(LifeSiteNews) — The owners of a Tennessee pizzeria have shown no signs of backing down after receiving a deluge of criticism for declining to cater a same-sex “wedding.”
The owners of Pizzeria Cortile found themselves and their business under attack after a photo of a text message in which they confirmed that “we do not cater same sex weddings” was shared online by a local leftist media outlet, The Chattanooga Holler.
“INBOX: Evidently, Pizzeria Cortile will not cater to same sex weddings. Just letting folks not waste their time (or money),” the derisive news organization wrote.
“Recently, we made the difficult decision not to cater a wedding due to our personal beliefs. This belief comes from a place of personal conviction, one we know is not shared by everyone, and it is one we hold without judgment toward others,” the pizzeria’s owners explained on the restaurant’s Facebook page. “This decision was not intended to harm or hurt anyone, and we are sorry for the pain this has caused for people who have been a part of our community.”
“We recognize and hear the feedback from everyone who has reached out today. We hope with time we can find an opportunity to extend grace and listen to one another, and to remember that while we may not always agree, we can still treat each other with dignity and love,” they wrote, encouraging detractors to consider thoughtful responses to their decision.
“We are thankful for the relationships we have built with you over the years, and we hope you will give us the chance to continue showing love to you when you come through our doors,” they added.
An opinion headline published by the Chattanooga Times Free Press claimed with certitude: “Pizzaria’s refusal to cater gay wedding is about bigotry, not beliefs.”
Many were quick to take to social media to accuse the owners of bigotry and “homophobia,” and took aim at the owners’ presumed Christian beliefs. Some predictably suggested that the pizzeria be boycotted or that it should be investigated by the IRS.
“No hate like ‘christian’ (sic) love,” one angry critic wrote.
“Place is owned and managed by bigots,” another wrote. “Imagine it’s 2024 and you’re still living like it’s 1924. Grow up and remember the Golden Rule.”
“There aren’t two reasonable sides here. Nobody asked you to be gay. Or promote any kind of message,” one Facebook commentator said. “They asked for pizza. And bigots refused. That’s the whole story. It isn’t any deeper. It is black and white discrimination.”
“All I’m hearing is ‘We’re allowed to be homophobic bc God,’” another said on Facebook.
“Calling bigotry a ‘personal conviction’ is a heck of a twist,” another said.
Conforming to the true nature of marriage, not impossible fantasy
The Catholic Church’s teaching on same-sex “marriage” is unequivocal. A statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is crystal clear: “Relationships between two persons of the same sex cannot be defined as marriage. This is not meant to be cruel or unfair; it is the nature of marriage.”
In the spring of 2015, I originated and co-authored an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that came to be known as “Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives.” It was submitted in Obergefell v. Hodges in support of allowing states to maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Twelve same-sex-attracted men, married to women, contributed to this effort. Our goal was to let the justices know our stories, which have been regularly suppressed. We are not supposed to exist. Our existence – and the thriving of our families – threaten to undermine the narrative that same-sex marriage is the only route to happiness for the same-sex attracted.
Here is the conclusion of that brief, which sums up the message we wanted the justices to hear:
Striking down man-woman marriage laws on the basis of constitutional discrimination would thus send a message to the same-sex attracted that there is only one choice for them, that man-woman marriage is unattainable, that they are acting against their nature for desiring it, and that pursuing it will be dangerous for them, their spouses, and their children.
But the opposite is true. The man-woman definition of marriage is not an insult; it is an ensign, beckoning to anyone – regardless of sexual orientation – that the union of a man and a woman is of unique significance in light of its procreative power and complementary capacity.
The man-woman definition of marriage – conjugal, complementary marriage – is an ensign not because it is just a good idea, or the best among many. It is a bright ensign because it is the truth, undeniably displayed in nature and in each of our physical beings.
We are made male and female, as complements to each other. And when male and female come together, they unite as one flesh. When two males or two females attempt to join together sexually, they remain two males or two females. To base marriage solely on romantic or sexual interests requires averting our minds from easily discernible truth.
To choose to not participate in a same-sex “wedding” is neither bigoted nor “homophobic” nor small minded. Rather, it’s to respectfully conform to nature and to observable Truth with the utmost regard.