“I do”, you must.

[ 6 ] June 7, 2012 AD |

So there I was a number of months ago when I posted an article from the National Organization for Marriage.  A lengthy discussion ensued with a friend of mine regarding homosexuality.  In recent news, a photographer was taken to court for refusing to take pictures at a couple’s same sex ceremony.

 

In that court case, the judge emphasized that sexual orientation is a protected class of people.  And I think he is right because nobody should refuse service to someone solely based same sex attraction.  To do so would be uncharitable.

 

However, this is not what the photographer was attempting.  She was rejecting her service because of an action, in this case a homosexual ceremony which is completely different than taking pictures of a homosexual person.  Would a photographer be taken to court for heterosexual discrimination if she rejected service for a porn shoot?  No, because she is not rejecting the sexuality but a certain action that the camera is supposed to capture.

 

Now I want to switch gears a bit and offer a thought that has been running in my mind.  Granted I have not solved the issue and it is speculative and meant to provoke discussion.  If a photographer can be sued for rejecting to capture a homosexual ceremony (not rejecting the person’s sexual orientation), then can a heterosexual be sued for not wanting to “marry” a homosexual?  I know it sounds rather silly.  But consider that the facebook discussion I had ended when the friend of mine said that homosexual practice defines who a person is.  So if I love the homosexual person but reject his lifestyle, I can still hate the person because he is defined by what he does. 

 

If a person is defined by what he does rather than who he is, then it seems that when a heterosexual person rejects a “marriage” proposal from a homosexual practitioner he commits some sort of personal hate crime for rejecting the offer to wed (because according to the facebook conversation I had, practicing homosexuality defines a person).  I know it sounds weird, but remember the photographer rejected service because she did not want to photograph a ceremony.  A quick counter to the proposal situation is that the “marriage” is two consenting adults.  But so is a business contract right?  If a business can be sued for not providing service because they disagree with a person’s actions, why can’t a person sue for rejecting a proposal on the same grounds? 

 

As I said, these are just some thoughts going on in my mind.  They are difficult to formulate because it is kind of like reading “The Screwtape Letters.”  You have to re-arrange mental thoughts because a first principle, marriage and personhood (who you are vs. what you do), has been re-defined.  Any thoughts?

 

[author] [author_image timthumb='on']http://www.ignitumtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/JTDTAT-Childrens-House-Copy-e1329964684276.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Jared Tomanek lives in the country of Texas with his wife Denise, a Southern Belle from Trinidad and Tobago, and his three children. He holds two graduate degrees from Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, an MBA and Master of Science in Organizational Leadership, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville. Having taught for five years in Catholic education, he now works in the construction industry in Victoria, TX. He is a parishioner of Holy Family of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus Parish in the Diocese of Victoria. He also blogs at his local paper on just about everything cool.[/author_info] [/author]

Facebook3Twitter7Google+0Reddit0Pinterest0Email

Category: Life

About the Author ()

J.Q. lives in the country of Texas with his wife Denise, a Southern Belle from Trinidad and Tobago, and his three children. He holds two graduate degrees from Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio, an MBA and Master of Science in Organizational Leadership, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville. Having taught for five years in Catholic education, he now works in the construction industry in Victoria, TX. He is a parishioner of Holy Family of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus Parish in the Diocese of Victoria.

  • Pingback: Liturgical Renewal Liturgy Vestment Southern Baptist Convert | Big Pulpit

  • Bill

    I always thought “You are what you eat” was a stupid assertion. :)
    However, as a heterosexual, when I see someone that I “acts like” a homosexual, my first thought is something like, “He is gay.” So I am as guilty as they are in defining them first by their ‘orientation.’ Its human nature, I guess.

  • http://thewayoutthere1.blogspot.com/ Fr Levi

    A very odd judgement on the part of the court. There is no same-sex marriage or civil union in this state as far as I am aware. Why on earth would the court say the photographer is wrong for refusing to take part in what is, legally speaking, a faux-wedding?

  • J.Q. Tomanek

    Bill, I remember a professor mine in college. He always corrected us when we said “That is just human nature.” when we actually mean that is “Fallen nature.” I would speculate that your first thought is when observing that situation is not “He is gay.” rather, you first make an unconscious observation of “He is male.” Male and female is part of human nature. This kind of makes my point regarding a person is a who before he does a what.

    Fr. Levi, That is my question too. The court cited basing a decision on “sexual orientation” discriminatory. However, it was not orientation that was rejected, rather it was a ceremony.

  • http://thewayoutthere1.blogspot.com/ Fr Levi

    JQ,
    Indeed. The judge couldn’t sanction a justice of the peace, a priest, a minister, a rabbi, etc. for refusing to come and witness what in this state amounts to two people standing up and pretending to get married … & she can’t force the legislature to make it legal … yet she legally threatens a photographer for not wanting to take place in what she sees as a sham on what seems to me to be very shaky legal grounds. What the judge is really saying, to my mind, is that she thinks SSM should be legal … whatever anybody else thinks

  • http://equusnomveritas.blogspot.com JC Sanders

    “Bill, I remember a professor mine in college. He always corrected us when we said “That is just human nature.” when we actually mean that is “Fallen nature.” I would speculate that your first thought is when observing that situation is not “He is gay.” rather, you first make an unconscious observation of “He is male.” Male and female is part of human nature. This kind of makes my point regarding a person is a who before he does a what.”

    And this observation is found, moreover, in the statement “He is gay.” That statement contains the implicit observation that “He is,” that is, the person exists (is) and is a male (he), which moreover presupposes the class “person.” He must “be” before he can “be gay,” and in this case the pronoun “he” is referencing some person, that is, it is shorthand for “That male person.” Does he cease to be a person if he ceases to be a gay person?

«
»