# What exactly did the Indiana GOP \*think\* was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378 "2015-03-30T23:44:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/201 "2015-04-01T18:10:27Z")
If Indiana didn’t know what would happen, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson just bought a clue: [Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson will not sign the religious freedom measure currently awaiting his signature unless lawmakers change it](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arkansas-asa-hutchinson-address-religious-freedom-bill) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/202 "2015-04-01T18:11:47Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Where is the language that differentiates between state-run corporations and other corporations? Is that something that has been decided in SCOTUS decisions? Has a case ever been brought that argued that cities, etc. are people and the case was lost? > > And again, how is “government” defined in our laws? > > ETA: Just saw your post above with the answer to this; thank you. Happy to help! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/203 "2015-04-01T18:17:43Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > One fallacy in their argument that they seem to be singling out only one (supposed) sin–homosexuality. I suspect that they happily serve adulterers, murders, thieves, non-believers, people who take the Lord’s name in vain, mixed-cloth wearers, shellfish eaters, etc., etc. I might actually support their position if they refused the business of anyone who sinned according to the bible. But when they just refuse gays, then it’s more because of bigotry rather than adherence to religious beliefs. You’re half right. adulterers, murders, thieves are listed. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11New International Version (NIV) \*9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. \* _mixed-cloth wearers, shellfish eaters_ are OT stuff, no longer valid for most Christians. But in reality, yes- if you say you wont serve gays, then you also have to exclude adulterers, the greedy and drunkards. Pretty much I expect their customer area to be full of tumbleweeds with the sound of crickets. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/204 "2015-04-01T18:20:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Gender: yes, but laws impacting gender classifications are analyzed with an intermediate standard of scrutiny. Race: yes, and laws impacting racial classifications are analyzed with strict scrutiny. Religion: yes, and laws impacting religion are analyzed with strict scrutiny. > > But sexual orientation: no, at least not on the federal level. Some states have higher levels of protection for sexual orientation, but others do not. Laws impacting classification by sexual orientation are analyzed at the lowest, most forgiving standard, called “rational basis.” The rational basis test is sometimes know as the test that’s impossible to fail. Interesting. Ignorance fought. T/Y. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/205 "2015-04-01T18:31:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If Indiana didn’t know what would happen, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson just bought a clue: > > [Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson will not sign the religious freedom measure currently awaiting his signature unless lawmakers change it](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arkansas-asa-hutchinson-address-religious-freedom-bill) Wow. The misinformation machine has really done the trick. In your link, Gov. Hutchinson is quoted: > [@](#): > > "The bill that is on my desk at the present time does not precisely mirror the federal law in a couple of ways,” Hutchinson told reporters gathered at the State Capitol in Little Rock. One particular difference, he said, is that the current version allows “the First Amendment to be asserted in the private litigation between parties.” But he’s in Arkansas, which is the Eighth Federal Circuit. In _In re Young v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church_, 141 F. 3d 854 (8th Cir. 1998), the federal court of appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which includes Arkansas, ruled that the RFRA does provide a defense in citizen suits in which the government is not a party. So in the 8th Circuit, the RFRA is permitted as a defense in private litigation between parties. So that’s NOT a difference between the Arkansas law and the federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/206 "2015-04-01T18:34:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You’re half right. adulterers, murders, thieves are listed. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11New International Version (NIV) > > \*9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. \* > > _mixed-cloth wearers, shellfish eaters_ are OT stuff, no longer valid for most Christians. > > But in reality, yes- if you say you wont serve gays, then you also have to exclude adulterers, the greedy and drunkards. Pretty much I expect their customer area to be full of tumbleweeds with the sound of crickets. The difference is that, Nathaniel Hawthorne novels notwithstanding, adulterers typically do not wear a large red “A” to identify them as such. Ditto for the greedy and the drunkards. A gay couple seeking a wedding cake, however, self-identify as gay. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/207 "2015-04-01T18:40:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The difference is that, Nathaniel Hawthorne novels notwithstanding, adulterers typically do not wear a large red “A” to identify them as such. Ditto for the greedy and the drunkards. > > A gay couple seeking a wedding cake, however, self-identify as gay. If you had to guess, based on nothing but your observations to date about human nature and behaviour, would you expect that revealed adulterers and drunkards face the same level of discimination as gays, all other circumstances being equal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/208 "2015-04-01T18:43:39Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > If you had to guess, based on nothing but your observations to date about human nature and behaviour, would you expect that revealed adulterers and drunkards face the same level of discimination as gays, all other circumstances being equal? No, I’d say gays would probably win that race. Not sure how this question is relevant to the discussion, but I’m happy to answer. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/209 "2015-04-01T18:51:55Z")
