Govt. workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses: Pope

Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience.

reuters.com/article/2015/09/28/us-pope-usa-idUSKCN0RS13320150928?utm_source=twitter

I’m glad the Pope said what he did.

Though the Pope says people have the right to refuse to marry same sec couples, he didn’t say anything about having the right to forbid others in the establishment from doing so as well.

Amen to that. And let’s hope the Catholic Church in the USA (i.e. the bishops) pursue this with as much vigor as they pursue “life” issues. If we fail on this issue, the USA will lose divine protection, and be totally open to Satan.

I agree with you, but for benefit of the people who comment here without actually reading the quote, here is what Pope Francis actually said:

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.
Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.’”

The Pope confirms basic Catholic teaching that we receive human rights from God, not from government, and that government must protect those rights, because government receives its authority from God, not just from the consent of the governed.

Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”
John 19:11

FYI, I have made it my practice that whenever I quote scripture here to use the New American Bible from the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

There are lots of reasons to use a different translation, but I have seen some people here use translations that are really problematic.

So is the divine protection like an invisible force field? How can you tell if it’s there or not?

nbcnews.com/storyline/pope-francis-visits-america/pope-francis-i-understand-anger-catholic-church-sex-abuse-victims-n434681

Pope Francis also definitively ruled out women priestesses in the Catholic Church.

At times I wonder whose side some Catholics are on! The government worker has a right to refuse to go against their conscience. God Bless, Memaw

The story’s lead (above) is incomplete here and changes what the Pope said a little bit.

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.

[quote]“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said.

Earlier this month a city official in the U.S. state of Kentucky, Kim Davis, went to jail because she refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple following a Supreme Court decision to make homosexual marriage legal.

Davis’s case has taken on national significance in the 2016 presidential campaign, with one Republican contender, Mike Huckabee, holding rallies in favor of Davis, a Apostolic Christian, who has since joined the Republican party.

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

[/quote]

While the article hones in on the Kim Davis case … the highlighted in red paragraph above shows the Pope was not limiting a human right to conscientious objection to JUST government officials < (although likely that was this writers assignment … or point …IMO).

To my “ear” the right of business people like the bakers of cakes and arrangers of flowers would seem to have (according to the Pope’s statement) a human right to conscientious objection too. There have been cases brought against such businesspeople (lawsuits).

In those cases (the bakers, the florists) I always lacked a bit of info. Were the “gay wedding cake” purchasers just trying to buy a generic cake … or was there sort of specific advertising, say, the “buyers” mandated to be put on the cake by the bakers? Or something more (like say, the bakers would have to BE at the gay wedding and cut
that cake and be required to listen to and see the ceremony they objected to – as part of a possible coercion)?

That makes a difference to me … but those stories never came out as the group JUST tryin’ to buy flowers (for WHATEVER purpose) or an advertising free cake. It came off as
gay activists targeting Christian businesses for public lawsuits and using their “marriage” as an excuse for intimidation. Possibly choosing their targets with knowledge of a local court that would rule in their favor? :hmmm:

My sentiments might change a bit (if not my legal position) if someone DID just want to buy a generic cake (no same sex figures on the cake or mandated inscription) … that is no “we’re gonna make you write something publicly that you totally oppose” kind of thing.

A big cake someone could decorate themselves with whatever … mostly should be available for purchase for anyone. But that’s MY take … and if the law is that a business has the right to refuse service to people … that might be another thing.*

The “B” word (business) didn’t get used … but the word “including” preceding “government officials” (like Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk) indicates a broader application. And I did think of those businesses who also seemed to be being “coerced” *< my word here … nothing the Pope said in the article. *

    • per “business” … years ago, while working my way through college, I ran a little do it myself carpet cleaning business. My overhead and prices were low. Anyone could call my number.

I did not take EVERY job that called. I did at first. But learned that if a “customer” was too suspicious of my low prices or overly concerned about my business beyond a clean carpet … I would be reluctant to schedule them. They seemed to have a tendency toward dissatisfaction before the job was even contracted. And I’d sometimes suggest that there were perhaps other companies they might prefer for their own peace of mind.

In that business – customers could cancel at any time … and so could I. Or reschedule --if I was on a job that took longer than I’d thought and couldn’t make an appointment time.

The company I*** learned ***cleaning from “served anybody, anytime” too … in theory.

But when it scheduled jobs after sundown in “gangland” areas … surprisingly :eek: their workers would not GO there at those times! So a reschedule or cancellations happened.

IMO (though I couldn’t know people’s motivations or prejudices), it seemed more like “fear and self-preservation” in those (above) cases … than bigotry or something.

A (:hmmm: this guy looks gay …) :dts: - “No flowers for YOU!” - scenario is not something I approve of personally though.

We have divine protection?

Do other countries have divine protection?

Just wondering.

My thoughts exactly.

Yes they have a right to refuse to go against their conscience but they do not have the right to force their coworkers to align with those views as well. And they also have a right to find another job rather than put their hand out for $80k and then refuse to serve the people who pay them.

That is a good point. All workers have the right to conscientious objections on moral grounds, but that does not imply that they can do so and keep their jobs. Rather, no once can force them to violate their morals. That may mean resigning from a position that requires things of them that they find objectionable. I’m not saying it’s right, but at least in the case of state officials, if they don’t want to enforce the law of the US, they have the option to leave and find a new job.

Amen. I personally wish it had come before the plane ride home - but who is complaining. :slight_smile: (Maybe the Pope knows more than I do on that one…one step ahead ;))

Yes, I did read the whole article (on another site) & the Pope was clearly stating people (including government workers) should have the right to “opt out” of things that go against their conscience. :thumbsup:

And no, they shouldn’t automatically lose their jobs over it, especially if this is ONE thing in the dozens of other responsibilities they have, & it can be performed by someone else.

And no, the “conscientious objector” can’t force anyone else to “align with their views.” That’s the whole point; each person has to make decisions based on their conscience, not someone else’s (like 5 nitwits on a court).

Man, I can’t believe we’re still arguing about this. :shrug:

Arguing about it - we’re sending people to jail for it - with approval of the ACLU no less.

we need to defund ACLU also. I never did understand why taxpayers have to pay organizations that are out to ruin our Country. God Bless, Memaw

We have to be careful. The Pope recognizes the right of conscientious objection. He did not directly address the disposition of one’s employment in the wake of the conscientious objection, although it could be implied that protection of employment is part of what the Pope recognizes as a right.

It could also be that this right to conscientious objection means one can object without being imprisoned, but might not be entitled to keep a job that challenges one’s beliefs on a regular basis.

In that case, exercising your rights means you shouldn’t go to jail, but you might want to find another job. Not sure exactly what Pope Francis intended there.

The ACLU only lost their marbles recently, last few decades anyway - they have defended Nazis and the KKK. For whatever reason, Kim Davis was just the last straw…:smiley:

(In sum, I agree with you. :))

Way to go Your Holiness! God bless you.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.