If someone came up to Jesus and asked Him to build, say, a chair, and the customer seemed a little “light in the sandals”, would Jesus have accepted his business?
Before you say there were no gays back then because they would have been put to death, imagine the customer is deeply closeted and took secret vacations to Sodom twice a year. Jesus of course knows all this, because He’s Jesus.
I suspect that Jesus was never asked to make the altar for a same-sex wedding, which would be the equivalent. And I really don’t think there’s any scriptural evidence whatsoever to demonstrate how he married his religious beliefs to his vocation, or indeed how he made any sort of carpenterial decisions.
But then I’m an atheist, so that’s probably beside the point :).
Rhetorical question, no?
Jesus never erected anything for no gays.
Betrayed by a kiss.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Indiana law, which to my knowledge is not restricted to wedding materials. I wasn’t thinking of the wedding cake incident.
What, in your understanding of the Indiana law, would it permit a carpenter to do?
My answer is that I doubt Jesus would have rejected anyone for being gay.
But the Indiana law does not permit carpenters to reject any customer for being gay either, in the vast majority of carpentry assignments.
So I suspect you are confused about what the Indiana law permits.
nm
Perhaps I am. I don’t suppose you could summarize it? Otherwise I will read more about later after work.
When you “My answer is that I doubt Jesus would have rejected anyone for being gay” do you mean for business, or what? And if you mean for business, do you mean both a non-wedding related item (random chair) and for wedding-related items (like an alter)?
Perhaps that’s the case but on Sunday morning, George Stephanopolous repeatedly asked Indiana Governor Mike Pence if the law would allow a business like a florist to refuse to work on a gay wedding, the governor steadfastly refused to answer the question. If the law is as innocuous as you seem to think, why was he ducking the question so much?
He answered the question:
That’s exactly correct. The law allows the florist a chance to say, “Here is my sincere religious practice, and this law that requires me to serve that particular customer burdens that religious practice.”
The court then gets to decide (a) if the practice arises from a sincere belief, and (b) if it’s truly burdened. The court then gives the government a chance to explain whether the law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
Now, do you think that preventing discrimination is a compelling government interest?
I do.
Yup. As I said above:
The law allows the florist a chance to say, “Here is my sincere religious practice, and this law that requires me to serve that particular customer burdens that religious practice.”
The court then gets to decide (a) if the practice arises from a sincere belief, and (b) if it’s truly burdened. The court then gives the government a chance to explain whether the law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
As a general rule, I think the government will have no trouble at all prevailing on a claim that preventing discrimination against gay people is a compelling interest.
All of the above.
According to the myth, Jesus was the Christ. Love was the word. He had no problem with gays. He probably would have given them free condoms if he had them.
Later came the group that called themselves Christians. They rewrote the history to suit them.
Honest question - not a gotcha - if you think that is the case, why do you think people who helped write the law declared it a ‘victory’ and listed 3 examples he said would be different:
Disregard the 3rd, which already would not be forced upon any church in any state.
Do you think he’s wrong, or do you include those as some of the exceptions to the ‘general rule,’ or do you not see those as discrimination against gay people?
(or something else?)
This. In addition:
It’s not clear from the Biblical account whether Jesus himself was ever a carpenter, or whether it was just his (step-)father Joseph who identified as such. And, I have been told that the word translated “carpenter” would have been more likely to have meant someone like a day laborer or construction worker as a craftsman of furniture.
It’s my understanding that, at the risk of oversimplifying, people in Biblical times didn’t really have a sense of homosexuality as an orientation. There’s not really anything in the Bible that unambiguously refers to gay people (as opposed to condemning certain behaviors—and even then, it’s not always clear what behaviors are being referred to, due to questions of translation and historical context).
It’s a legitimate historical question what an observant Jew of the time (which is what Jesus was) would have done if asked to serve a non-Jew or a Jew who was blatantly disobeying the Jewish law. My own sense is that the Jews of the Roman empire saw no need to enforce conformity to Jewish laws on Gentiles that they had dealings with. Jews who flouted the Law would have been another matter, but that would have been dealt with at a community level; and I can’t picture Jesus as the one to “throw the first stone.”
Finally, in a situation like the one the OP proposes, I believe Jesus would have dealt with the person as an individual, not as a member of a stereotypical class.
Of course not, back then gay meant happy. Jesus was therefore gay most of the time.
All sexual deviations, excluding those that depend on modern invention ( vacuum cleaners for one ), have been present throughout human history: I have no idea whether Christ would have discriminated against gays, or sadomasochists, or exhibitionists, or paedophiles, or bigamists, or people who have sex with inanimate objects, either as a tradesman or a preacher, but I suspect that he would have conformed to the ancient wise tolerance of the Jewish Tradition, and done the same as his fellow rabbis.
I always thought he sounded a rather bad-tempered chap.
I think he’s wrong as to the first one, and probably wrong as to the second. And, as you say, he’s correct about the third.
Why not?
If my sincere religious belief is that it is morally wrong to speak to a gay person or accept money that has been handled by a gay person, what in this law would not permit me to reject them entirely?
I will answer your question. But I beg of you one favor.
Before I do, let me ask you one.
Have you actually read the law?
[spoiler]The law says
So what stops your scenario is the clear and expressed governmental goal in avoiding discrimination by businesses of public accomodation, which is a legitimately compelling governmental interest.
[/spoiler]