If I were a devout Christian, I'd be against the Indiana Law for this reason

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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!”?

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?

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.

I’m Episcopalian so I’m fairly used to having my Christian bona fides questioned. I’m pretty damned devout though.

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.

Matthew 4:17., Mark 1:15, Luke 5:32, Luke 13:3, etc.

Regards,
Shodan

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?

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.

No more personal attacks, nor comments about the motivations of other posters.

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.

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