violaters will be toad away’ with a chubby toad winking at the bottom. Anyway, I really wish this whole samesex thing had never happened. It’s becoming a nightmare for this country. I still can’t believe it’s happening…and so fast! Mary pray for us.

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      Michael,

      “Hopefully, the church will wake up and understand that we are under attack right now.” No, the Church of Nice is too busy campaigning for the Church’s enemies in the name of Immigration Reform!

      We all by now have read of demonstrations that started at a “Catholic” church and ended up at a pro-life, pro-family Republican’s offices. If that isn’t campaigning for the Camp of Death, what the heck is?

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

  18. They should advertise their business as exclusive photographers of the Sacrament of Matrimony performed in the Roman Catholic Church. Word of mouth would do the rest. No discrimination there: just as some photographers do only senior photos, or babies, etc.

    • The money they make doing the Catholic marriage photography, First Communions, etc could be used to fight this thing to the Supreme Court! I would support then all the way.

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      alice,

      Are you really that naïve? You can’t even publicly advertise for a roommate with high traditional moral standards any more. I should know, I have been there and done that!

      Viva Cristo Rey!
      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

      • There are photographers who do only Catholic events. There are some in our area and if you do a search you might find more; it may differ from state to state. A photographer can make the decision to photograph only school children for yearbooks, or babies born at hospitals or buildings (for use in architecture) and it appears there are those who call themselves “Catholic Photographers” and do only Catholic events. that’s not to say they may not some day face a lawsuit, but they are out there now. There are even more Jewish photographers who do nothing but Jewish weddings.

  19. It should be clear to all Catholics (all Christians) that we are in a full scale war with the powers of darkness…we need to “put on the armor.”

  20. Elane Photography is appealing to the NM Supreme Court.

    • Good luck with that. The Supreme Court is just a rubber stamp for anything the authoritarian jack booted thugs want to do.

  21. Michael McDermott says:

    Catherine – your link didn’t work, but I found another similar

    I know that 300 Vectors seems like a lot, but the US-Center for Disease Control says Nationally at least One in Five (20%) Homo-Anal Coprophiles are infected with Aids.

    In Kalifornia the infection rates (iAids, Rectal Gonorrhea , Syphilis, MRSA…) are higher, closer to 80% in places like Sodom by the Sea …

    – Where ‘bendover comics’ like Tommy ‘T.P’ Ammiano, scold the press for reporting the spread of newer treatment resistant strains out of the Castro District Incubation Centers / bathhouses…

    Besides – amongst Frisco’s Dungeon Diver crowd of Dirty Diaper Harness Bears a measly 300 is considered Bush League – just ask Vic Germany or any of the regulars.

    Compare Jersey’s former Governot – ‘Truck-Stop Jim’ McGreavy – mild mannered political hack by day, Truck Stop Stall Stallion by night…

    – Shades of POTUS Barry Soetoro’s similar tenure in Chicago’s “Man Country” Bathhouse.

    *Man charged with knowingly transmitting HIV claims 300 partners
    A Missouri man = as many as 300 people since being diagnosed with HIV has pleaded not guilty –

    – recklessly infecting another with HIV, which in Missouri — where sentences for such crimes are among the nation’s harshest — carries up to life in prison.

    – Mangum = HIV-positive since 2003. – moved to Missouri – from Dallas, where he has convictions for prostitution, indecent exposure and public lewdness.

    Many trysts stemmed from Craigslist ads – meet up with men at parks, truck stops and other remote locations.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/05/man-charged-with-knowingly-transmitting-hiv-claims-300-partners/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2e4TODNhY

    • “Many trysts stemmed from Craigslist ads – meet up with men at parks, truck stops and other remote locations.”

      Michael McDermott, Isn’t it true that anyone who happily chooses to risk their health and life in this manner will have a very difficult or perhaps an impossible time ever getting a criminal conviction on a complete stranger that disappears back into the who knows where woodwork? Good luck when a few weeks later someone is experiencing flu-like symptoms and then calling the police or health dept. saying.. “Hello, I want to report a (selectively happy pride) crime. I don’t know their real name, it was dark and I didn’t see where he went after our mutually consenting deadly tryst. How prideful and happy (gay) can one be when they now have a deadly disease? Your information is showing us how many deal with their newly found unhappiness….They knowingly re-infect others!

      Your posts surely remove the rose colored glasses and the lies that are sold by those who are caught up in protecting this behavior. Thank you for showing just how unconscionable it is for counterchurch/homosexual activist trolls to make statements such as …..” I also do not think gays intend to harm others by acting on their desires—which is very different from Neo-Nazi’s.” How irresponsible especially in light of the information that you are sharing with us.

      Would a good friend or good parent tell their child who wants to hitchhike… “I also do not think that every driver intends to harm you.” Would a responsible parent just leave it at that without ever cautioning a friend or child to never get into the car with a perfect stranger and risk their life.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.