I'm all for the Archdiocese and the Church being able to enforce its own teachings and rules within its properties...but I honestly can't say that I see this as "throwing it in everyone's faces".

 

If I wanted to throw something in someone's face, I can tell you, assuredly, that the last thing to cross my mind would be, "Ahhhh, I know how to throw this in their face! I'll put it on my headstone!"

 

They had to know St. Michael wasn't going to let that design happen. This was exactly what they wanted. That's why they're holding a press conference.

I'm all for the Archdiocese and the Church being able to enforce its own teachings and rules within its properties...but I honestly can't say that I see this as "throwing it in everyone's faces".

 

If I wanted to throw something in someone's face, I can tell you, assuredly, that the last thing to cross my mind would be, "Ahhhh, I know how to throw this in their face! I'll put it on my headstone!"

 

I disagree, adding it on a headstone is the ultimate throwing it in their faces for eternity. I think that is exactly their intent.

They had to know St. Michael wasn't going to let that design happen. This was exactly what they wanted. That's why they're holding a press conference.

 

Guess they want more than their 15 minutes.

They had to know St. Michael wasn't going to let that design happen. This was exactly what they wanted. That's why they're holding a press conference.

 

Which all seems very silly. It's like going to Burger King and demanding a Big Mac. I can't imagine this will rally too many people to their cause.

Which all seems very silly. It's like going to Burger King and demanding a Big Mac. I can't imagine this will rally too many people to their cause.

 

Maybe no new people but I can almost guarantee there will be a very vocal group who will decry the evil Catholic Church.

 

A quote from one of the men:

"This latest action denying my husband and me the 'Freedom to Bury' is just one more example of the Archdiocese of Louisville and Archbishop Kurtz actively practicing discrimination against LGBT Catholics," Greg Bourke said. "This treatment is not consistent with the true intent of Christ's teachings or the moderating tone we Catholics have enjoyed lately from Pope Francis."

 

LINK

 

And for the record they haven't been told they can't be buried there, just that their headstone was not acceptable.

Nothing more than troublemakers . Go find a church/theology that aligns with your own and quit causing trouble for those that don't .

Come on guys, keep it professional.

 

If any of us are going to complain about the mud the complainers can't be rolling around in it.

While I agree that the catholic church has the right to set the standards for their cemetery based on religious beliefs, why is this different than a private bakery refusing to bake a cake on religious beliefs?

Should the bakery owner have created the cake but refused to decorate it in any way that would violate his beliefs?

While I agree that the catholic church has the right to set the standards for their cemetery based on religious beliefs, why is this different than a private bakery refusing to bake a cake on religious beliefs?

 

Because the Catholic Church actually owns the property, and you the customer paying to be interred there are paying for the (permanent) right to use a piece of that property.

Should be DQed for having the Supreme Court on there.

While I agree that the catholic church has the right to set the standards for their cemetery based on religious beliefs, why is this different than a private bakery refusing to bake a cake on religious beliefs?

 

I suppose the simple answer is that a church is fundamentally different than a business. We've enshrined the right of people to practice their religions as they see fit so long as they aren't endangering others by doing so. We've also established that the government can regulate businesses in the interest of the public, and for the most part we as a society have decided that discrimination is such an onerous thing its practice ought to be regulated against.

 

I also suppose people try to make the case that the two intersect in some way - a religious person owns a business and believes its regulation violates their religious beliefs. But there at least two problems with that. One, if dealing with a certain segment of the public violates your faith then you always have the option of not dealing with the public at all. Two, it's more or less been settled that when laws interfere with individual beliefs the laws win out so long as it isn't directed toward a specific religion and achieves a broad public purpose. For example, a Rastafarian couldn't claim exemption from drug laws because of their religious beliefs (the laws don't single out a specific religion and, for better or worse, regulating drugs achieves some broad public goal).

I agree. However my fear is that someday, the government in the best interest of the public, will regulate churches the way they now regulate business.

I agree. However my fear is that someday, the government in the best interest of the public, will regulate churches the way they now regulate business.

 

Short of the first amendment being repealed I don't forsee that in our lifetime no matter how secular society becomes.

And I certainly hope you're right!