Indiana's Religious Freedom Legislation

[Bo D]

Again, I don't care what Paul wrote. I only care about quotes directly attributable to Jesus. I kind of like the Jefferson Bible.

[Palehorse]

. . .

I do NOTHING to bring harm to gays.  I have NO hatred towards them.  I have worked with them, ate with them and have friends that are gay.  Why do you just assume that if you are a Christian, you hate Gays.  I merely believe that their lifestyle is wrong.  I also believe that if you cheat on your wife, it is JUST as wrong. 

I am to the point though, Gay marriage is such a non-issue to me personally.  I think this country has MUCH bigger problems.  But, I firmly believe our Government should not condemn or punish anyone who does not want to partake their business in something that goes against their RELIGIOUS beliefs, as long as it does not bring any physical harm to them.

I want to make it perfectly clear, I do not HATE the LGBT community...I strongly disagree with them, but have zero hate.  That comes from the flat middle of my heart.

And yet you feel free to judge them, and support laws that would harm them.

Matthew 7:1 - 1 "Judge not, that you be not judged."

Luke 6:37 - "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Romans 14:13 - "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

[Henry Hawk]

And yet you feel free to judge them, and support laws that would harm them.

Matthew 7:1 - 1 "Judge not, that you be not judged."

Luke 6:37 - "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Romans 14:13 - "Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

How is it going to harm them if a Christian doesn't want to cater their wedding?  Show me an example where a gay is going to be harmed by this law. 

[Locutus]

You can quote Bible verses all day long, but the bottom line boils down to this. 

It is just as wrong, from a civic and legal perspective, to deny selling a wedding cake to a gay couple as it was to deny people of color the right to sit at the same breakfast counter.  Religious beliefs, if they are bigoted and oppressive, cannot be "legalized" in a country which values human dignity and in which universal human rights are the cornerstone of the whole system of justice. 

Exclusion of LGBT persons, on the basis of one's religious belief, is another example of religion being used for bigotry and exclusion in a country which promotes equality and inclusion. Our laws should not permit that. Inside the church walls, or inside the walls of your own home, you can say whatever you want to about your beliefs about another person's lifestyle, orientation and/or sinfulness and damnation. But you cannot force them, in the legal community and in society, to drink from a different water fountain, or to go to a different bakery.

It really is just that simple if you think about it. 

[Bo D]

It really is just that simple if you think about it.

Yes. It really is!!! The problem lies with the last five words there.

[Henry Hawk]

It really is just that simple if you think about it. 

It is OBVIOUS that it is not that simple.  Good people on both sides of the fence are torn over this.  It is bigotry to say if a Christian wants to be a businessman he/she MUST give up their principals and values.  THAT is clearly a violation of our Constitution......it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion

It really IS that simple, in the minds of millions across this land.

[Locutus]

It is OBVIOUS that it is not that simple.  Good people on both sides of the fence are torn over this.  It is bigotry to say if a Christian wants to be a businessman he/she MUST give up their principals and values.  THAT is clearly a violation of our Constitution......it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion

It really IS that simple, in the minds of millions across this land.

Where do you draw the line Henry?  Can I claim my religious freedom allows me to turn away service to black people?  Even you can't be so dense that you don't see that what you're a proponent of is the exact same thing.

[Palehorse]

I agree with you.  What is your point?  Just because a Christian may not WANT to participate in a Gay wedding does not mean he saying he is without sin.

I have one for ya!

1 Timothy 1:9-10 ESV

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

I totally get this and agree with it as do most Christians that I know...

Jesus also told the woman who was caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more."  IT was wrong, He knew it and called her out on it...... He warned people that not only the act of adultery was wrong, but even THINKING about adultery was wrong......He shamed the woman at the well by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband....It was wrong and He pointed it out, he didn't condone it.  Yet, he loves everyone and we all have a path he wants us to go down.

1 Timothy :
. . .
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. . . .

Once we expand upon your quotation we get a firmer grasp on its true message and intention.

The irony is that you are using the words of a former "blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious" individual that was shown mercy by the Christ, to validate the persecution of others. 

How is it going to harm them if a Christian doesn't want to cater their wedding?  Show me an example where a gay is going to be harmed by this law.

It isn't the single act, which poses but a moment of discomfort, but rather the precedent that single act represents and the ramifications of same.

• How long before a tailor says I cannot mend your clothing?
• How long before a physician says I cannot heal you?

