Fr. Martin Supports Laws That Compels Catholics To Celebrate ‘Gay Marriage’

[Michie]

Father James Martin, SJ, editor of America Magazine and celebrated author, tweeted a lengthy commentary on the upcoming Supreme Court case 303 Creative vs. Ellis.

The case, set for oral arguments in the 2022-2023 term, centers on Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, LLC. Smith, who designs wedding websites, challenged a Colorado law that would forbid her from posting a message on her website “explaining her religious objections to same-sex weddings.”

According to a brief filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF),

Continued below.
DEMONIC: Fr. Martin Supports Laws That COMPEL Catholics To Celebrate ‘Gay Marriage’

 

[WarriorAngel]

 

[WarriorAngel]

People are like.. “it’s impossible we’d fall for…”

Boom 2022

 

[Gnarwhal]

Father James Martin, SJ, editor of America Magazine and celebrated author, tweeted a lengthy commentary on the upcoming Supreme Court case 303 Creative vs. Ellis.

The case, set for oral arguments in the 2022-2023 term, centers on Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, LLC. Smith, who designs wedding websites, challenged a Colorado law that would forbid her from posting a message on her website “explaining her religious objections to same-sex weddings.”

According to a brief filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF),

Continued below.
DEMONIC: Fr. Martin Supports Laws That COMPEL Catholics To Celebrate ‘Gay Marriage’

James Martin is treacherous filth.

 

[Joined2krist]

Lord have mercy

 

[RileyG]

Lord have mercy

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

James Martin is treacherous filth.

What’s even worse is that it is allowed and even encouraged by the Vatican. These people will be held accountable for what they have done.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree that this is evil, but we must think why this is happening. I believe that it is a call to arms to fight the sexual Revolution and stop trying to just let it be
We are too tolerant of worldly values in the Church and make marriage a cheap sacrament.
Sexual Intercourse is for procreation, period.
Pleasure and unitive love are secondary benefits
The world says sex is for pleasure and that pleasure is to be pursued. That is not Christ’s teaching.
When we pursue sex for pleasure and pleasure alone, we leave the natural use of the woman and reap all the evil Paul talked about in Romans
I am tired of hearing couples say, we are getting married but we are not going to have kids right away. Then why are you getting married? We want to have sex silly. You do know that contraceptive sex does not consummate a marriage right? No, I never heard that, we use natural family planning. Sex with contraceptive intent still makes a mockery of the sacrament. You are pursuing pleasure and and not marital love
Repent, and James Martin can be thrown out of the Church. Continue to pursue pleasure and leave the natural use of the woman, and James Martin will continue to torment us
There are no gay and straight people. There are those that pursue pleasure and those that lead chaste lives. A contracepting couple is no different than a gay couple. The salt has lost its savor, which is why James Martin is here

 

[Gnarwhal]

What’s even worse is that it is allowed and even encouraged by the Vatican. These people will be held accountable for what they have done.

Yeah they freakin promoted him. If that's not a confirmation of the Vatican's priorities under Francis I don't know what is.

 

[Chrystal-J]

The persecutions have begun in this country. We must accept that we may have to suffer greatly for our faith. Like it says in John 13:16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

 

[pdudgeon]

The persecutions have begun in this country. We must accept that we may have to suffer greatly for our faith. Like it says in John 13:16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

Well said!!!
Sometimes we don't think about it, but following Jesus means that we agree, as Christians, to walk in all His footsteps, and experience what He has gone through in our own lives while here on Earth.
May God help is all.

 

[parousia70]

I think the article employs a pretty generous use of the word “celebrate” for click bait.

I have a different take.

I don’t believe, if you choose to enter into the secular marketplace, that you can refuse to serve a certain segment of the tax paying population who funds the very infrastructure that marketplace is wholly dependent upon to exist, much less survive, simply because who they are makes you feel icky.

The idea that “no I’m not going to serve your kind, but I’m still going to avail myself of the benefit of your kind’s contribution to the tax base so my business can exist” is antithetical to how a “free market” functions in a constitutionally limited, democratic republic.

Now, if we make so the gays don’t have to pay taxes, then we can absolutely excuse ourselves from being required to serve them. Until then however, you shouldn’t get to leach off a segment of the population that funds the scaffolding your business requires to function in the first place, while simultaneously refusing to serve them.

