# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/241 "2015-04-09T17:30:51Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Every time I read someone here suggesting that conservative Christians are engaging in “fear mongering,” “scare tactics” or “phony martyrdom,” I’m reminded of Christian blogger Rod Dreher who long ago came up with (drum roll)… > > **The Law of Merited Impossibility**. > > What is this law, you ask (well, I’ll tell you, even if you HAVEN’T asked). The Law of Merited Impossibility states that, whenever a conservative predicts that a liberal proposal will have dire consequences for many ordinary Americans… > > 1. Liberals will scoff “Don’t be ridiculous- there is absolutely no way that will ever happen! You’re just being paranoid!” > > 2. When it actually happens, liberals will sneer, “Damn right it happened, and those bastards DESERVED it.” > > Rest assured, ANY time a conservative predicts that unwanted change will have drastic, negative results, you can count on SDMB regulars to say (in effect) “That’s a paranoid fantasy, and boy, I can’t wait til it happens!” The problem is that conservatives aren’t afraid of rational “drastic, negative results”. We can have a rational argument about the “drastic, negative results” of a lot of liberal ideas–like making the minimum wage “livable” or decriminalizing marijuana. Hell, if it were 1850, we could even have a rational argument about the downsides of abolishing slavery. Both sides could come to the table with facts and figures. We could point to the results of a risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis to clinch our cases, and come away with an intelligent discussion. But in this situation, people are being asked to give consideration to irrational concerns. The “facts and figures” that are being referenced are NOT facts and figures. Even the supporters would agree that the negative ramifications being discussed are more spiritual than anything material. They aren’t saying bakers being forced to serve gay people will cause economic ruin or that it will invite more acts of global terrorism or cause Ebola outbreaks. You know, stuff that science can easily refute. No, their arguments essential boil down to “it’s bad cuz I say so”. Which is exactly what conservatives have said from the dawn of time. Conservatives _always_ dig in their heels when the wheels of progress are turning. Sometimes they have rationality and reason on their side, but a lot of times, they don’t. It’s just a reflex for them to resist. ---
**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 9, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/242 "2015-04-09T17:33:24Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > True or false: five years ago, if I’d stated on this board "Before long, state governments will be threatening and fining Christian entrepreneurs who didn’t want host or cater gay weddings, " most SDMB regulars (including Miller) would have called me a paranoid fear-monger? False. The goal of the gay rights movement has consistently been to secure protections identical to those covering race, gender, and religion. If it’s not legal to refuse to bake a wedding cake for someone just because they’re black, it should be equally illegal to refuse to bake a wedding cake for someone just because they’re gay. You are more than welcome to find a cite from me indicating a different position. You will not be successful. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/243 "2015-04-09T17:36:05Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > So when the Old Testament fits with your arguments, you don’t hesitate to cite it and harken back to the traditions it speaks to. But when your opponents pull cites from it to showcase Christian two-facedness, they are misunderstanding what the faith is all about? Yes. And yes. You seem to believe there is some inherent contradiction there. But that view shows the fallacy of equivocation, by assuming that all references to the Old Testament are of equal value to a follower of the New Testament. They are not. Some Old Testament commands have been superseded by the New Testaments; others have not. > [@](#): > > I can pull a great many things out of those early books of the Bible that God approved of, that Christians would agree were crazy. Can you explain why we should believe we are a kingdom of priests, but we aren’t supposed to raze entire cities for not offering hospitality to strangers? Yes. Of course, I don’t personally accept the view that we are a kingdom of priests, in that I as a Roman Catholic believe that priesthood follows reception of the indelible mark of Holy Orders on the soul. But I can still explain why a person following that tradition should believe he, and al laymen, are part of a kingdom of priests: because that’s what the scripture says, uncontradicted by any future scripture. And i can explain why you’re not supposed to raze a city for not offering hospitality to strangers: because that’s a sin against the commandment not to kill and is not otherwise authorized by any particular scriptural command. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with some key concepts. One is that I am perfectly capable of understanding and explaining a concept I don’t agree with. The second is that some aspects of Mosiac Law binding on the people of the Old Testament is no longer binding on the Gentiles who are Christians, as explained in the New Testament. Are you clear on both those concepts? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/244 "2015-04-09T17:37:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > **Bricker** , your main example was not an “is”. It was a “was”. > edited to add: Was the baker in question a Mormon? Wasn’t this a hypothetical baker? I don’t recall anything that said he wasn’t a Mormon. Or was this an actual baker? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/245 "2015-04-09T17:42:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > False. The goal of the gay rights movement has consistently been to secure protections identical to those covering race, gender, and religion. If it’s not legal to refuse to bake a wedding cake for someone just because they’re black, it should be equally illegal to refuse to bake a wedding cake for someone just because they’re gay. You are more than welcome to find a cite from me indicating a different position. > > You will not be successful. So, you’d have said, “Exactemundo, Astorian. We are going to see to it that the government shuts down mom and pop bakers who won’t provide wedding cakes for gay couples”? Nonsense. You’d have accused me of paranoia and delusions of martyrdom. You know it. Every SDMB regular knows it. Pretend otherwise all you want. And if it ended here, most Christians would eventually shrug and decide it isn’t worth the trouble to stand up for principle. But it won’t end here, and you know THAT too. Christians are in for much more bullying from the government. You’ll deny that until it happens, at which point you’ll celebrate what you knew was coming all along. ---
**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 9, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/246 "2015-04-09T17:49:24Z")
Miller might have in the past said churches wouldn’t ever be forced to do gay weddings but I seriously doubt he pretended he was ok with discrimination by businesses. I think you are going to have to back up your accusation astorian. After all, I’m sure Miller was posting about this 5 years ago, so find your smoking gun. ---
**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 9, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/247 "2015-04-09T18:05:02Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > So, you’d have said, “Exactemundo, Astorian. We are going to see to it that the government shuts down mom and pop bakers who won’t provide wedding cakes for gay couples”? > > Nonsense. You’d have accused me of paranoia and delusions of martyrdom. You know it. Every SDMB regular knows it. Pretend otherwise all you want. Five years ago, if you’d asked me if bakers who refused to serve gay couples should be subject to fines and/or lawsuits, I would have said yes. You know how I know? Because _seven_ years ago, [this story](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html?) was in the news, and received much discussion on the boards. I assume you can guess what my position was at the time? I can assure you, it has not changed since then. > [@](#): > > And if it ended here, most Christians would eventually shrug and decide it isn’t worth the trouble to stand up for principle. But it won’t end here, and you know THAT too. Christians are in for much more bullying from the government. You’ll deny that until it happens, at which point you’ll celebrate what you knew was coming all along. You really shouldn’t be using “Christian” as a synonym for “homophobe.” I understand it helps play into your persecution fantasies, but gay rights activists, as a rule, don’t have a problem with Christians. We have a problem with homophobes. We just don’t give homophobes a special pass when they cloak themselves in religion. ---
**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 9, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/248 "2015-04-09T18:48:36Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why do you think the basis of marriage is “mutual sacrifice”? I believe that the pluses that come with marriage exceed the negatives, otherwise the institution would have died out from natural selection. I’ll be getting married soon, and you betcha I’m not doing so purely out of self-sacrificial duty. Do you feel like you can judge my future marriage as unstable because I’m motivated by feelings? > > Even if we posit, though, that marriage is based on mutual sacrifice, you still need to explain why SSM doesn’t meet that qualification. Having genitalia in common doesn’t preclude starting and raising families. The purpose of marriage is to tie men legally to a woman so she can be free to have children and know that they will be taken care of. That is why marriage vows are to death do us part and for richer or poorer. Because feelings change and people become unattractive but obligations to children do not change. Marriage pre-commits both husband and wife to the relationship so it is stable enough to raise children. If you are going to get married believing you will always feel the way you do now and that the marriage is based on having those feelings, then your marriage will be unstable. It does not preclude having a baby but it makes it more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/249 "2015-04-09T18:51:19Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Five years ago, if you’d asked me if bakers who refused to serve gay couples should be subject to fines and/or lawsuits, I would have said yes. You know how I know? Because _seven_ years ago, [this story](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html?) was in the news, and received much discussion on the boards. I assume you can guess what my position was at the time? I can assure you, it has not changed since then. Is [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=432948) about the same story? Two years off, but the other details seems to match up, and legal decisions could take that long. Anyway, from that thread; [QUOTE=Miller] The church is 100% within their right to refuse to allow this wedding to take place on their property, and any attempt to force them to do so is both unethical, and incredibly poorly conceived. How long until this very case is being held up as an example of why we need federal laws outlawing SSM? It’s a dumb move that will be laughed out of court, and could do serious damage to the SSM movement on a national level. Of course, the church is also being a gigantic, collective douche in not allowing the couple to be wed there, but that goes without saying. [/QUOTE] ---
**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 9, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/250 "2015-04-09T18:54:13Z")
Well, fuck. ---
