NLBS #44: Taking a Look at Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration BS

originally posted by: ketsuko


Where did we see Jesus sinning in order not to appear judgmental? We didn't, not once, not ever. So WWJD? He wouldn't celebrate something that by His own teachings cannot exist in the eyes of God.

This has always bothered me. Jesus never said that marriage can ONLY be between a man and a woman. He just says that once a man and a woman get married, let no man put asunder. He wasn't talking about straight marriage verses gay marriage - he was talking about divorce. He DID say that love was the answer. How could he be against two people who loved each other and wanted to commit to each other? What did he ever say that would be against that concept?

a reply to: ketsuko

Participation in a ceremony is one thing. Baking a cake is another. One does not have to support or take part in a ceremony, in order to bake a cake. They are separate events, and the only people who have a problem separating these things from one another, are those who WANT an excuse to be judgemental and prohibitive, though it is not their place to do so.

Baking a cake does not mean tacit approval of the ceremony, or of the activities of the participants. Nor does the fact that the ceremony takes place, or even that it is ratified by human law, take away from the fact of its being invalid according to scripture. However, the right thing to do, is to bake the cake, let the ceremony continue, and to carry within oneself an absolute understanding that these things are merely pantomime.

So effectively one is making a prop for a stage show, which should not be a problem for anyone. One does not have to be an objectionable ass, in order to hold faith within themselves, and it is not for Christians to force their beliefs on others, to affect others uninvited with those beliefs, or any other damned awful thing that Christians have been getting wrong about our place in the world for two thousand odd years.

Baking a cake or serving pizza, or what have you, for a gay wedding does not represent approval, agreement with, or any form of validation of the ceremony, the relationship, or any facet thereof. Being invited to the wedding and refusing to go, or refusal to officiate such a thing on religious grounds, these would be involvement in and tacit approval of, nay celebration of, the event, and I would agree that a refusal of such invitation would be totally justified on the basis previously alluded to. But refusing someone's business is not the same thing at all.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Rocker2013

This is a very good point, and it comes right back around to the idea that those who have sinned may not judge others, and of course, according to the Bible, though Jesus died for our sins, we are none the less sinners all the same, and have no business inserting our attitudes into other peoples lives without invitation or permission.

My attitude to all this is, that if people who profess to Christian beliefs spent more time being decent to all people, regardless of their particular gender, sexuality, religious convictions, politics, attitude toward birth control, and so on and so forth, then they would spend more time actually BEING Christian, than they tend to at the moment.

Where did we see Jesus sinning in order not to appear judgmental? We didn't, not once, not ever.

Yes, well I won't disagree there, since none of us saw Jesus do absolutely anything, he 'supposedly" lived like 2000 years ago. All there is are a few second hand accounts of 'apparent' statements he made.

But, from what I've read of the bible character Jesus, he doesn't exactly come across as a bigot.

originally posted by: LiberLegit
Leave religion out of it for a second: if I own a business I can refuse service to whoever I want.

I guest you just enjoy knee-jerk anger.

I seems like you didn't watch the video and just took the opportunity to spew hate… because, that's what we said.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Baking a cake or serving pizza, or what have you, for a gay wedding does not represent approval,

Why did this insidious theocratic law because a lesbian-gay-bisexula-transexual issue? The application of it can, and would, be so much broader.

A Hindu doctor could refuse service to a Sikh child… and be protected.

A strict Pentecostal can believe the "children of Ham" are cursed, and refuse to serve blacks.

A Baptist tow truck driver could refuse service to the broken-down car of an atheist.

The list goes on.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Could Rastafarians hold a Reasoning outside a police station without being busted?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

SkepticOverlord,

I only latched onto that element of the issue, because I am intimately familiar with Christianity, and am aware that any Christian who professes to be so called, cannot legitimately discriminate against people since to do so is to judge, which is prohibited according to our lore.

You are right though, this RFRA thing could, and more than likely will have much more far reaching consequences, as time wears on, and people become more aware of the extent of its ramifications.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Unknown.

Most likely they would be arrested, but later found not-guilty because of this law.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I understand what you're saying, and if you consider it intolerant then I gotcha. I think true tolerance respects both sides, understanding that homosexuality makes people uncomfortable whether it be religiously or not - and understanding that some are just gay. There are two sides, with their own natural reasons for feeling the way they do. I'm straight, I think it's gross when two men have sex - it feels unnatural and strange to me. Does that make me intolerant? Maybe, but it's just how I feel naturally and biologically, I can't control that. Does it make me hate them? No. Would I bake them a cake for their wedding? Sure why not.

Guess its a moot point. Agree to disagree, nice talk though.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The person in the video put up a picture of a stereotypical redneck, and switched his accent to a southern hick when he began describing a Christian who chooses not to cater a homosexual wedding. It's derogatory, condescending, and most importantly uninformative. It's the mindless religion-bashing that's all over the internet, and doesn't really have a place when discussing the topic. It also fails to foster original thought. Call it whatever you want, the first shots were fired by the video - I will respond how I see fit. I just know ATS is better than something so typical.

