# Christians: When Jesus was a carpenter, do you think he refused business from gays? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 1, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526 "2015-04-01T18:17:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/21 "2015-04-01T21:48:01Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > 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 concur with **Thudlow Boink** that at the time, there was no category of people called “gay”. Jewish teaching held all sex outside of marriage to be a sin. Jesus taught his followers to take this seriously, but never commanded anyone to enforce any rules of sexual behavior on those outside the community; in fact, he more or less said not to [Luke 9:54]. Given Jesus’s oft-recorded habit of eating with prostitutes and others generally regarded as ‘unclean’, he presumably would also not have distanced himself from anyone based on any sex act. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/22 "2015-04-01T22:27:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? > > 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. Yes, I’ve read the law. I’ve also read the rhetoric emanating from the politicians pushing this law (and similar laws elsewhere). Where is this “clear and expressed governmental goal” actually expressed? In the absence of a clear expression that the state government actually wants to avoid discrimination by businesses of public accommodation, are the courts going to find a compelling governmental interest? For example, if a city or other subdivision of the state passed a ordinance forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the state itself has expressly declined to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes (as the state legislature in Indiana did), would a court find the city’s interest all that compelling? I’m not convinced that they would, and I’d be interested in knowing what case law you believe supports your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/23 "2015-04-02T00:49:48Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Yes, I’ve read the law. > > I’ve also read the rhetoric emanating from the politicians pushing this law (and similar laws elsewhere). Where is this “clear and expressed governmental goal” actually expressed? > > In the absence of a clear expression that the state government actually wants to avoid discrimination by businesses of public accommodation, are the courts going to find a compelling governmental interest? For example, if a city or other subdivision of the state passed a ordinance forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the state itself has expressly declined to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes (as the state legislature in Indiana did), would a court find the city’s interest all that compelling? I’m not convinced that they would, and I’d be interested in knowing what case law you believe supports your opinion. According to a couple of articles I’ve read - one in USA Today, can’t recall the other - no one has ever successfully used an RFRA to defend a discrimination claim. However, the USA Today article pointed out that the states and polities where such attempts have been made had anti-discrimination laws that included LGBT as a protected class. Unlike **Bricker** , IANAL, but it sounds as though a RFRA claim would only succeed where no such ordinances existed. So a Christian baker in Indianapolis would probably not win a RFRA case, but one in East Jesus, Arkansas, would. ---
**Author:** ![Brynhildr\_Budladottir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Brynhildr\_Budladottir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brynhildr_Budladottir)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/24 "2015-04-02T03:39:04Z")
I’m an agnostic but I did go to a Christian school complete with Christian Studies every Wednesday afternoon and my minor in university is Biblical Studies (Hebrew Bible, not New Testament but since this sort of thing is interesting to me I’ve been doing some reading). I agree with \*\*ITR champion \*\* on this. And is there any actual reason to think Jesus would have turned away a gay customer, assuming for this question that the word “tekton” actually does mean a carpenter? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/25 "2015-04-02T14:16:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Thanks **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/26 "2015-04-02T18:52:35Z")
> [@harmonicamoon](#): > > 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. Where do you get that idea? Love is wanting what God wants for yourself and others, and God has pretty high expectations about virtues like chastity. ---
**Author:** ![CinnamonBabka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbce88/32.png) [@CinnamonBabka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CinnamonBabka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/27 "2015-04-02T19:14:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, do you think that preventing discrimination is a compelling government interest? > > I do. You might, but Indiana doesn’t, as there’s no laws on the books making gays a protected class. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/28 "2015-04-02T19:16:06Z")
> [@CinnamonBabka](#): > > You might, but Indiana doesn’t, as there’s no laws on the books making gays a protected class. That was true even before this law passed. So why don’t you lay out precisely what additional harm the law caused? ---
**Author:** ![CinnamonBabka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbce88/32.png) [@CinnamonBabka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CinnamonBabka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/29 "2015-04-02T19:20:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That was true even before this law passed. > > So why don’t you lay out precisely what additional harm the law caused? Since I’m hardly a great writer… > [@](#): > > …[T]he Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs. > > The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. In short, it removed any ambiguity that a business has free reign to do whatever the hell it wants by calling it a religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/30 "2015-04-02T19:23:48Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > Where do you get that idea? Love is wanting what God wants for yourself and others, and God has pretty high expectations about virtues like chastity. How does being gay interfere with chastity ? Gay is not synonymous with “promiscuous”, or even “sexually active”. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/31 "2015-04-02T19:27:38Z")
That said, while I dunno what Jesus thought about gays he \*was \*[kinda racist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywVlfTtlMY) :p. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/32 "2015-04-02T19:29:38Z")
