Friday, 3 February 2017

Reply to a conversation on cakes

You're confusing what's really happening with what appears to be happening.
A tradesperson or service provider was always permitted freedom of contract
and socio-cultural associations naturally led to a predominance of trade and service provision within a certain sphere..and the general dissociation from other spheres to the extent of discretionary freedom to refuse to work with or for certain proposed clients...
Establishments were permitted to maintain an admission policy with rules of conduct
Generally these norms still apply.
EXCEPT in key areas of enforced imposed ideology - built upon the premise that what is permissible for some MUST BE ACCEPTED by all.
Sexual and racial equality legislation initially began to prevent overt public discrimination and social injustice.
Gradually this form of restitutional justice became one of impositional ideology-driven social engineering for the flagrant injustice of 'absolute equanimity'.
Where just demands for equal pay/pensions/benefits & equal admission criteria for job entry and equal opportunity for career progression rapidly deteriorated into the unjust imposition of enforced positive discrimination and quotas for women and ethnic minorities irrespective of their education, experience and capabilities.
Multiculturalist and integrationist ideologies enforced 'proportional equanimity' legislated after intensifying pressure from feminist and racial activist lobbies.
On grounds of never wishing to be accused of sexism or racism businesses and institutions took extraordinary [even counterproductive] measures to ensure there was 'proportionate equanimity' to avoid falling foul of feminists and the race relations board.
Now the problem is the modern notion of 'rights' as if they are arbitrary indiscriminate libertarian ways of acting as an individual irrespective of the collective.
but that's not what a right is
A right is a concession by the state upon the individual to be permitted and safeguarded without let or hindrance to perform certain acts within an established legal framework - and the absolute liberty to do anything outside what has not been legislated against..
A right permits a person who fulfils certain criteria and conditions in certain cirumstances the freedom to perform a specific act or licences someone with a specific status.
Now to Catholics who must adhere to Divine positive law - the national and international human laws they are obliged to follow must at least conform with the natural law - anything which promotes solidarity, subsidiarity , justice and the common good is to be followed and promoted - but anything which diverges from this is to be arbitrarily and discretionarily followed PROVIDING it is not an unjust law [which must not be followed but may be remotely materially co-operated with] or an intrinsically unjust law [which must be absolutely opposed and in which one must never conspire]
Now the problem with same-sex marriage is not that the legislation gives something extra to other members of society to which they are under divine and natural law not entitled.- in other words the state may say it exists but it doesn't really exist...
Because if it were it could be treated equally with divorced/remarried couples or cohabiting 'common law' couples - something which although we must not do ourselves - can be endured among others and with which we may remotely materially co-operate.
[eg have you ever heard of a Catholic registrar refusing to witness and endorse a post-divorce 'second marriage' - or a Catholic baker refusing to make a wedding cake for an adulterous second marriage? - no because it's simple remote material co-operation]
These marriage laws are simply unjust - we may not follow them but we can tolerate them
No instead same-sex marriage REMOVES something from the very definition of marriage - the oath to exclusive mutual sexual fidelity - ie the promise to enter into and uphold a relationship which is actually marriage...
If it was merely two men or two women being called married and going through an identical civil ceremony to a man and a woman there would be no real problem...
We could dismiss it as nominalism - declare as Catholics 'no they're not married' and get on with life...
BUT what same sex marriage does is remove something from the very nature of marriage itself for everyone...
It now redefines marriage as a NON-mutually exclusive sexual relationship - ie sexual fidelity is now not a criteria for ANY marriage..
legislating that marriage is not about fidelity between partners is like saying you can have a many sides to your triangle as long as you don't have three - it prevents marriage from being marriage - and therefore this redefinition becomes an INTRINSICALLY unjust law - and Catholics MAY NOT co-operate with it in any way....
same-sex marriage [unnecessarily - it's governments which took out the fidelity criteria] joins the list of intrinsically unjust laws with which Catholics cannot - must not - abortion, euthanasia, embryonic experimentation, unjust war, the sex trade & pornography etc etc...
BUT The ideological tyrants of secularism are seeking to enforce universal toleration and enforced co-operation with the legally permissible or decriminalised - seeking to introduce legislation which determines those who do not conform to the formal and material activities and events and structures within the permissible - are breaking the law via some form of visible antipathy or non-compliance or non-co-operation.
eg a doctor may not reach his final exams if he does not participate in an abortion
a midwife must assist in abortions
a teacher must teach their students how to use contraception, explain and promote masturbation, homosexual acts and extramarital 'experimentation' - advise how to procure an abortion and all in the form 'non-partisan, impartial moral neutrality' - ie that which conforms to the predominant secular ideology...
if they do not? they must reconsider their careers...
Now you might see the conditions/circumstances of present opposition to this secularist legal/state bullying as quite unreasonably hyperbolic given the requests/demands are somewhat inocuous? intolerant...
Well - remember when Sunday trading was introduced and everyone was promised 'nobody will be forced to work on a Sunday!'?
tell that to anyone attempting to work in 24/7 retail or marketing
and what of a Christian's religious freedom to uphold their Sunday obligation and keep holy the Sabbath?
Well under English law attendance at a Sunday religious service does not constitute an obligatory criterion for being a Christian
Irrespective of the third commandment and the Catholic Church declaring one's Sunday obligation under pain of mortal sin? The employer can say to any worker - i'm changing your shift to a Sunday to prevent you doing this - and legislating Judge says your religion has nothing to do with this...??! doesn't that unnerve you?
say for instance a Jehovah's witness goes to the job centre and is told his benefits will be stopped if he does not accept a job as a phlebotomist at the local Doctor's surgery - ditto a jew or muslim being forced to work in a sausage factory
but say for instance it was a Catholic or Muslim web designer or marketing consultant or advertising executive who was being ordered by court ruling under the pain of severe fine or imprisonment to accept a contract for a new embryonic experimentation clinic?

No comments: