Martin’s Latest Heterophobic Rant
Boy howdy! James Martin, SJ had another multi-tweet hissy fit (I know, what else is new?). I’m a couple of days late to the party, but here we go anyway…
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924646988869635
Once again the Supreme Court will take up the question of whether someone can refuse to do business with a same-sex couple because it offends their Christian beliefs. But notice that these business owners don’t have a problem with (nor should they) serving non-Christians…
OK, just to give you an idea of what he’s whining about, this is coming before the Supreme Court this term:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/us/conservative-supreme-court-legitimacy.html
The case concerns Lorie Smith, who owns a website design company that says it serves gay customers but intends to limit its wedding-related services to celebrations of heterosexual unions. She argues that requiring her to provide those services to gay and lesbian couples violates her right to free speech.
It’s quite an interesting case because nobody has filed suit against her. She’s challenging a Colorado law, and her chances look good because similar cases have already been won in lower courts. https://adflegal.org/blog/supreme-court-could-echo-photographers-free-speech-victory-over-mandated-lgbt-wedding-support
Back to Father Martin…
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924648889290762
E.g., These Catholic business owners have no problem serving Protestants (nor should they) who don’t believe in basic Catholic beliefs: papal authority, the Virgin Birth, etc. Nor do these Catholic business owners say that serving Protestants would compromise their faith….
Not that it matters too much, but I’m just curious why he thinks Lorie Smith is a Catholic? I mean, I looked around and couldn’t find anything except the USCCB and Colorado bishops, along with some other Christian organizations, who filed an amici brief. Please note, in reality, James Martin, SJ is not just accusing Smith but our bishops too. https://www.ncregister.com/cna/us-bishops-file-brief-supporting-web-designer-who-objects-to-gay-marriage
Smith stated in her petitioner’s brief that
Smith, as stated in her petitioner’s brief, does not discriminate against clients on the basis of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. She instead cares about the message she is asked to create.
Her brief says, “Smith will decline any request—no matter who makes it—to create content that contradicts the truths of the Bible, demeans or disparages someone, promotes atheism or gambling, endorses the taking of unborn life, incites violence, or promotes a concept of marriage that is not solely the union of one man and one woman.”
So, despite Father Martin’s tendency to find the homophobe under everyone’s bed, she just has values she’s not willing to contradict in the messaging she creates. And, oh, BTW, that’s what graphic artists/designers do. Just curious, would Father Martin also insist that she create content for, say, promoting atheism, gambling, or abortion??? How about a graphic in support of NAMBLA? If not, why? Perhaps, despite the claims he will make in a second, HE is the one obsessed with making all things about homosexual sex. For most of us, it’s just one more immoral thing we’re not going to support. But Martin? He’s got tunnel vision. It’s all he sees.
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924650512461824
More broadly, Christian business owners have no problems serving Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu customers (nor should they) who don’t believe in the most fundamental Christian beliefs, like the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection….
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924652097576960
In other words, these Christian business owners have no problems serving people who don’t believe in Jesus, perhaps the most basic Christian belief…
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924653737545729
None of these Catholic or Christian business owners has said, as far as I know, “If I am forced to serve a non-Christian, it would mean that I was supporting someone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, and this is something that my conscience will not allow…
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924655373365248
In the guise of “religious liberty,” Catholic business owners could deny services to Protestants and, more broadly, Christians could deny services to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and so on. But this, as far as I know, would be illegal…
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924657068179456
So if this is about a business owner’s conscience being offended by serving a person with different beliefs (or a person who practices something that they find offensive) then the most generous interpretation is that their consciences are being highly selective…
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1576924658666209280
The only matter that seems to offend the consciences of these few Catholic and Christian business leaders is same-sex marriage. So let’s not call this a case of “religious liberty.” Let’s call it what it is: homophobia.”
If she was “homophobic”, why would she be willing to work at all with any business owners who are gay? No. Sorry, James Martin, SJ. Maybe you should have done a little research because you are engaging in slander, calumny, detraction, defamation AND libel. Your scored ’em all! not very becoming of a priest but typical of a Jesuit. She very carefully states what she will and will not do:
https://303creative.com/about/
As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor Him in how I operate it. My primary objective is to design and create expressive content—script, graphics, websites, and other creative content—to convey the most compelling and effective message I can to promote my client’s purposes, goals, services, products, events, causes, or values. Because of my faith, however, I am selective about the messages that I create or promote – while I will serve anyone I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.
Again, her job is messaging. If she doesn’t want to create a message promoting the wet tee shirt contest at the local bar, the palm reader down the street, or the latest heretical James Martin, SJ talk because it violates her faith, freedom of speech and her freedom of conscience (you know, that thing you constantly say trumps all else, formed or ill-formed?) – SO. BE. IT.
And, because people dared to reply to his whining rant, he came back with this:
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1577000759559737345
A follow-up on my comments about the Supreme Court’s decisions on religious-liberty exemptions for a Christian business person creating a website for a same-sex marriage. Some people say, well, they’re objecting to the act (the marriage) not the people…
Father, please show me where the homosexual walked into her office asking her to make a logo for his accounting firm and she turned him down. That’s exactly what she’s doing. Whoever said you were trying to compel people to violate their consciences is DEAD right.
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1577000761191698432
The underlying defense is that the action offends a person’s conscience. But the offense could be about either a person or an act. You could say, in the first case, “I don’t want to serve a non-Christian because it offends my conscience….”
Nobody is saying that, but, yeah, let’s obfuscate.
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1577000762714259456
Likewise, a Christian business person could say “I’m not creating a website for a bar mitzvah, a Buddhist yoga retreat, a Muslim community center’s activities, or, more to the point, a non-Christian wedding, because those activities offend my conscience….”
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1577000764295110656
But no one says that. The issue here is, again, the selectivity of conscience. Some Christian business owners have decided their consciences won’t allow them to create something for a same-sex marriage.”
This is, again, highly selective and says less about religious liberty….
See Lorie Smith’s description of what she will and won’t do above. It’s hardly limited to sodomy.
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1577000766065192960
….and more about homophobia.
Who’s the phobic one, Fr. Martin? I think that would be you. Maybe obsessed is a little better? This is all about religious liberty. Again:
while I will serve anyone I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.
You’re the only selective one here. Again, from her petitioner’s brief:
Smith will decline any request—no matter who makes it—to create content that contradicts the truths of the Bible, demeans or disparages someone, promotes atheism or gambling, endorses the taking of unborn life, incites violence, or promotes a concept of marriage that is not solely the union of one man and one woman.
As usual, James Martin, SJ’s hypocrisy is on full display as one who touts “anything goes” when it comes to conscience, but when something violates someone’s strongly held religious beliefs and it contradicts Fr. Martin’s obsessions, freedom of conscience, religion and free speech go bye-bye.