**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 9, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/251 "2015-04-09T18:59:19Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It does not preclude having a baby but it makes it more difficult. So if a gay couple adopted a child, would that make it a stable enough relationship for you? ---
**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 9, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/252 "2015-04-09T19:01:36Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > The problem is that conservatives aren’t afraid of rational “drastic, negative results”. We can have a rational argument about the “drastic, negative results” of a lot of liberal ideas–like making the minimum wage “livable” or decriminalizing marijuana. Hell, if it were 1850, we could even have a rational argument about the downsides of abolishing slavery. Both sides could come to the table with facts and figures. We could point to the results of a risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis to clinch our cases, and come away with an intelligent discussion. > > But in this situation, people are being asked to give consideration to irrational concerns. The “facts and figures” that are being referenced are NOT facts and figures. Even the supporters would agree that the negative ramifications being discussed are more spiritual than anything material. They aren’t saying bakers being forced to serve gay people will cause economic ruin or that it will invite more acts of global terrorism or cause Ebola outbreaks. You know, stuff that science can easily refute. No, their arguments essential boil down to “it’s bad cuz I say so”. > > Which is exactly what conservatives have said from the dawn of time. Conservatives _always_ dig in their heels when the wheels of progress are turning. Sometimes they have rationality and reason on their side, but a lot of times, they don’t. It’s just a reflex for them to resist. Being forced to choose between your conscience and your livelihood is harm. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of every human being. It is much more than dollars and cents, it is about what it means to be free. Attempting to force people to do what they consider evil is not progress, it is trying to go back be to an era where the king decided what religion people could practice. The founding fathers passed the first amendment so that type of tyranny could never happen again. ---
**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 9, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/253 "2015-04-09T19:03:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So if a gay couple adopted a child, would that make it a stable enough relationship for you? The stability does not come from having a child, it is a precondition. Whether gay couples who adopt have that stability is yet to be seen. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/254 "2015-04-09T19:07:56Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Being forced to choose between your conscience and your livelihood is harm. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of every human being. It is much more than dollars and cents, it is about what it means to be free. Attempting to force people to do what they consider evil is not progress, it is trying to go back be to an era where the king decided what religion people could practice. The founding fathers passed the first amendment so that type of tyranny could never happen again. But there isn’t the same level of protection for an atheist and their conscience. Religious freedom is nice, I agree, but your rationale here would seem to apply equally to the non-religious, too. Yet, it does not. That seems at odds with your claim that that is the basis for the law. ---
**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 9, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/255 "2015-04-09T19:11:06Z")
Religious freedom means you have a fundamental right to discriminate? Thank God In Heaven I’m an atheist. ---
**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 9, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/256 "2015-04-09T19:11:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You really shouldn’t be using “Christian” as a synonym for “homophobe.” I understand it helps play into your persecution fantasies, but gay rights activists, as a rule, don’t have a problem with Christians. Not to mention the growing number of Christians (and whole denominations) who support marriage equality. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/257 "2015-04-09T19:34:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Religious freedom means you have a fundamental right to discriminate? > > Thank God In Heaven I’m an atheist. Religius freedom means you can be an atheist and discriminate against establishments whose political/social/moral positions you find odious. One has to follow the law, but it is clear that simply because something is legal it does not make it right. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/258 "2015-04-09T19:34:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. And yes. > > You seem to believe there is some inherent contradiction there. > > But that view shows the fallacy of equivocation, by assuming that all references to the Old Testament are of equal value to a follower of the New Testament. They are not. Some Old Testament commands have been superseded by the New Testaments; others have not. > > Yes. > > Of course, I don’t personally accept the view that we are a kingdom of priests, in that I as a Roman Catholic believe that priesthood follows reception of the indelible mark of Holy Orders on the soul. > > But I can still explain why a person following that tradition should believe he, and al laymen, are part of a kingdom of priests: because that’s what the scripture says, uncontradicted by any future scripture. And i can explain why you’re not supposed to raze a city for not offering hospitality to strangers: because that’s a sin against the commandment not to kill and is not otherwise authorized by any particular scriptural command. > > You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with some key concepts. One is that I am perfectly capable of understanding and explaining a concept I don’t agree with. The second is that some aspects of Mosiac Law binding on the people of the Old Testament is no longer binding on the Gentiles who are Christians, as explained in the New Testament. > > Are you clear on both those concepts? I am. But I think what you’re missing is that even if you are a priest, you’re not functioning in that role in everything you do. I’m one of those Protestants who totally buys into the notion of priesthood of the believer. But I am not acting in my priestly capacity when I order a burger at the McDonald’s drive-through. Or when I crunch numbers at work. Or when I debate with you here on the Dope, for that matter. So just because someone’s a priest and someone’s a baker, Exodus 19.6 still doesn’t have anything to do with baking, and while the same person may be both a priest and a baker, that doesn’t mean the baker is exercising a priestly function by baking a cake at work. And besides, maybe (simply as a follower of Jesus, forget the priestly part) he ought to follow the implicit advice of Matthew 5:41, and if someone forces him to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he should bake two. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/259 "2015-04-09T19:57:31Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But there isn’t the same level of protection for an atheist and their conscience. Religious freedom is nice, I agree, but your rationale here would seem to apply equally to the non-religious, too. Yet, it does not. That seems at odds with your claim that that is the basis for the law. Not only are the atheists not considered by this law, but why should people who subscribe to organized religion be given more leeway than someone who has their own idiosyncratic philosophy? A person can disagree with gay marriage for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with marital sancticty. If I believe that gay people are the living embodiment of ancient Martians and that supporting their happiness is akin to high treason against earthlings, why should I be laughed out of a courtroom? What makes this any more ridiculous than a guy who believes that there’s a wrathful entity watching every little detail here on Earth, who came down here 2000 years ago in human form, turned water into wine, and then flew up into the heavens like a sandal-wearing Superman after he reanimated himself? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2015, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/260 "2015-04-09T20:22:39Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Being forced to choose between your conscience and your livelihood is harm. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of every human being. It is much more than dollars and cents, it is about what it means to be free. Attempting to force people to do what they consider evil is not progress, it is trying to go back be to an era where the king decided what religion people could practice. The founding fathers passed the first amendment so that type of tyranny could never happen again. But people think it’s evil to do or not do a lot of things that reasonable people would NOT agree with. There are people whose religion tells them female circumcision is good and the opposite is “evil”. Should reasonable people respect this view because RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, or should reasonable people point out t how harmful that belief is? I think the supporters of this law imagine that it would only be a minority of people taking advantage of it. And if we had some guarantee that it would only be a minority, I’d be willing to shrug my shoulders and look the other way. But history tells us that discrimination has an awful way of snowballing, especially when the free market is involved. A baker starts advertising that they don’t sell to them nasty gays, and then suddenly everyone’s doing it even if they don’t care about homosexuality–because at that point, it’s about money. And then suddenly you’ve got law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who are being penalized by their community for no good, logical reason. Not only can they not get a cake, but the caterer won’t serve them, the limo-driver won’t drive them, and the realtor won’t sell to them. How is this conducive for social harmony? Do Christains really think shunning people less is less evil than serving them? [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=12) [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=14)