# 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:** 11
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/201 "2015-04-08T19:48:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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 It’s amazing! There’s like six threads on this subject, and you’re the first person to bring up this hypothetical in _any_ of them! ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/202 "2015-04-08T19:50:34Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > What’s your secular reason for banning marriage equality? Other than “We’ve never done that before!”? It changes the basis of marriage from mutual sacrifice to start a family to the feelings of those involved. This makes marriages more unstable. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/203 "2015-04-08T19:53:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [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 Thanks Shodan. What I had in mind, although didn’t express clearly, was Jesus telling a _specific_ person or group of people to repent. The first three references you cite all describe Jesus as preaching a general message of repentance to everybody. The fourth reference is interesting and I think it supports my view (read in context): [Luke 13:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+13%3A1-5&version=RSV) > [@](#): > > There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? 3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo′am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Again Jesus is saying “_Those_ people whom you are tempted to condemn as ‘worse sinner’ than you (because they seem to have been punished by God)? You’re no better, and you all need to repent.” You think those two women getting married are worse sinners than you? They’re no better or worse than you are. So stop trying to act all holy and let them have their pizza and cake already. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/204 "2015-04-08T20:09:05Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It changes the basis of marriage from mutual sacrifice to start a family to the feelings of those involved. This makes marriages more unstable. And this was STARTED by the marriage equality fight, how? It seems to me that you straight people were well on the way down that road long before anyone even really considered the possibility of two men or two women entering the institution. And if you don’t think same-sex marriages involve the same sacrifices straight marriages do, you’re way wrong. I know plenty of same-sex couples raising kids. I know plenty of same-sex couples struggling with one partner’s debilitating illness. There is NO difference whatsoever between a married straight couple and a married gay couple. And again, your definition is strangely silent about straight couples who cannot or choose not to have children. And how straight couples who divorce over petty crap are somehow not responsible for that “instability” (which you’d have to prove to me is happening before I accept it in any manner other than “for the sake of argument”). ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/205 "2015-04-08T20:12:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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? . . . Not that there’s really any point, but the serious answer is, no. Hate-filled people aren’t a class that is protected by nondiscrimination laws. You can also turn away motorcyclists, golfers, and people who own dogs. Also, the baker can say, truthfully, that he won’t use cuss-words on any cake, and this policy is uniform across all varieties of customer. No discrimination is involved. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/206 "2015-04-08T20:16:53Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Thanks Shodan. What I had in mind, although didn’t express clearly, was Jesus telling a _specific_ person or group of people to repent. The first three references you cite all describe Jesus as preaching a general message of repentance to everybody. Matthew 11:20, then. Or [Mark 6:11-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+6:11-13&version=RSV) might be closer, even - if you preach to someone and they don’t repent, shake off the dust so that you are not contaminated by their sin. OTOH, do you have a passage where Jesus said to forgive others who did not repent? Regards, Shodan ---
**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 8, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/207 "2015-04-08T20:20:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not that there’s really any point, but the serious answer is, no. Hate-filled people aren’t a class that is protected by nondiscrimination laws. > > You can also turn away motorcyclists, golfers, and people who own dogs. > > Also, the baker can say, truthfully, that he won’t use cuss-words on any cake, and this policy is uniform across all varieties of customer. No discrimination is involved. But religion is a suspect class. That message has some obvious problems, but what if a group wants to put: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” on the cake? Is the baker compelled to take the job? What if it were just the first part? ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/208 "2015-04-08T20:25:12Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It changes the basis of marriage from mutual sacrifice to start a family to the feelings of those involved. This makes marriages more unstable. That horse left the barn long ago, and isn’t going back. Marriage for the last century or so has been about the feelings of the two people. That was when marriage was “redefined.” Now we’re just opening it up for more people to be able to participate. ---
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/209 "2015-04-08T20:25:13Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not that there’s really any point, but the serious answer is, no. Hate-filled people aren’t a class that is protected by nondiscrimination laws. > > You can also turn away motorcyclists, golfers, and people who own dogs. But not gays, right? IIUC you believe that some people are not protected by anti-discrimination laws. Who determines who those people are - the law, or individuals? If it is the law, then I would like a cite showing that the the Religious Freedom act specifies that one must bake a cake for a gay wedding even if it violates one’s religious beliefs. If it individuals, then obviously one can refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, or a cake for the Westboro Church. 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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/210 "2015-04-08T20:53:23Z")