> [@CinnamonBabka](#): > > Since I’m hardly a great writer… > > In short, it removed any ambiguity that a business has free reign to do whatever the hell it wants by calling it a religious belief. I see you haven’t read the thread. If you had, you would have seen an extended discussion about the precise quote you just offered up as factual, and a correction of the misapprehension that it creates. Specifically, your quote says that the federal RFRA does not include for-profit corporations, but in fact it does. You may have heard of the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation. You knew that, right? And you knew that the Supreme Court ruled that the federal RFRA applied to Hobby Lobby, right? So why would you post a quote that says the federal RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations, when you know, yourself, that it does? ---
**Author:** ![CinnamonBabka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbce88/32.png) [@CinnamonBabka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CinnamonBabka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/33 "2015-04-02T19:33:29Z")
That quote didn’t say it doesn’t apply to for-profit corporations. That quote says there’s no specific language pertaining to for profit corporations. But by all means, turn this into an argument about semantics and ignore everything else that might be brought up. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/34 "2015-04-02T19:39:38Z")
> [@CinnamonBabka](#): > > That quote didn’t say it doesn’t apply to for-profit corporations. That quote says there’s no specific language pertaining to for profit corporations. You’re right: that’s what the quote says. But what’s the purpose of pointing out there’s no specific language concerning for-profit corporations, except to convince the reader that the federal RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations? And there _IS_ specific language in federal law that applies the RFRA to for-profit corporations: 1 USC § 1: “the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals…” > [@](#): > > But by all means, turn this into an argument about semantics and ignore everything else that might be brought up. This is not an argument about semantics. This is a rebuttal to your claim that the federal RFRA differs in material ways from the Indiana RFRA. Does it? How? Specifically? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/35 "2015-04-02T19:45:59Z")
> [@CinnamonBabka](#): > > Since I’m hardly a great writer… > > In short, it removed any ambiguity that a business has free reign to do whatever the hell it wants by calling it a religious belief. No, it does not. It gives businesses the opportunity to go to court and have the court decide. That is not the same thing, especially in light of the fact that, at the federal level, most RFRA suites fail. You only hear about the odd ones that are upheld. ---
**Author:** ![CinnamonBabka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbce88/32.png) [@CinnamonBabka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CinnamonBabka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/36 "2015-04-02T19:55:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it does not. It gives businesses the opportunity to go to court and have the court decide. That is not the same thing, especially in light of the fact that, at the federal level, most RFRA suites fail. You only hear about the odd ones that are upheld. > [@](#): > > A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. I would think this language would have a pretty significant impact on what the courts would decide. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/37 "2015-04-02T19:55:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it does not. It gives businesses the opportunity to go to court and have the court decide. That is not the same thing, especially in light of the fact that, at the federal level, most RFRA suites fail. You only hear about the odd ones that are upheld. On the streets, I think it really gives businesses the opportunity to be discriminatory, and if the customer doesn’t like it, \*the customer \*can go to the courts and get their grievances aired. Everyone seems to be ignoring that that process is a huge ass burden, as though you could call up the judge app while standing in front of the store that won’t sell you a pizza for which you have gay intentions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/38 "2015-04-02T19:58:23Z")
> [@CinnamonBabka](#): > > I would think this language would have a pretty significant impact on what the courts would decide. Why, specifically, do you think so? If someone had brought such a suit in Indiana last year, what kind of standards would the court have used to evaluate it then, and how are those standards different than the current ones? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/39 "2015-04-02T19:59:23Z")
> [@bup](#): > > On the streets, I think it really gives businesses the opportunity to be discriminatory, and if the customer doesn’t like it, \*the customer \*can go to the courts and get their grievances aired. Everyone seems to be ignoring that that process is a huge ass burden, as though you could call up the judge app while standing in front of the store that won’t sell you a pizza for which you have gay intentions. Same question: how is that different from last year in Indiana? ---
**Author:** ![CinnamonBabka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bbce88/32.png) [@CinnamonBabka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CinnamonBabka)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526/40 "2015-04-02T20:03:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why, specifically, do you think so? If someone had brought such a suit in Indiana last year, what kind of standards would the court have used to evaluate it then, and how are those standards different than the current ones? Because last year RFRA was not part of Indiana law, and today it is. If it doesn’t change anything, then why the hell was it passed? Why endure the statewide shitstorm over a law that has no practical effect? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-when-jesus-was-a-carpenter-do-you-think-he-refused-business-from-gays/716526.md?page=3)