# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/81 "2015-04-06T18:23:21Z")
[QUOTE=monstro] Can you offer a cite from your wise book that convinces me God doesn’t want his children to sit quietly, meekly, submissively, with their hands folded in prayer and devotion, waiting for him to take care of everything? [/QUOTE] [Matthew 25:14-30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=RSV). Regards, Shodan ---
**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 6, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/82 "2015-04-06T18:39:55Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Christ tells us to fear God and not man: Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” So, there is no question as to who is _totally_ responsible for the destruction of the body and soul in Hell? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/83 "2015-04-06T18:44:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So, there is no question as to who is _totally_ responsible for the destruction of the body and soul in Hell? I blame Bush. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 6, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/84 "2015-04-06T19:25:28Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Participating in a sinful activity with someone is not loving. Appearing to condone sinful activity is not loving. The bible tells us to love others, so we can therefore not do things that condone or seem to condone sinful activity. I agree with your first sentence, and I totally support the rights of people who believe that same-sex marriage is sinful to not have to be married in one. I disagree that baking them a cake, or taking their picture, is participating in their wedding - it’s a business transaction. Do you think the tentmaker apostle Paul would have refused to make a tent for a gay couple? “Appearing to condone sinful activity” is a copout. Jesus appeared to condone sinful activity all the time, didn’t he? He went and ate supper with Zacchaeus, the tax collector! He let that prostitute wash his feat with her hair! He talked to that adulterous Samaritan woman at the well! The message is, don’t worry what it looks like – just love people. Treat them with respect and dignity. Telling someone you won’t bake them a cake until they repent of their sin is not showing them love; it is showing them judgment and condemnation. ---
**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 6, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/85 "2015-04-06T19:26:11Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I agree with your first sentence, and I totally support the rights of people who believe that same-sex marriage is sinful to not have to be married in one. I disagree that baking them a cake, or taking their picture, is participating in their wedding - it’s a business transaction. Do you think the tentmaker apostle Paul would have refused to make a tent for a gay couple? Yes, I do. ---
**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 6, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/86 "2015-04-06T19:43:39Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > The thing that made this one blow up is the fact that public opinion has turned very quickly and to an enormous extent. As recently as 2011 [Gallup](http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx) has SSM pro/con at 48-48. Now it’s at 55-42. Pew reflects a [similar curve](http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/). I’ve seen others that are even more favorable. Going along with this trend on SSM is a sensitivity to gay rights and opposition to discrimination against gays. > … > It’s also silly to consider this a party issue when it’s largely generational. Saying ‘why are democrats upset’ is missing the fact that 61% of [young Republicans](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/) are in favor of SSM and again hold commensurate views against discrimination against gays. > > It would not surprise me to see some of the RFRAs across the country begin to see challenges in the new climate of public opinion. Even the federal law might face some issues at some point. I never thought I’d see the Supreme Court take a bite out of DOMA yet it occurred. Near as I can tell what made that happen was the change in overall public opinion and comment on the issue. You present some statistics about public support for same sex marriage, and then you say that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will see challenges. Why? Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have nothing to do with gay marriage, or with sexual orientation at all. They have to do with protecting religious freedom, as the name implies. Do you have any evidence that public opinion has turned decisively against religious freedom? And if so, couldn’t we all agree that would be a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/87 "2015-04-06T19:51:16Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > “Appearing to condone sinful activity” is a copout. Jesus appeared to condone sinful activity all the time, didn’t he? He went and ate supper with Zacchaeus, the tax collector! He let that prostitute wash his feat with her hair! He talked to that adulterous Samaritan woman at the well! The message is, don’t worry what it looks like – just love people. Treat them with respect and dignity. Telling someone you won’t bake them a cake until they repent of their sin is not showing them love; it is showing them judgment and condemnation. So you’re saying Jesus would never fashion a whip out of cords and used it to thrash businessmen, overturn their tables, and drive them away merely because he considered their acts sinful? ---
**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 6, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/88 "2015-04-06T19:53:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This. The fact that someone somewhere thought a bill like this needed authoring is indicative of regressive thinking regardless of whether its technically okay constitutionally or whatever, and that’s what the backlash is about. It’s about people rejecting the pursuit of cheap political points mined from prejudice, cultural insularity, and Christian supremacy. > > At a time when there is no shortage of more pressing issues to worry about, it speaks volumes when a