Melanin content, imaginary friends, the language/cultural divide, and what to do or not do with your genitals - making human bat s it insane since day one.

It all reeks of divide and conquer tactics to further fragment a crazy general populace so that no two of us, even within the same sub-groups, will be able to cooperate long enough to find our way out of a wet paper bag IMO.

-rocks in imitation leather armchair puffing green bubble pipe- Hmmmm interesting........ I must speculate further... -looks at porn-

a reply to: LiberLegit

originally posted by: LiberLegit
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The person in the video put up a picture of a stereotypical redneck, and switched his accent to a southern hick when he began describing a Christian who chooses not to cater a homosexual wedding. It's derogatory, condescending, and most importantly uninformative. It's the mindless religion-bashing that's all over the internet, and doesn't really have a place when discussing the topic. It also fails to foster original thought. Call it whatever you want, the first shots were fired by the video - I will respond how I see fit. I just know ATS is better than something so typical.

Interesting that you are offended about one type of bigotry when in your first post you say things like.

I don't care if you're the biggest fairy gay man in the world if I don't want to serve you I won't.

I'm seriously never clicking these topics ever again, and the pandering picture of Gervais reveals this NLBS bull# stems from militant aggressive atheism. I don't care about religion, or your opinion on faggots getting married - just give me the facts and call it a day.

I'm just wondering, who any of you think you are, that you feel you can tell people what their deeply held beliefs and morals are?

Also to True Brit, is religion not a VERY personal thing? What one individual takes from it is very different from another?

To Rocker2013, in turn then should the "offended LGBTQ, Whatever" have to prove their "gayness"?

The hypocrisy of this entire situation is hilarious, I don't give a rats A$$ what anyone does, I'm not religious, and believe in equality of all people, think anyone should be able to marry whomever, but The LGBT community needs to quit trying to fight discrimination with discrimination. The way that they are going about their whole fight for equality is wrought with bad strategy, at some point there will be MAJOR PUSHBACK if they continue to trample other groups rights fighting for their own.

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
...but The LGBT community needs to quit trying to fight discrimination with discrimination. The way that they are going about their whole fight for equality is wrought with bad strategy, at some point there will be MAJOR PUSHBACK if they continue to trample other groups rights fighting for their own.

You've come the the wrong conclusion… which is fine, a great many people have.

This madness isn't about a fight, it's about publicity.

The baker that was sued for not making a cake for a gay wedding wasn't accidental… they (the gay couple) sought out such a bakery to publicize a point.

Just like the Indiana pizza joint that was in the news for saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. It's a fake story to publicize a point. Because I can tell you with absolute certainty, no gay couple is going to ask a 16-seat pizza joint to cater their wedding. (sheesh)

It's called Marxism. See, you have freedom of speech, as long as you agree with us. If you don't, well then there will be a modern witch hunt. It's either being done intentionally or, as the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved in good intentions".

Liberalism really is a mental disorder. There's something wrong with these people in their head.

a reply to: STTesc
"Liberalism really is a mental disorder"Just curious how old are you?..Because you sound like you're parroting either your parents,or an am Rwing talk show..#you're brainwashed.

a reply to: greydaze

Michael Savage coined the term, I simply agree. There is no other excuse\reason. It must be a mental disorder. Why else would liberals willingly destroy their own country and culture?

originally posted by: khnum
Im from Australia so Im not all that conversant with the law in the USA however like here I would imagine the Constitution and Federal law over-rides State law. I do know there are US anti discrimination and unfair dismissal laws at the Federal level and the gay mafia or such is probably going to go straight to the Supreme court to get any State decision over ridden my guess is that the Governor of Indiana is of the far religious right persausion and this is an exercise of pandering to his constuency rather than social justice.

As an Aussie living here in the US, I suggest never ever ever make the mistake of comparing Australia's for the most part reasonable laws with the US.
Australia is actually a secular government, America just fake claims it, but actually spends all its time pandering to their wealthy religious fanatics that fund them, pretending they are religious themselves, but are in fact a bunch of criminals.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TrueBrit

Ecept if you refuse to service a gay wedding, the scripture is pretty clear on that from both God and then from Christ himself -- man and woman.

Except this is factually wrong.
Please point out the part of the Bible where it states that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
And please ensure that this Bible also doesn't include other demands, such as the flesh of a pig being unclean, women not having an opinion, menstruation, divorce, death sentences...

Once again, why just this one rule? Why are people claiming to be religious but only following this one specific thing, allowing them to abuse others? Why aren't these same "devout" Christians refusing service to women and divorced people with equal vigor?

It doesn't matter how much people try to twist all this, if you want to abuse LGBT people and treat them like second class citizens, you are a hypocrite unless you agree with every other instruction in that book.

a reply to: STTesc
Here's some advice.Think for yourself..Don't be a slave to other people's words.