The persecutions have begun in this country. We must accept that we may have to suffer greatly for our faith.

That too, is a very generous use of the words “persecution and suffer”.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Ohoho I would love a chance to rebel against those laws

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think the article employs a pretty generous use of the word “celebrate” for click bait.

I have a different take.

I don’t believe, if you choose to enter into the secular marketplace, that you can refuse to serve a certain segment of the tax paying population who funds the very infrastructure that marketplace is wholly dependent upon to exist, much less survive, simply because who they are makes you feel icky.

The idea that “no I’m not going to serve your kind, but I’m still going to avail myself of the benefit of your kind’s contribution to the tax base so my business can exist” is antithetical to how a “free market” functions in a constitutionally limited, democratic republic.

Now, if we make so the gays don’t have to pay taxes, then we can absolutely excuse ourselves from being required to serve them. Until then however, you shouldn’t get to leach off a segment of the population that funds the scaffolding your business requires to function in the first place, while simultaneously refusing to serve them.


That too, is a very generous use of the words “persecution and suffer”.

Seems kind of um... ironically erring.

!. If you're refusing to assist in a morally objectional behavior for their own sakes, how are they paying you?
How are they contributing?
Are you referring to businesses or the Church?

Either way, if they are giving alms because they want to and really should believe in the purpose of the Church then they probably aren't going to argue with said teachings.
If they refuse to give alms because the said teachings [here since Christ BTW] do not fit into their opinionated box of 'it's my way' vs 'Thy will be done...'
There's more issues involved than a magazine.

If it's a business who refuses to take their money for services... well that's self explanatory because they are not profiting.

And as far as profit goes - do we cater to money and ignore the plight of the soul because money talks nonsense?

To be quite honest, you can't blackmail the Lord to do the lusts bidding.

 

[parousia70]

Seems kind of um... ironically erring.

!. If you're refusing to assist in a morally objectional behavior for their own sakes, how are they paying you?
How are they contributing?
Are you referring to businesses or the Church?

Either way, if they are giving alms because they want to and really should believe in the purpose of the Church then they probably aren't going to argue with said teachings.
If they refuse to give alms because the said teachings [here since Christ BTW] do not fit into their opinionated box of 'it's my way' vs 'Thy will be done...'
There's more issues involved than a magazine.

If it's a business who refuses to take their money for services... well that's self explanatory because they are not profiting.

And as far as profit goes - do we cater to money and ignore the plight of the soul because money talks nonsense?

To be quite honest, you can't blackmail the Lord to do the lusts bidding.

Huh?
Did you read the article in the OP?
Or even read my post you quoted?

The people who‘s behavior you choose to find objectionable still MUST pay taxes, and those taxes that THEY pay go to fund the infrastructure YOUR business REQUIRES to even make dime #1 in the first place.

Why should your business get to freeload off their tax contribution and refuse to serve them at the same time?

That is the philosophy that I just can’t square with anything moral or ethical. “You must give your money so my business can function, but you’re not welcome inside, we won’t serve you”

Maybe you can explain how you find such a thing moral or ethical?

If you want to bake cakes only for Catholics, because you find all other forms of religion, Judaism, Protestantism, Islam, Hindu, etc, “morally objectionable”, then, by all means talk to your parish priest, and you can set up a bake sale, but you can’t use government regulated currency, because that’s regulated by the state, so you’d have to set up some sort of barter system where if you wanted to trade a cake to the Catholic mechanic for a tuneup of your Chevy, then have At it.

The point is nobody is forcing anyone to do anything that is against their moral foundation.

That said, if you want to make the CHOICE to play in the sandbox called “the secular marketplace”, you gotta play by the secular rules.

There is certainly no requirement that you enter into the marketplace at all. Plenty of people find it morally objectionable so they simply refuse to participate. They OWN their choices, and don't seek to blame others for how they CHOOSE to act/feel/etc..

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Everybody calm down. Fr. Martin did not say he "Supports Laws That Compels Catholics To Celebrate ‘Gay Marriage’". The title is a gross exaggeration. What Fr. Martin does support is laws that compels businesses (including Catholics) to serve all people, even those in same-sex relationships, in the same way they serve everyone else. If the business is in the business of making wedding cakes, they should make them for gay couples, same as they would for Jewish couples or atheist couples. Making a cake as part of a business service is not "celebrating" anything. So don't be fooled by the title of the thread, or the exaggerated telling of the story by "complictclergy.com". Go straight to the Tweet by Fr. Martin, devoid of anyone's leading analysis, and see for yourself. (It is linked in the inflammatory article.)