politician goes out of his way thumb his/her nose at homosexuals. It suggests misplaced priorities and poor judgment. > > This brouhaha is a wakeup call: using legislation to turn innocent people into second class citizens is socially unacceptable. Ignorance is not an excuse any more. Why is it “regressive thinking” to believe that all people should have the right to freely practice their religion? Does that mean that the First Amendment was regressive? And how does protecting everyone’s right to free religious practice have anything to do with “Christian supremacy”? We’ve already noted [numerous cases in which the Religious Freedom Restoration Act](http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/meet-10-americans-helped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/) helped a wide variety of people to practice their religion freely: [ul] [li]Robert Soto, an Apache religious leader and dancer, was allowed to make his tribe’s traditional costume, thanks to the RFRA.[/li][li]Kawal Tigore, a Sikh employed by the federal government, was allowed to carry religious mementos on the job.[/li][li]Abdul Mohammed, a federal prisoner, was allowed to grow a beard, in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.[/li][li]Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jewish man serving prison time in Florida, was allowed to eat kosher meals.[/li][li]And many others.[/li][/ul] Why do you think that all of these things are the result of “regressive thinking”? ---
**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 6, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/89 "2015-04-06T20:00:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you’re saying Jesus would never fashion a whip out of cords and used it to thrash businessmen, overturn their tables, and drive them away merely because he considered their acts sinful? If you want to fashion a whip out of cords and use it to thrash gay people… …well, a lot of us are actually okay with that. ---
**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 6, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/90 "2015-04-06T20:12:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you want to fashion a whip out of cords and use it to thrash gay people… > > …well, a lot of us are actually okay with that. I dunno-looking at how he ended up, I’d guess he didn’t have a good grasp on how “safe words” worked. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/91 "2015-04-06T20:14:30Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > What you call “a pragmatic survival tactic” God calls “lying.” – “Thou shalt not lie.” You’re misspelling that last word “lie”. It should be spelled “bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The difference being that “not lying” is impossible. Period. Everyone lies and some lies are good. Whereas the prohibition about false witness is talking about testifying in court or under oath which is contemptible. There’s no actual commandment to not lie. ---
**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 6, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/92 "2015-04-06T20:31:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Why is it “regressive thinking” to believe that all people should have the right to freely practice their religion? Using public policy to accommodate religious prejudice is regressive when it comes at the cost of other citizens’ dignities and rights. You can be disingenuous and pretend that what this really is about is allowing Muslims to grow beards in prison, but you’re not fooling anyone with this BS. A religion can be anything anyone wants it to be, and that’s really why this is a pile of offensive nonsense. I declare right now that I worship a creator who thinks Jesus-believers are full of taint. If I were a hotel owner, do you think it would be acceptable for me to deny service to Christians? I mean, otherwise I’m being forced to have my precious bedsheets sullied by the taint. How unfair is that?! ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/93 "2015-04-06T20:34:30Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > “Appearing to condone sinful activity” is a copout. Jesus appeared to condone sinful activity all the time, didn’t he? He went and ate supper with Zacchaeus, the tax collector! He let that prostitute wash his feat with her hair! He talked to that adulterous Samaritan woman at the well! The message is, don’t worry what it looks like – just love people. Treat them with respect and dignity. Telling someone you won’t bake them a cake until they repent of their sin is not showing them love; it is showing them judgment and condemnation. Condone? Hardly. Zacchaeus was so impressed by Jesus’ very reputation that he climbed into a tree to see him pass by, and was so overjoyed by what Jesus said that straight away he was giving half his wealth away and additionally inviting anyone he’d overcharged to come back and be recompensed four hundred percent. Jesus didn’t need to speak a word of judgment: Zacchaeus did the judging himself. The prostitute abominated her wicked life so much that she dared not even rise in Jesus’ presence nor so much as speak a word to him, instead washing his feet with her hair and anointing them with expensive perfume and tears of remorse until Jesus assured the crowd that her sins (which were many) were forgiven her on account of the great devotion she was showing him. He didn’t deny that what she had done was sinful, nor tell her to go and carry on as she was. The Samaritan woman at the well? She was certainly impressed enough by his perspicacity that she called her neighbours around to see this man who could tell everything she had ever done, and there’s nothing in the story that remotely suggests that Jesus said to her “Carry on as you are - I don’t care as long as you’re having fun”. Treating people with respect and dignity does not mean assuring them that whatever they do is right when, as a matter of fact, you think that it is not. Jesus was more than willing to accommodate people who were one step ahead of him in admitting their fault; but that’s not what you’re describing here, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/94 "2015-04-06T20:44:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > A religion can be anything anyone wants it to be, and that’s really why this is a pile of offensive nonsense. I declare right now that I worship a creator who thinks Jesus-believers are full of taint. If I were a hotel owner, do you think it would be acceptable for me to deny service to Christians? I mean, otherwise I’m being forced to have my precious bedsheets sullied by the taint. How unfair is that?! Are you able to document this religion of yours in any way, shape or form, or can I just assume that you are making shit up and that I can point and laugh accordingly? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/95 "2015-04-06T20:45:41Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > You’re misspelling that last word “lie”. It should be spelled “bear false witness against thy neighbor.” > > The difference being that “not lying” is impossible. Period. Everyone lies and some lies are good. Whereas the prohibition about false witness is talking about testifying in court or under oath which is contemptible. > > There’s no actual commandment to not lie. > [@Colossians 3:9](#): > > Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/96 "2015-04-06T20:53:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Using public policy to accommodate religious prejudice is regressive when it comes at the cost of other citizens’ dignities and rights. You can be disingenuous and pretend that what this really is about is allowing Muslims to grow beards in prison, but you’re not fooling anyone with this BS. All right, let’s play a game. I’ll name a court case that actually, literally resulted in a Muslim being able to grow a beard in prison. I get one point. Then you name a court case that actually, literally resulted in a gay couple not being served by a public accommodation. You get one point. Then it’s my turn. Who do you think will win? I’ll even go first: Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, Supreme Court 2015. Your turn. ---
**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 6, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/97 "2015-04-06T20:56:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All right, let’s play a game. I’ll name a court case that actually, literally resulted in a Muslim being able to grow a beard in prison. I get one point. > > Then you name a court case that actually, literally resulted in a gay couple not being served by a public accommodation. You get one point. Then it’s my turn. > > Who do you think will win? > > I’ll even go first: Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, Supreme Court 2015. > > Your turn. This isn’t about a game, **Bricker**. edited to add: If this thread was about the rights of Muslims to grow beards in prisons, would you have put this much effort into it? ---
**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 6, 2015, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/98 "2015-04-06T20:58:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So you’re saying Jesus would never fashion a whip out of cords and used it to thrash businessmen, overturn their tables, and drive them away merely because he considered their acts sinful? I would say that, yes: it was not merely because he considered their acts sinful. > [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](#): > > Treating people with respect and dignity does not mean assuring them that whatever they do is right when, as a matter of fact, you think that it is not. Jesus was more than willing to accommodate people who were one step ahead of him in admitting their fault; but that’s not what you’re describing here, is it? But would any of those people - Zacchaeus, the former prostitute, or the woman at the well - have come to that point of repentance if Jesus had not loved them first? If he had refused to join Zachhaeus or talked to the adulterous woman - would that have brought them closer to God? Or would it have pushed them further away? When Christians treat other people (and, notably, only _some_ other people) as unclean, they are not furthering God’s kingdom. They are drawing little lines around it that say “we are inside God’s love, and you are outside. I don’t to give you the impression that I approve of you.” That’s not the Gospel. There are people in my own church I disapprove of more than the gay couples I know - but my job is to love them anyway and let God decide who the sinners are. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/99 "2015-04-06T21:13:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This isn’t about a game, **Bricker**. > edited to add: If this thread was about the rights of Muslims to grow beards in prisons, would you have put this much effort into it? Possibly more effort. It depends how many factual errors were adduced by either side as the discussions commenced, and how fervently they clung to their errors even after correction. The “game” was intended to highlight the flaw in **you with the face** ’s claim. To remind you, she said: > [@](#): > > You can be disingenuous and pretend that what this really is about is allowing Muslims to grow beards in prison, but you’re not fooling anyone with this BS. My illustrative game demonstrates that as a matter of factual record, the RFRA and progeny laws are much more about allowing Muslim beards in prison than they are about allowing public accommodations to discriminate against gays. There are many cases in which these laws have been used to require prison authorities to permit beards for Muslims’ religious practices, and none that allow a place of public accommodation to discriminate. So right now the score is 1-0. I’ll even let you team up with **you with the face**. It’ll be a killer combo – you two against me. Your turn. Name the first RFRA case that permitted public accommodation discrimination against gays. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-i-were-a-devout-christian-id-be-against-the-indiana-law-for-this-reason/716810/100 "2015-04-06T21:16:40Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > That’s not the Gospel. There are people in my own church I disapprove of more than the gay couples I know - but my job is to love them anyway and let God decide who the sinners are. I endorse this view, personally. I do not agree that this view is mandated by each and every Christian tradition, however. [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=4) [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=6)