The definition of marriage LONG predates the US Constitution. It long predates English Common Law. For any judge to change that definition on a whim is beyond arrogant. ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/211 "2015-04-08T20:55:30Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > The definition of marriage LONG predates the US Constitution. It long predates English Common Law. > > For any judge to change that definition on a whim is beyond arrogant. “A whim”. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/212 "2015-04-08T20:56:48Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > 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? “Irrational hatred” isn’t the first thing to come to mind. It’s more like “OCD-like neurosis”. In other words, “irrational fear” is driving this just as much as irrational hatred. I would not be able to worship a god who would view me disfavorably for refusing to be the morality police. Especially when the role model he sent down never did this. He may have lectured. He may have rolled his eyes and sucked his teeth to something some clueless person said. But he didn’t reject people or turn them away. So the calculus involved in your question goes to the heart of my OP. Is the restaurant owner who unwittingly allows a gay couple to celebrate their first year anniversery at his restaurant an accessory to a moral crime? Well, if the cake baker is, why wouldn’t he be? Why should the restaurant owner be able to sleep peacefully at night, while the cake baker suffers from inner torment because he made a cake for one set of sinners (adulterous fornicators) but decided to stand on his principles when it came to another set (gay couple)? Doesn’t putting so much emphasis on judging others discourage Christians from doing any kind of work that relates however tangentially to marriage and courtship? A Christian would be better off becoming the kind of professional who can always claim plausible deniability. Like a restaurant owner versus a caterer. If God is fine with his children skirting issues of morality by simply claiming ignorance, all politicians are going to heaven. If I were neurotic enough to constantly worry about hellfire (as many Christians do), then I wouldn’t want to be in the position where I have to consider if giving Phil and Bill coffee is the level of wrong as baking them a wedding cake. I simply would not want this weighing on my heart. I’d much more prefer that my hand be forced by the law so I can put all my energy towards being as loving and kindly and welcoming as I can be. Because this is what Christ told us to do. He didn’t say nothing about no wedding cakes. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/213 "2015-04-08T21:05:59Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Why? Do you need another fix of martyrdom fantasy? Stick to the topic and leave the personal jabs out of it. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/214 "2015-04-08T21:08:20Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > The definition of marriage LONG predates the US Constitution. It long predates English Common Law. > > For any judge to change that definition on a whim is beyond arrogant. Not a problem. No judge changed the definition. Society is in the process of changing the definition across multiple nations and languages. secveral judges, (and, later, several legislative bodies), recognized the ongoing change, but no judge actually preemptively declared a change in definition. ---
**Author:** ![Weeping\_Wyvern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@Weeping\_Wyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weeping_Wyvern)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/215 "2015-04-08T21:08:52Z")
> [@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. The default state of human relationships is no government recognition. I don’t have a fancy piece of paper from the country courthouse affirming my relationship with my friend or my cousin or my girlfriend or my barber. And I’m happy that way. If the government chooses to recognize heterosexual marriages, I have no objection, since I don’t think there’s anything wrong with heterosexual marriages. But I don’t demand such recognition, and if the government voted tomorrow morning to cease recognition of heterosexual marriages, I won’t complain. > [@Miller](#): > > 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? Every law that has ever been passed was passed because the lawmakers decided their personal feelings on the subject were important enough to impose them on the general population. This is equally true whether the lawmakers are Democrats or Republicans, communists or capitalists, Christians or atheists, anarchists or totalitarians. We can’t escape it. I’m not a special case. We can certainly have a discussion on the merit of my personal feelings, but I don’t think it’s very productive to dismiss them because they _are_ personal feelings. > [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > 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? Most opposite-sex marriages, no matter how problematic, have the potential to become a fully Christian marriage if the parties become convinced they ought to take such a step. But a same-sex marriage can never be converted into a fully Christian marriage, by its very nature. It’s a dead end. The only way for the members of a same-sex couple to enter a fully Christian marriage is for them to divorce each other and marry suitable people of the opposite sexes. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/216 "2015-04-08T21:11:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If it is the law, then I would like a cite showing that the the Religious Freedom act specifies that one must bake a cake for a gay wedding even if it violates one’s religious beliefs. On the other hand, I would like to see the religious tenet that declares that baking a cake in any circumstance, (other than proscribed days of the Jewish calendar), is forbidden. It seems as though the real problem is that people are making up rules to excuse themselves from providing services based on personal prejudices, then falsely claiming a religious basis. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/217 "2015-04-08T21:14:21Z")
> [@Weeping\_Wyvern](#): > > Most opposite-sex marriages, no matter how problematic, have the potential to become a fully Christian marriage if the parties become convinced they ought to take such a step. But a same-sex marriage can never be converted into a fully Christian marriage, by its very nature. It’s a dead end. The only way for the members of a same-sex couple to enter a fully Christian marriage is for them to divorce each other and marry suitable people of the opposite sexes. Nah. One can make the assertion that a same sex marriage cannot be formed under the tenets of a specific denomination, but claiming that one could not be “Christian” arrogates to yourself an authority over Christian belief that you do not possess. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/218 "2015-04-08T21:17:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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 What horrible thing was written on the cake the gay couple wanted? ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/219 "2015-04-08T21:24:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Stick to the topic and leave the personal jabs out of it. > > [/Moderating] **Jonathan Chance** already got me for this one, **tom**. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/220 "2015-04-08T21:33:41Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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. My sentiments exactly. If the 2nd scenario doesn’t present a moral dilemma for the baker, then why does the 3rd? Because the cake is going towards a public celebration of love rather than a private one? Does gay love become a sin only when its enshrined on paper or something? I don’t know why this thread surprises me so much, when I’m no stranger to Christians who think God actually invests emotion in petty humans affairs. But to be reminded that people can have such wildly different opinions about Jesus’ character…it only underscores to me the folly in trusting the Bible for anything. [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=10) [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=12)