# If I were a devout Christian, I'd be against the Indiana Law for this reason **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810 "2015-04-04T16:25:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/181 "2015-04-08T02:44:21Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > And that hateful little screed is my cue to stop responding to you before I post something that’ll get me in trouble. But thank you for showing your true bigoted colors right out like that. Saves me time. While I think his position is completely wrong, I think you are a little overboard calling it a hateful screed. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/182 "2015-04-08T03:02:34Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > While I think his position is completely wrong, I think you are a little overboard calling it a hateful screed. I’m tired of “polite”. I’m calling bigots out as I see them, especially as I happen to belong to the group he’s trying to make sure doesn’t have actual equality. I don’t think hateful really covers it, to be honest, but it’ll do. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/183 "2015-04-08T03:28:44Z")
And I still think it’s unhelpful for people to be called bigots for holding the exact same views Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held just two years ago. Way to persuade, way to preach tolerance! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/184 "2015-04-08T03:33:37Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I’m tired of “polite”. I’m calling bigots out as I see them, especially as I happen to belong to the group he’s trying to make sure doesn’t have actual equality. I don’t think hateful really covers it, to be honest, but it’ll do. I was more objecting to the word “screed”. “Hateful” is perhaps a valid read-in of his motivation but what he posted was clearly measured and not long at all. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/185 "2015-04-08T04:07:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And I still think it’s unhelpful for people to be called bigots for holding the exact same views Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held just two years ago. Way to persuade, way to preach tolerance! Why? Some people grow. Others don’t. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves. The country grew out of it. If someone, today, wanted to have slaves, we’d call them damned fools. I hope that people, overall, on the average, continue to grow, mature, and acquire wisdom. Some statistical subset never will. That’s a bit sad, but it’s human nature. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/186 "2015-04-08T04:09:48Z")
I hope so too. But it might be nice to wait more than two years before deciding that people are bigots for not getting on board yet. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/187 "2015-04-08T13:36:04Z")
“If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.” - not quite Matthew 5:41, but ISTM to be close enough. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/188 "2015-04-08T13:45:38Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Jesus told everyone to repent. That’s what we’re _all_ supposed to do to prepare for the Kingdom. So yeah he would have told gays that, but then he would have also issued the same command to the people making a fussing about giving gay people some cake. > > Sure, because I have no reason to think these businesses wouldn’t cater someone’s second or third marriage. This kind of adultery is so commonplace no blinks an eye at it, but it’s a sin according to the Bible. I also have no reason to think these businesses make a point of investigating whether their products and services go towards the support of lies, heists, and blasphemous statements. That’s too much to expect a mom-and-pop to do. > > If not endorsing the sinful practices of others was a true concern, I would expect these businesses to require every prospective client to fill out a personal survey and then recite a morality oath before agreeing to provide service. But we all know they don’t do that. > > If someone wants a cake for their 16 year-old pregnant daughter’s baby shower, do you think it would Christ-like for the baker to deny them service because “by selling them a cake, I’m endorsing the abomination that is fornication!” Because this to me is no different than a baker turning away a gay couple. We agree that Jesus would have told both the gays and the baker to repent. Now to move on from your hypothetical to the present day. The current day bakers and pizza makers have repented and are trying their best to follow Jesus. It is possible but unlikely that the gays getting married have done the same thing. So what should happen now. Mark 2:17 “When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” I have no reason to think that these businesses are catering second and third marriages or any of the other hypothesized cases, that is just an assumption on your part. There is no need to do an investigation into every client, because people don’t throw parties for lying, stealing, or blaspheming. If they did and they told me and I was a caterer I would refuse to cater it. Likewise there is no reason to investigate every marriage since gays are only 2% of the population and most don’t want to get married. Also there is no need for an investigation since it is easy to tell when you meet the couple. As for the teen pregnancy shower, it is my understanding that showers are to celebrate the new life and not fornication. If there was a party to celebrate the fornication I would not go or cater and I expect most Christians would agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/189 "2015-04-08T13:49:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But banning gay marriage is not a neutral position. It’s an explicitly anti-gay position, in that you want the government to prevent gay people from enjoying a benefit that is extended to all straight people without reservation or exception. > > Why do you think the government should be in the business of enforcing your personal bigotries? More particularly, why do you think the government should be in the business of enforcing your own personal _religious_ bigotries? All straight people can not get married, close relatives, those underage, those already married are all banned from get married. Likewise to straight friends who want to marry just for the insurance benefits can not get married. That is because the definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Why should we change the definition of marriage for your personal convenience. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/190 "2015-04-08T13:56:51Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Here’s the thing you’re missing…the FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, by virtue of the 1st Amendment, don’t accept the authority of the Bible. The stance against marriage equality is an unconstitutional stance, informed as it is only by religious belief. You don’t understand the first amendment, there is no ban on laws motivated by religious belief. The laws against murder, theft, and perjury have their basis in the Ten Commandments but are clearly constitutional. Likewise the Civil Rights acts were motivated by religious beliefs but are constitutional just as not changing the legal definition of marriage is clearly constitutional because it does not mandate anyone believe anything religious, perform or not perform any religious act. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/191 "2015-04-08T14:14:16Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > You don’t understand the first amendment, there is no ban on laws motivated by religious belief. The laws against murder, theft, and perjury have their basis in the Ten Commandments but are clearly constitutional. Likewise the Civil Rights acts were motivated by religious beliefs but are constitutional just as not changing the legal definition of marriage is clearly constitutional because it does not mandate anyone believe anything religious, perform or not perform any religious act. What’s your secular reason for banning marriage equality? Other than “We’ve never done that before!”? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/192 "2015-04-08T14:56:37Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > On the contrary, I think same-sex marriage is actually far worse than whatever erotic practices they may be indulging in. The Epistle to the Ephesians is clear than the union of husband and wife is an image and reflection of the union of Christ and the Church. A profoundly asymmetrical union: Christ saves the Church, and not vice versa. But same-sex marriage denies this. If husband and wife and interchangeable, then Christ and the Church are also interchangeable, and we have no salvation. > > My main objection to same-sex marriage is not what they do with their genitals, though I do oppose that. No, my main objection is that same-sex marriage is blasphemy. > [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > As you might guess from the sex of Jesus, the husband is Christ, and the wife is the Church. Ephesians 5: 22-33: > \* > Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. \* > . So, do you believe that opposite sex marriages where both parties hold themselves out as equals and neither party vows obedience to the other are blasphemous? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/193 "2015-04-08T18:11:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I hope so too. But it might be nice to wait more than two years before deciding that people are bigots for not getting on board yet. Two years? Where’d you get that number from? I’ve been waiting for these fucking troglodytes to figure out how to act like human beings for a _hell_ of a lot longer than two years. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/194 "2015-04-08T18:27:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, does **Skammer** not count as a devout Christian because he disagrees with you, or did you just not bother reading the whole thread? > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yes. I’m Episcopalian so I’m fairly used to having my Christian _bona fides_ questioned. I’m pretty damned devout though. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > “If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.” > > - not quite Matthew 5:41, but ISTM to be close enough. I think I posted this exact same paraphrase in another thread yesterday or the day before. I stole it from one of my priest friends on Facebook though. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/195 "2015-04-08T18:53:14Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > That instance aside, I cannot recall a specific instance of Jesus telling someone to repent except the religious leaders of his day. [Matthew 4:17.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4:17&version=RSV), [Mark 1:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+1:14-16&version=RSV), [Luke 5:32](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5:32&version=RSV), [Luke 13:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13:3&version=RSV), etc. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/196 "2015-04-08T19:14:48Z")
I saw this set of questions raised by a fairly liberal Catholic writer, so I’ll toss it out for consideration. I’m paraphrasing, but I think I’m restating his central thesis correctly. "Suppose you’re a devout Christian who runs a bakery. Now, imagine several different scenarios: 1. Phil and Bill, come to your bakery, and ask for two cups of coffee and a couple of cheese danishes. From their mannerisms and the way they act together, it’s pretty obvious they’re gay. Do you serve them with a smile? 2. Bill comes in and orders a birthday cake for Phil, with a very affectionate message written on top ('To my beloved…) . Do you make him the birthday cake with the message he asked for? 3. Bill and Phil are getting married at a local mainline church, and ask you to make the wedding cake. Do you make it?" Now, if a Christian answers ,“No, no and no,” then obviously there’s nothing further to discuss. A typical secular agnostic liberal is going to say, “You’re a homophobic bigot.” But what if the answer is “Yes, yes and no” (which I believe WOULD be the answers of most conservative Christians). Does that scenario not strike you as different in any way? Is irrational hatred truly the only reason you can conceive of for giving those answers? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/197 "2015-04-08T19:26:13Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > But what if the answer is “Yes, yes and no” (which I believe WOULD be the answers of most conservative Christians). Does that scenario not strike you as different in any way? Is irrational hatred truly the only reason you can conceive of for giving those answers? When I first read your three scenarios, I thought you were making the point that there could be no rational reason to oppose #3 if you said “yes” to #1 and #2. That’s pretty much how I see it. But I do agree that there would be people who said “yes, yes, and no” to the three. I’d think that this person had just drunk of the Fox News kool-aid so much that he felt like the gay marriage is a sword he must fall on or else. I still can’t see any _rational_ reason to say no to #3 only. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/198 "2015-04-08T19:27:24Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Why? Do you need another fix of martyrdom fantasy? No more personal attacks, nor comments about the motivations of other posters. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/199 "2015-04-08T19:29:40Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Now, if a Christian answers ,“No, no and no,” then obviously there’s nothing further to discuss. A typical secular agnostic liberal is going to say, “You’re a homophobic bigot.” > > But what if the answer is “Yes, yes and no” (which I believe WOULD be the answers of most conservative Christians). Does that scenario not strike you as different in any way? Is irrational hatred truly the only reason you can conceive of for giving those answers? You’re asking if I should regard the person who slaps me in the face differently from the guy who kicks me in the balls. There’s certainly a difference, there, but it’s very much one of degree, and not kind, and neither is someone I’d regard as a decent person. I concede that “irrational hatred” is probably too strong a term for the second Christian, but he’s clearly holding some degree of animus against gay people. And if I’m walking around with his palm print on my cheek, I’m not really to concerned about precisely parsing the exact degree to which he’s a hateful prick. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/200 "2015-04-08T19:32:03Z")
If the Westboro Baptist Church is hosting a symbolic funeral for all who have died of AIDS, and they want a sheet cake to say “Burn in Hell, Faggots”, should the baker be compelled to provide it? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810.md?page=11)