Indiana's new buesinnes freedom law

[Barracuda]

Well, it's no longer hypothetical. Steven Crowder went to several Muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, MI and asked for a wedding cake for him and his pretend same sex fiance. They refused. He has a video he taped of the refusals online.

[HYHYBT]

The "new" pastor at the church some of my family goes to is a more literal Bible thumper. His sermons consist of around 40 minutes of mostly shouting, with emphasis provided by banging his hand on the book in front of him. Mom says that was the common Baptist style 50+ years ago when he got started, and that he hasn't written a new sermon since.

[s_stabeler]

It seems to be the assumption that this law could be used to refuse service to gay people, for just existing while being gay. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any religion that is against being gay. That is, the act of existing while simultaneously being attracted to someone of the same sex as yourself. .

the very bigots who have been quoted defending the law never bother to make the distinction you are making. If the common perception of the law is at odds to it's intent, the law in question is a bad law and needs rewriting at a minimum.

[TheHuckster]

Well, it's no longer hypothetical. Steven Crowder went to several Muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, MI and asked for a wedding cake for him and his pretend same sex fiance. They refused. He has a video he taped of the refusals online.

Alright then. I, and I think pretty much everyone here, object to that just as much as the Christians who do the same.

[fireheart17]

Well, it's no longer hypothetical. Steven Crowder went to several Muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, MI and asked for a wedding cake for him and his pretend same sex fiance. They refused. He has a video he taped of the refusals online.

Well, that might wake the lawmakers up a bit

Alright then. I, and I think pretty much everyone here, object to that just as much as the Christians who do the same.

I object simply because you're being refused on religious grounds. I don't care if your religion is Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, whatever, if you refuse a cake to a same-sex couple on religious grounds, you are an idiot.

As I said with Barracuda's post, that incident might wake up the lawmakers a bit to repeal the law, similar to the Lousiana incident where the government didn't realise that other religions existed. If anyone's noticed, when it comes to law (it's also fairly prevalent over here too), if the intention is meant to benefit "religion" (read: Christianity) and other religions start using that law to their own advantage (ie the example above), then people start screaming and crying foul and how dare those religions discriminate/take advantage/blah blah blah! Then the law gets quietly shut down.

[Aragarthiel]

I was talking to a Christian friend and a Jewish friend online the other day and they got in an argument, since Judaism uses the Old Testament and Christianity uses the New Testament, and there's no mention of homosexuality in the New Testament. Christian friend didn't believe it and was proven wrong. So Christians would not legally be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

[Andara Bledin]

Except that in the wording of the Indiana law, it has nothing to do with the actual tenets of the faith, but merely "sincerely held belief" and not necessarily required by the faith in question.

Basically, it's free reign to discriminate and claim "but my faith made me do it."

[wolfie]

Well, it's no longer hypothetical. Steven Crowder went to several Muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, MI and asked for a wedding cake for him and his pretend same sex fiance. They refused. He has a video he taped of the refusals online.

Well, that might wake the lawmakers up a bit :devil

Probably not. The Muslim owned bakeries were discriminating against gays, the same as the "Christians" the law was intended for, so for this purpose the Muslims may as well be Christians. On the other hand, if he had gone to Muslim owned bakeries to get a "Jesus - the ONLY route to salvation" cake, and had been refused on the grounds that such a message was against the baker's religion.

[Rapscallion]

I was talking to a Christian friend and a Jewish friend online the other day and they got in an argument, since Judaism uses the Old Testament and Christianity uses the New Testament, and there's no mention of homosexuality in the New Testament. Christian friend didn't believe it and was proven wrong. So Christians would not legally be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...mans%201:26-27

Actually, it is mentioned as shameful by the Pauline Epistle to the Romans.

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...mans%201:26-27

Actually, it is mentioned as shameful by the Pauline Epistle to the Romans.

The problem I have is if you're going to use The Bible to condemn this, then you have to also condemn all the other sinful activity The Bible condemns. There's this unbalanced singling out of homosexuals for their acts (and for some even their feelings); some by people who divorce, commit adultery, sleep around, masturbate, and do a lot of other stuff that is written as sins... yet they ignore them (or at best frown upon it, but at a much lower level than homosexuality) while pointing fingers at the one activity which, really, hurts society and other people the very least out of the other activities considered to be sins.

That is why it is taught that there is no one who is without sin, and those who condemn others' sin are hypocrites because by doing so, they ignore their own sin which, in the eyes of God is just as damning as anyone else's. I would say homosexuality is an easy target for a lot of these holier-than-thou types because due to their heterosexuality, they believe to be "better" than the homosexuals, and furthermore believe they can be "cured" or "adjusted."

I have no problem with those whose religious convictions say certain acts are sins, but just like everything else in religion, it's a personal belief, and one that cannot trump any other's beliefs that there's nothing wrong with their actions, given that they aren't harming others while doing it.

I mean, seriously, if Bible Thumpers are so dead set against gay marriage, then by extension they should be just as passionate about banning all work on Sundays, making masturbation illegal, abolishing strip clubs, banning condoms, and prohibiting gambling.

[Aragarthiel]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...mans%201:26-27

Actually, it is mentioned as shameful by the Pauline Epistle to the Romans.

Rapscallion

Thanks for the correction. I'm rather non-religious so the conversation my friends were having really interested me, now I have a reason to bring it back up.

[Kheldarson]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...mans%201:26-27

Actually, it is mentioned as shameful by the Pauline Epistle to the Romans.

Rapscallion

And depending on interpretation, he may just be talking about having extramarital sex or sex with temple prostitutes. Paul had issues with sex in general, as well.

[s_stabeler]

It should also be noted that the Book of Paul is explicitly PAUL's teachings- I personally think that the books documenting the teachings of the apostles should really be separate from the bible- since it's debatable how much is actually the word of God, and how much is the interpretation of the apostle in question of Jesus's teachings.

[Rapscallion]

It should also be noted that the Book of Paul is explicitly PAUL's teachings- I personally think that the books documenting the teachings of the apostles should really be separate from the bible- since it's debatable how much is actually the word of God, and how much is the interpretation of the apostle in question of Jesus's teachings.

Schism! Anyone for 'burn the heretic'? Fun game for all the family

The problem I have is if you're going to use The Bible to condemn this,

I have more of a problem when people don't condemn the other stuff. The only reason I pointed it out is that I knew it was mentioned. I don't actually accept the stuff in there.

As to interpretations, it's a long-running issue that the guiding texts aren't explicit enough to be without certainty. These days, I don't mind if the theists argue amongst themselves over such issues, as long as they don't harm anyone else and keep it out of politics. I'll just get the popcorn and occasionally take notes.

Rapscallion

[wolfie]

The problem I have is if you're going to use The Bible to condemn this, then you have to also condemn all the other sinful activity The Bible condemns. There's this unbalanced singling out of homosexuals for their acts (and for some even their feelings); some by people who divorce, commit adultery, sleep around, masturbate, and do a lot of other stuff that is written as sins... yet they ignore them

Unfortunately it's a fictional example, but if you want to see a Bible Thumper who hasn't REALLY read the bible getting taken down a few notches, do a search on "Can I own a Canadian" and look for a West Wing clip in the results.