 

[parousia70]

Everybody calm down. Fr. Martin did not say he "Supports Laws That Compels Catholics To Celebrate ‘Gay Marriage’". The title is a gross exaggeration. What Fr. Martin does support is laws that compels businesses (including Catholics) to serve all people, even those in same-sex relationships, in the same way they serve everyone else. If the business is in the business of making wedding cakes, they should make them for gay couples, same as they would for Jewish couples or atheist couples. Making a cake as part of a business service is not "celebrating" anything. So don't be fooled by the title of the thread, or the exaggerated telling of the story by "complictclergy.com". Go straight to the Tweet by Fr. Martin, devoid of anyone's leading analysis, and see for yourself. (It is linked in the inflammatory article.)

BINGO. Yet the Title is click bait, Dishonest click bait at that. Which I find morally objectionable. Go figure....

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Everybody calm down. Fr. Martin did not say he "Supports Laws That Compels Catholics To Celebrate ‘Gay Marriage’". The title is a gross exaggeration. What Fr. Martin does support is laws that compels businesses (including Catholics) to serve all people, even those in same-sex relationships, in the same way they serve everyone else. If the business is in the business of making wedding cakes, they should make them for gay couples, same as they would for Jewish couples or atheist couples. Making a cake as part of a business service is not "celebrating" anything. So don't be fooled by the title of the thread, or the exaggerated telling of the story by "complictclergy.com". Go straight to the Tweet by Fr. Martin, devoid of anyone's leading analysis, and see for yourself. (It is linked in the inflammatory article.)

Your logic is flawed. An artist is not compelled to create art. He offers his service and the public decides whether to buy it or not. An artist can refuse the money of a patron, if he finds the request objectionable. The artist determines the market place, the market does not determine the artist. The unchaste do not have the right to enslave the chaste
This issue will hopefully be settled by the
Supreme Court in their ruling on compelled speech. Until that time feel free to try and use flawed logic to try to appear right, but once the decision comes, you may have to change

 

[parousia70]

Your logic is flawed. An artist is not compelled to create art. He offers his service and the public decides whether to buy it or not. An artist can refuse the money of a patron, if he finds the request objectionable. The artist determines the market place, the market does not determine the artist. The unchaste do not have the right to enslave the chaste
This issue will hopefully be settled by the
Supreme Court in their ruling on compelled speech. Until that time feel free to try and use flawed logic to try to appear right, but once the decision comes, you may have to change

Should a white mechanic be able to refuse to do a tune up on the car of a black person because the mechanic feels that black people are objectionable to him? He can put up a sign in the door that says "whites only", and that's perfectly ok? This seems to be the "unflawed" logic you are employing. Black people do not have the right to enslave white mechanics who find black people objectionable.

Do I have that right?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Should a white mechanic be able to refuse to do a tune up on the car of a black person because the mechanic feels that black people are objectionable to him? He can put up a sign in the door that says "whites only", and that's perfectly ok? This seems to be the "unflawed" logic you are employing. Black people do not have the right to enslave white mechanics who find black people objectionable.

Do I have that right?

Sorry, No you don’t have that right. A car is an inanimate object that is the same for all people.
A wedding is a religious ritual that has deep spiritual meaning.
The bakers that I know do not prevent anyone from entering their store and buying their wares. They sell baked goods and anyone can buy them.
The case before the Supreme Court has to do with compelled speech. This has never been a part of English common law or American law ever. An artist should not be compelled to create art that he finds objectionable.
No I won’t make an Auschwitz cake that says Arbeit Mach Frei complete with schwastikas and mock gas chambers no matter how much you pay me, but I will sell you some of my products without discrimination.
A homosexual attempt at marriage is a farce. There is no union and the two cannot become one flesh ever. It is biologically impossible. An artist cannot be made to participate in a farce. Same with so called trans gender.
It’s just not true. If others want to participate in a fantasy, that is their choice. They don’t have the right to drag me into the lie: the emperor has no clothes. Everyone knows it, but won’t admit it