Why Indiana's RFRA Law is Different

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

If arranging the flowers somehow made her part of the wedding, and because these people were gay -- it absolutely does have to do with discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation.

If she claims to be Christian, she ought to be "christ-like" and follow the example set by Jesus.

Jesus would arrange the flowers.

Not if it caused him to participate in sacrilege. Jesus taught that marriage was between a man and a woman, just as God did. There is no marriage possible between two men or two women. So even if you want to ignore Paul as false doctrine which is where the rest of the NT teaching against homosexuality comes from, Christ himself taught that a marriage was between man and woman and blessed by God. To take a religious sacrament and make it between a pairing God cannot/will not bless is to make a mockery and sacrilege, similar to the Black Mass only without the intent to mock.

Do you feel that devout Catholics should be forced to provide services to Black Masses?

Then you put the person in the position to have to participate in the ceremony.

Not only are asking them to commit what they see as sacrilege. Then you force them to do it.

a reply to: windword

...had you continued your quote, you would also be seeing how Jesus identified the woman's sin and she became converted, going forth to spread the word and bringing other Samaritans forward to Him. Much of Jesus interaction with sinners in the Bible involves an end portion which is too frequently (and conveniently) trimmed off of the quotes by those trying to use said interaction as a guideline for acceptance: go forth and sin no more was a common statement by Jesus.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Right, Jesus would probably use a flower shop or bakery as a way to spread the word of God, and encourage people in sin to not sin anymore -- he wouldn't turn them away or refuse service. That's how you get people to convert and follow you, not by closing yourself off and shunning them away.

People ought to be able to just say, "I don't like who you are/what you do -- so I refuse service" and suffer any consequences from that. If it hurts their business, so be it. I don't think they should use their religion as an excuse though. I think it's disingenuous and cheapens the religion.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So? Jesus violated religious law by interacting with "the woman at the well", and asking her for a service, in the first place. Christians are claiming that they'll be violating religious law by interacting with, and preforming services for LBGT. Can't you see the irony?

I saw this idea on another website and I wonder how well it would go over. It went something like this:

Open an electronics store and sell items at stupid-low prices. 50" TV's for $100. New laptops for $25. The catch? You have to be a satanist to shop there. If you're not a satanist, your business is not welcome. Serving non-satanists is sacrilege and against the owner's religious beliefs.

Now, you can't tell if someone is a satanist or not just by looking at them. In order to buy stuff from this store you'd have to sign a statement saying that you've renounced any previous religions and are truly a satanist. A copy of this statement would be mailed to you along with a copy of your receipt of purchase.

Now, elected officials might be smart enough to not go there -- but family? Sons/daughters? How about their staff members? Come election time I wonder what might be revealed...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So? Jesus violated religious law by interacting with "the woman at the well", and asking her for a service, in the first place.

Uh, Jesus is/was the Law. He is the Word become flesh.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So? Jesus violated religious law by interacting with "the woman at the well", and asking her for a service, in the first place.

Uh, Jesus is/was the Law. He is the Word become flesh.

So? Where does Jesus, "The Law", teach, or command as laws do, to discriminate? It seems to me that by his action of requesting water from the woman, he's clearly being an example to his followers NOT to discriminate.

I think we need to take a step back...

We're all hung up on wedding cakes and wedding flowers -- this law goes far beyond those types of transactions.

What if a Christian gas station owner doesn't want to sell gas to a Muslim? The thing is, this goes for any kind of goods/services. If you replace "gay" with "black" would we be having this conversation?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I saw this idea on another website and I wonder how well it would go over. It went something like this:

Open an electronics store and sell items at stupid-low prices. 50" TV's for $100. New laptops for $25. The catch? You have to be a satanist to shop there. If you're not a satanist, your business is not welcome. Serving non-satanists is sacrilege and against the owner's religious beliefs.

Now, you can't tell if someone is a satanist or not just by looking at them. In order to buy stuff from this store you'd have to sign a statement saying that you've renounced any previous religions and are truly a satanist. A copy of this statement would be mailed to you along with a copy of your receipt of purchase.

Now, elected officials might be smart enough to not go there -- but family? Sons/daughters? How about their staff members? Come election time I wonder what might be revealed...

1). I think a shop should have every right to do so.
2). Epic trolling

originally posted by: windword
So? Where does Jesus, "The Law", teach, or command as laws do, to discriminate? It seems to me that by his action of requesting water from the woman, he's clearly being an example to his followers NOT to discriminate.

...but you're leaving out this: Jesus identified the woman's sin and she became converted, going forth to spread the word and bringing other Samaritans forward to Him. There's an important part of the example, which is being obfuscated by you. If I may...

biblehub.com...

13"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. 14"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

We are faced here with a scenario in which you (presumably) have an individual either unbelieving their action is sinful or uncaring of that belief. Your example of the Samaritan woman is only applicable up to the point where someone with a differing personal thought on sinfulness rejects the person who believes in their heart that they are right with the Word. At that point, as explained in Matthew, the believer is actually ordered to turn away from those who reject the message and, in doing so, kick the dust from their feet (in other words, don't carry anything away from those who reject the message... I would assume that includes their money.)

If you are going to make a comparison please, let's compare likes to likes rather than what you're doing. The story of the Samaritan woman is only applicable if we're dealing with potential customers who are accepting of admonition, repenting and eschewing their sin.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think we need to take a step back...

We're all hung up on wedding cakes and wedding flowers -- this law goes far beyond those types of transactions.

What if a Christian gas station owner doesn't want to sell gas to a Muslim? The thing is, this goes for any kind of goods/services. If you replace "gay" with "black" would we be having this conversation?

As I said earlier, attempting to veer this discussion away from the religious bent it traveled in, a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they wish. We're not discussing non profit, untaxed, publicly traded, government owned, etc establishments here, we're talking about an individual or family that bears 100% of the risk surrounding their business and, in all fairness, should also retain 100% of the rights to make whatever decision they select in regards to who they will do business with. I support that for EVERY business, rental properties, restaurants, gas stations, ALL OF THEM. Unless and until the public is placed "on the hook" so-to-speak for covering the business' ass in the case of a major loss or reduced profits, it should always be up to the owner to make whatever choice they believe is best for them.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

the crazy and sad part about it is they might lose gay and pro gay business but they might gain anti gay business and who knows they might make even more money in the long run, creating more and more division in the process. divide and conquer.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

13"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. 14"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

I guess then, in that case, Christians are the ones who need to leave houses, cities, states and countries that aren't open to their preaching of "admonition, repenting and eschewing their sin", instead of forcing laws that legalize special rights to discriminate.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think we need to take a step back...

We're all hung up on wedding cakes and wedding flowers -- this law goes far beyond those types of transactions.

What if a Christian gas station owner doesn't want to sell gas to a Muslim? The thing is, this goes for any kind of goods/services. If you replace "gay" with "black" would we be having this conversation?

As I said earlier, attempting to veer this discussion away from the religious bent it traveled in, a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they wish. We're not discussing non profit, untaxed, publicly traded, government owned, etc establishments here, we're talking about an individual or family that bears 100% of the risk surrounding their business and, in all fairness, should also retain 100% of the rights to make whatever decision they select in regards to who they will do business with. I support that for EVERY business, rental properties, restaurants, gas stations, ALL OF THEM. Unless and until the public is placed "on the hook" so-to-speak for covering the business' ass in the case of a major loss or reduced profits, it should always be up to the owner to make whatever choice they believe is best for them.

the problem with this is that it would encourage bigotry on all fronts, and lead to more segregation and legal discrimination. white on black, black on white, gay on anti gay, etc etc. it would not be a good look for our country.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Would you like to see the Civil Rights Act repealed?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: windword

...had you continued your quote, you would also be seeing how Jesus identified the woman's sin and she became converted, going forth to spread the word and bringing other Samaritans forward to Him. Much of Jesus interaction with sinners in the Bible involves an end portion which is too frequently (and conveniently) trimmed off of the quotes by those trying to use said interaction as a guideline for acceptance: go forth and sin no more was a common statement by Jesus.

don't you think that it is odd for Jesus who lived to be about 32 or 33 depending, and was considered to be a messiah and a teacher, who wandered around spreading god's word, that he never personally wrote any book, manuscript, or letters?...it was only after approx. 60 to 80 years after his death that his teachings were transcribed by others from memory

originally posted by: windword
I guess then, in that case, Christians are the ones who need to leave houses, cities, states and countries that aren't open to their preaching of "admonition, repenting and eschewing their sin", instead of forcing laws that legalize special rights to discriminate.

Timothy 5-8:
biblehub.com...

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Nope... protecting your home and standing your religious ground is part of the Faith, friend.

Maybe this has been addressed...

But I thought our government wasn't supposed to make laws regarding the establishment of religion? If this law is to allow people to be protected by exercising their religious views, isn't that sort of making a law regarding the establishment of religion?

I don't know. The more I think about this the more I believe we're getting worked up over something that'll most likely fizzle out and solve/correct itself. I mean, how often is someone denied service because of some innate belief they don't openly wear on their arm? And what person would want to obtain service from someone who probably looks down on them?

My head hurts.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Would you like to see the Civil Rights Act repealed?

Are you willing to make the argument that a cake or flower shop constitutes interstate commerce? If not, then why would I advocated the repeal of the Act which only covered interstate commerce establishments? Furthermore, are you looking to redefine "private" vs "public", or are you satisfied with the definition provided within the 1964 Act? I ask because, without a redefinition of what constitutes private and what constitutes public, most establishments that have been sued against over the past 10 years have, in fact, been "private" when challenged against the definition provided by the Act, itself.

No, I don't want the Civil Rights Act repealed, but neither do I want it expanded to cover privately oiwned establishments it was never intended to cover.

This whole issue is ridiculous. There's a big difference between being asked for a cake that says 'Happy Birthday!", and one that says "Gay Pride", or "Congrats on your wedding, Bill and Dave".

If a Muslim is allowed to refuse to work around Pork products in a supermarket, without feeling threatened that they may lose their job, a Christian should be allowed to refuse to take part in a gay wedding. Baking the cake for a gay wedding is essentially condoning the wedding (depending on one's interpretation of scripture); some Christians may not mind it, again, depending on their interpretation of scripture. Others will mind it very much, and to do so, could cause a crisis of faith for them (which, if you're unaware, is a big deal).

What's going on here, is that society wants to cherry pick which religious convictions they'll allow to exist within the business community, and which they won't, and that's just wrong.

No one, regardless of their sincerely held beliefs, should be forced to perform any service that they feel violates those beliefs. Period, end of sentence.

No one has a right to ask if their patron is gay, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, prior to rendering a service, as that is grounds for discrimination. The fear being peddled about by the activists regarding this law, is that that will now be protected behavior. It's just a pathetic attempt to place themselves in a 'special group', all over again. "You can't say 'no' to me! I'm Gay!"

I say, if you are refused service based on the business owner having issues with what you want them to do, then don't do business with them for anything. Tell your friends about it, and they'll most likely stop doing business with them as well. It's very simple, and that's how a free society is supposed to work.