The person I was responding to mentioned Jesus giving out condoms. Maybe he meant for balloon animals.
I feel better about the new text of the law…
(2) pretty well covers the qualms I mentioned.
There’s a much more thorough discussion going on in this thread. I think you’ll see that Bricker conceded there that there are non-legal issues surrounding this law that do raise concern.
That interpretation seems to render the law meaningless. The government’s interest in having widespread availability of X will always be more compelling than an individual’s religious belief against X.
Then we go to the “least restrictive means” test. If we go back to the wedding cake argument, whether the religious baker wins or loses depends solely on how you frame the question of what the government’s interest is. If the government interest in making sure a gay couple has place to buy a wedding cake, then there are many other lesser restrictive means.
The only time there is not a lesser restrictive method is when you draw the question broad enough to encompass discrimination in the sense that we won’t tolerate anything other than full accommodation by everyone. But when you go that far, all you do is give the government a drafting template for future laws.
All that has to be done to overturn Hobby Lobby is to make employer provided health insurance a compelling government interest. And under the ACA, the employer mandating is an essential part of the law; under your interpretation it would seem that Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided.
Further, since the federal government and many states, including Indiana, have failed to add sexual orientation as a protected class, can we really say that an Indiana city’s interest in adding sexual orientation is compelling? The city only has power that it derives from the state who doesn’t seem to have an interest at all in protecting gays from discrimination.
Seems like that would take a lot of legal juggling to make that argument stick. It looks to me like a simple value judgment of a majority of judges/justices and not grounded in any type of real precedent.
That is merely your interpretation of the law, which quite a few legal experts (and compelling evidence is that this includes those who actually passed the law), disagree with.
I’d go into why, but, frankly, the whole thing is a hijack, since Indiana law is not relevant to the question asked by the OP. Rather than engaging on this topic, you should have just linked to the threads where both your arguments and the counterarguments can be read.
The threads in question are:
[list][li]What exactly did the Indiana GOP think was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law?[/li][li]http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18242077[/li]
Now can we go back to just answering the question in the OP? Because it’s not about the law, but about Christians who do very much want to refuse service to gay people, whether the Indiana law would allow them to do so or not.
And, no, Jesus wouldn’t, and specifically taught otherwise, even if we take the stipulation that being actively gay is a sin (which it isn’t–that’s just due to homophobic interpretations of the original Greek). He ate with sinners, and the religious teachers of the day were apprehensive at him for doing so.
What if Jesus was gay? He did tend to hang out with a bunch of guys and theres no evidence of him having a girlfriend or wife unless you believe that Mary Magdalene was his wife? Thats whats great about the bible noone really knows whats fact and fiction its all heresay. Imagine what kind of magical stories will be told about us in 2000 yrs?
- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
*
Right, First of all, there’s a long list of sinners there : Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate,abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and it’s odd how most of those are ignored. I mean- Fornicators & adulterers? That’s about 90% of the adult sexually active population. 
In any case, they also forget “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified” so you need to reach out to those sinners so that they can be saved and forgiven.
Folks, BigT is correct, this thread was inspired by the Indiana law, but was not meant to discuss the intricacies and interpretations of the law.
Revtim, is this the right place to say I always interpret that as Rev. Tim, which makes me think of you as Reverend Timothy Lovejoy from The Simpsons?
Why is it even necessary to pass a law like this? As a business owner in a supposedly free market you should have every right to provide your services to whom ever you choose to and let the market decide wether or not you will stay in business. From a business perspective your decreasing your customer base and you are risking potential bad publicity but if your so close minded that should be your choice. Look how fast all the politicians are crawfishing on this law bc major corporations and events that bring billions of dollars to the state economy are threatening to leave Indiana. If you want to commit economic suicide go right ahead!
We tried that. The results were unsalubrious.
He was a carpenter, and presumably he made a good living at it until he was 30 or so. That implies quality work. So it is conclusive that he was interested and able to put wood to its best uses for over nearly two decades and helped his father do the same. There is no evidence that he refused these services to either Jews or Gentiles. Saul of Tarsus, on the other hand, pretty clearly had some serious issues because although he was a tent maker, there is no record of him ever pitching a tent or exhorting others to do so, but rather he commanded his correspondents to put the thought of such things out of their minds except in the exclusive and private company of their own spouses.
My real name is Tim, and after I was ordained by the Universal Life Church, some friends gave me the nickname Reverend Tim.
Oh, I see. “Wood” and “pitching tents”. Gosh, that’s ever so funny. You must be a wow at parties!
To the poster who suggested that Jesus would have been handing out free condoms to gays with the message that they should go and fuck all they wanted, I suppose that’s based on the story of the woman taken in adultery at the start of John chapter 8 - you know, the one to whom he said “Neither do I condemn you - off you go and do as you like”?
Some people here seem to think Godspell was an accurate portrayal of Jesus, and that he was a sweet, lovable hippie who wuvved everybody JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.
Problem is, if everybody is fine just the way they are, why would Jesus need to come to Earth at all, and why would he endure death for humanity’s sins (what sins???).
Jesus said some very comforting things, but he also said some very harsh, frightening things. No matter who you are, you should get at least a bit disturbed by things Jesus said (I certainly do). No matter whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, if you read the Gospels, you’re going to find that Jesus isn’t always on your side. He actually has some tough words for all of us (and it’s uncomfortable when you come across one of Jesus’ angry rants and realize, “Hey… I think he’s talking about ME here!”).
I won’t be so bold as to guess what Jesus would have done in any given situation, but check out Matthew 18:15-17:
*“If your brother sins, point out his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens, you have saved him. If he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two men. If he still refuses to listen, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
*
And how would a Jew of Jesus’ time have treated a pagan? He’d have shunned that person.
Oooh… didn’t see THAT coming did you? Sweet, lovable, non-judgmental Jesus told his followers to shun unrepentant sinners!!!
- In the timeline of the Bible, Sodom was destroyed before the arrival of Jesus.
- Believing that Jesus is omniscient is a fallacy. Some Christians do not believe that Jesus is the omniscient God.
- Homosexuality has always existed. Attitudes toward homosexuality vary from acceptance to condemnation since antiquity. The “gay” identity is fairly recent and modern. Hence, it’s often said to be inaccurate to call someone in the 16th century with homosexual tendencies “gay”. The best description for ancient peoples would be “homosexuality” or “homosexual tendencies”, not “gay”.
- Jesus had sinful followers of all stripes. What makes you think that he would refuse business with homosexuals?
If you were ever invited, you’d know. Hint: it does help if you’ve had some booze first.
Notice the disparity between the two statements? As I pointed out with Scripture, how does Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors? He eats with them. That’s hardly shunning.
The only people Jesus had even harsh words towards were the religious leaders who pretending to be righteous.
You *do *know what Matthew the Apostle’s occupation was, dont you? :dubious::rolleyes:
Help? I should imagine it was necessary to be riotously drunk.
You do know that when Jesus came to him he dropped it like a bad habit and mended his ways on the spot, don’t you? :dubious::rolleyes: