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

[you_with_the_face]

@monstro

Do Christains really think shunning people less is less evil than serving them?

Apparently they do. And not just the kind that troll the youtube comment section, but ostensible sane and normal ones.

[Trinopus]

@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? . . .

Nope. We would have pointed out the difference between commerce and religion, exactly as we’re doing now.

You lose.

[Miller]

@Trinopus

Nope. We would have pointed out the difference between commerce and religion, exactly as we’re doing now.

You lose.

Well, most of us. :o

In my defense, the case I mentioned was an example of an actual church, not just someone who goes to church, discriminating in renting out a public accommodation. I don’t recall ever discussing florists or bakers or dress makers in connection with gay marriage before a couple of years ago, although as we can see, my memory apparently ain’t all that.

[Bricker]

@Miller

Well, most of us. :o

In my defense, the case I mentioned was an example of an actual church, not just someone who goes to church, discriminating in renting out a public accommodation. I don’t recall ever discussing florists or bakers or dress makers in connection with gay marriage before a couple of years ago, although as we can see, my memory apparently ain’t all that.

So has your position now changed on the facts of the New Jersey case? In other words, does the presence of an actual church change the calculus of the result?

[Miller]

@Bricker

So has your position now changed on the facts of the New Jersey case? In other words, does the presence of an actual church change the calculus of the result?

I’m… not entirely sure, to be honest. I do think a church should be able to discriminate in who it allows to join its congregation, and limit who may use church facilities to people who are (or would be allowed) to join the congregation. I don’t think a church should be able to buy a WalMart franchise and get to ignore anti-discrimination laws in the store. I don’t know if the case in Ocean Grove was more WalMart or congregation.

[Trinopus]

I dimly remember a case where a church wanted to discriminate in hiring, not for the church itself, but for the gift shop associated with the church.

I do not remember which way the courts ruled, but it strikes me that there is a slippery slope here, as Miller indicates. If a church buys a furniture store, they can’t get away with using “religious freedom” to refuse to hire gays, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, or whatnot, or to allow them to be customers.

I heard on the radio today that one of our select southern states is trying to use “religious freedom” to permit adoption agencies to refuse to provide services for same-sex couples who want to adopt. (This, after the courts ruled that the state could not deny them the right to adopt solely on the basis of their same-sex relationship.)

I demand my religious freedom, as a follower of Kali, to murder strangers on the roadside…

[dougie_monty]

@monstro

(Sorry for the click-bait title. I just didn’t know how else to frame my thoughts.)

Matthew 22:15

I know this has been interpreted in a number of ways. The message I’ve always been taught is that Jesus was advocating the separation of church and secular authority. If Caesar says to pax taxes, you pay them. But you also pay tithes and offerings to your Lord. If Ceasar says to jump, your ass should jump. But you had better jump when the Lord tells you to jump, too.

Of course, maybe paying taxes to Caesar wasn’t an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Maybe Jesus would have said something different if the Pharisees had been trying to trick him some other way.

But over the course of his ministry, he had plenty of opportunity to urge his followers to fight the wickedness of the authority around them. Yet he kept his rebellion to social/religious convention. Not secular laws. Which is odd, because I’m sure there was a whole bunch of stuff he could have rallied against.

And then here’s this from Paul (Romans 13:1):“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
The ultra-religious should want the government to forbid morality-based discrimination. Personally, I know that if I had to worry about my spot in heaven every time a new customer walked into my shop, I’d be totally stressed out all the time. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. What if God really has a problem with me baking a cake for the adulterers more than the gay guys, and here I am protesting over the homos when my ass is already hell-bound? My job would be a lot easier if the government made the decision for me. If St. Peter has a problem with my choices when I come knocking at the Pearly Gates, I can just remind him what St. Paul and Jesus said. Otherwise, I will have to defend why I gave a pass with one group of sinners but not another. That’s a lot of explainin’.

Why does it seem like such pragmaticism is discouraged in Christianity?

Did you see the “comic strip” Mallard Fillmore this morning? It shows an angry mob, carrying pitchforks and lighted torches! One of these angry, cross-eyed people shouts, “Burn down those Christian bigots’ restaurants!!”
Standing off to one side is Mallard Fillmore, commenting, in * other * tolerance - related news…"

[astorian]

@Trinopus

Nope. We would have pointed out the difference between commerce and religion, exactly as we’re doing now.

You lose.

Okay, let’s try again:

Five years ago, if I had said a corporate CEO would be ousted for not supporting gay marriage, you’d have called me a paranoid fear monger.

Better?

[Miller]

@astorian

Okay, let’s try again:

Five years ago, if I had said a corporate CEO would be ousted for not supporting gay marriage, you’d have called me a paranoid fear monger.

Better?

No, I’d call you a starry-eyed idealist.

But seriously, the phenomenon of Twitter shaming people for unpopular opinions is the important new thing here, not rising support for gay marriage. If you’d told me five or ten years ago that people would be getting fired for posting goofy pictures of themselves on Facebook, or that a guy would have his career ruined for yelling at a drive-thru clerk, I probably wouldn’t have believed you, either. Not predicting how new social trends will interact with the gay rights movement is not really a flaw with the gay rights movement, nor has the gay rights movement been uniquely impacted by this new phenomenon. It’s something that’s starting to inform the conversation on virtually every controversial topic in contemporary society.