How long before a landlord says I cannot rent to you? And how long before one man says to you, "I cannot do business with you because you have blue eyes"?

Jesus represented tolerance and acceptance, and humankind has been killing in his name for centuries.

Jesus said that prostitution was a sin, and yet he readily forgave those that practiced it.  And it would appear based upon recent archeological discoveries, that he married one.

[Locutus]

Yes. It really is!!! The problem lies with the last five words there.

Maybe that's where I'm going wrong. 

[Henry Hawk]

I have asked a lawyer that represents this company about this, he says in order for a religious person can keep from being sued, he must PROVE that it IS a violation of his religious beliefs.  There needs to be doctrine stating the belief, and show that he is practicing said religion.  It still is not a simple person claiming a belief and expect the law to side with them.

And that is the way it should be. That is what separates this bill from discrimination. 

[Exterminator]

I have asked a lawyer that represents this company about this, he says in order for a religious person can keep from being sued, he must PROVE that it IS a violation of his religious beliefs.  There needs to be doctrine stating the belief, and show that he is practicing said religion.  It still is not a simple person claiming a belief and expect the law to side with them.

And what is to prevent someone from having a religion of one whose doctrine states whatever that person wants it to?

[Henry Hawk]

And what is to prevent someone from having a religion of one whose doctrine states whatever that person wants it to?

That is up to the courts to decide if it is sincere and if it violates a proceeding law.

[Y]

[Y]

I don't usually post entire articles, but this is to educate certain folks here as to how other parts of the country perceive Indiana, Mike Pence, our legislature, and us as Indiana citizens in general:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/opinion/in-indiana-using-religion-as-a-cover-for-bigotry.html?_r=0

In Indiana, Using Religion as a Cover for Bigotry

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 31, 2015

Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, who last week signed a religious-freedom law driven by bigotry against gays and lesbians, has been complaining that the law's opponents — which include top business leaders and civil-rights groups — are spreading "misinformation."

It is true that the law does not, as some opponents claim, specifically permit businesses to refuse to serve gays and lesbians. Its drafters were too smart to make that explicit. Instead, the law allows individuals or corporations facing discrimination lawsuits to claim that serving gays and lesbians "substantially" burdens their religious freedom.

But nobody is fooled as to the law's underlying purpose. As its most prominent backers have said quite clearly, it is meant to protect "Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages." In other words, it should allow them to refuse service to gay couples.

The law has understandably spawned a nationwide call for boycotts of the state, not to mention the rebuke of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, companies like Apple, and the N.C.A.A., whose college basketball tournament is holding the Final Four in Indianapolis this coming weekend.

The tactic of using so-called religious freedom laws to justify and support anti-gay discrimination is relatively new. A decade ago, states could discriminate against gay couples openly by banning same-sex marriages, as dozens did. In recent years, with federal and state courts striking down those marriage bans as unconstitutional (Indiana's was struck down in 2014), opponents of marriage equality have resorted to using other strategies.

Religious-freedom laws, which were originally intended to protect religious minorities from burdensome laws or regulations, have become increasingly invoked by conservative Christian groups as gay rights in general — and marriage equality in particular — found greater acceptance nationally. Besides Indiana, 19 states have adopted such laws, but the laws in the other states apply to disputes between individuals and the government; Indiana's law also applies to disputes between private citizens.

The Supreme Court helped the cause of Christian conservatives with its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, which held that family-owned corporations may invoke the federal religious-freedom law in refusing to comply with a law requiring employer-paid health plans to cover contraception benefits. The wording in Indiana's religious-freedom law tracks that ruling in protecting corporations.

If Mr. Pence is genuinely concerned about why people may be misunderstanding the law, he could start by looking in the mirror. Under persistent questioning on ABC News's "This Week" on Sunday morning, Mr. Pence insisted that the law "is not about discrimination," but about "empowering people."

That claim is impossible to square with his refusal to consider a statewide law protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination (about a dozen Indiana cities, including most of the largest ones, already have such laws). On Sunday, Mr. Pence said he agreed that it would be helpful to "clarify" the law's intent, even though it is already perfectly clear. The freedom to exercise one's religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.

But religion should not be allowed to serve as a cover for discrimination in the public sphere. In the past, racial discrimination was also justified by religious beliefs, yet businesses may not refuse service to customers because of their race. Such behavior should be no more tolerable when it is based on sexual orientation.

[Henry Hawk]

 $764,812 of $200k     Raised by 26,257 people in 1 day