Let me see if I can elaborate… If the purpose of the law is to protect religious beliefs and practices of individuals who, by general consensus, could be shown to discriminate against one identifyable group more than others (despite the quoted biblical texts seemingly treating them as being on par), then is the law fair/just to all? Or is it fair to say that it’s clearly a license to discriminate selectively, by design? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/210 "2015-04-01T18:53:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The difference is that, Nathaniel Hawthorne novels notwithstanding, adulterers typically do not wear a large red “A” to identify them as such. Ditto for the greedy and the drunkards. You think that in a small Indiana town, the local baker, etc wont know who are in those groups? And note that St Paul doesnt say to not associate yourself with those, in fact the opposite:\* And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.\* In other words, many are sinners, but you can be forgiven. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/211 "2015-04-01T18:55:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wouldn’t a florist or wedding planner be able to claim “Compelled speech”, since there is a significant art content in what they do? I don’t believe that there is any exception in the law that allows a performer to exclude anyone from their audience because of their religious beliefs. I’m having some difficulty framing non-pit responses to this thread because of the deafening level of cognitive dissonance. 1. The Indiana law is different from all the other RFRA laws because it specifically includes for profit businesses. Some of the laws in other states specifically exclude for profit businesses, others specified that the laws only applied to individuals and non-profit religious organizations and were written in the days before The Hobby Lobby ruling allowed a ridiculous stretch of the meaning of the word “individual”. 2. The groups that pushed for the law did so with the specific intent of allowing businesses to discriminate against customers. See the below link celebrating the victory. [VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE! – Advance America](http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849) This proves that Mike Pence was lying when he feigned all sorts of surprise and indignation that his bill was misunderstood. 3. Adaher keeps repeating the claim that independent service providers without a physical place of business are allowed to discriminate, as if repeating it often enough makes it true. One of the ways he keeps doing this is by pulling up definitions of public accomodation that are specific to the Americans with Disabilty Act, instead of using the definitions in the various anti-discrimination acts. Granted, it may be hard to prove that a one person service business is turning down business from gay or black people, but if someone gets it in their head to prove it and can prove a pattern the independent contractor may find some trouble. And the gleeful tone with which he makes this claim is disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/212 "2015-04-01T19:07:02Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Let me see if I can elaborate… > > If the purpose of the law is to protect religious beliefs and practices of individuals who, by general consensus, could be shown to discriminate against one identifyable group more than others (despite the quoted biblical texts seemingly treating them as being on par), then is the law fair/just to all? Or is it fair to say that it’s clearly a license to discriminate selectively, by design? Insufficient information to answer. For one thing, you’re advancing the quoted Bible texts as exhaustively authoritative. Not all Christian religions believe this – as a Roman Catholic, for example, I believe that scripture is interpreted by the Church, rather than simply read as a recipe. Secondly, you say the purpose of the law is to protect religious beliefs and practices of people who discriminate against one group more than others. Even if that’s true, and even if that’s somehow contrary their own version of their religious tradition, I cannot agree that law is unfair or unjust unless it _actually has that effect_. In other words, you’ve hung your hat on the supposed purpose of the law. I don’t care about the subjective motivations of those who passed it: I care about the plain text of the law and how it can actually be used. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/213 "2015-04-01T19:08:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You think that in a small Indiana town, the local baker, etc wont know who are in those groups? Perhaps a really really tiny town. Not in a town of any real size, no. > [@](#): > > And note that St Paul doesnt say to not associate yourself with those, in fact the opposite:\* And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.\* > > In other words, many are sinners, but you can be forgiven. Of course. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/214 "2015-04-01T19:17:59Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > I don’t believe that there is any exception in the law that allows a performer to exclude anyone from their audience because of their religious beliefs. There is not. But when the performer must tailor his performance to a specific client, the concept of “audience” vanishes. It’s no longer general admission, in other words, but a commissioned performance piece for a single recipient. I don’t think that florists fit into this category, though, since they simply provide standard arrangements of flowers, as opposed to personalized bouquets that trace a floral story of love. > [@](#): > > I’m having some difficulty framing non-pit responses to this thread because of the deafening level of cognitive dissonance. > > 1. The Indiana law is different from all the other RFRA laws because it specifically includes for profit businesses. Some of the laws in other states specifically exclude for profit businesses, others specified that the laws only applied to individuals and non-profit religious organizations and were written in the days before The Hobby Lobby ruling allowed a ridiculous stretch of the meaning of the word “individual”. It’s absolutely unclear to me on what basis you believe the Hobby Lobby decision was ridiculous in this regard. The Dictionary Act clearly, plainly, and unambiguously provides the meaning of “person.” It does not exclude for-profit corporations. Where do you get the idea that the federal RFRA does, or did, and on what basis can you call the plain words of the law a “ridiculous” stretch? > [@](#): > > 1. The groups that pushed for the law did so with the specific intent of allowing businesses to discriminate against customers. See the below link celebrating the victory. > [VICTORY AT THE STATE HOUSE! – Advance America](http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849) > This proves that Mike Pence was lying when he feigned all sorts of surprise and indignation that his bill was misunderstood. Perhaps he was lying, but it’s equally true that the blog post you link to is misinformed about the effects the bill would have. > [@](#): > > 1. Adaher keeps repeating the claim that independent service providers without a physical place of business are allowed to discriminate, as if repeating it often enough makes it true. One of the ways he keeps doing this is by pulling up definitions of public accomodation that are specific to the Americans with Disabilty Act, instead of using the definitions in the various anti-discrimination acts. > Granted, it may be hard to prove that a one person service business is turning down business from gay or black people, but if someone gets it in their head to prove it and can prove a pattern the independent contractor may find some trouble. > > And the gleeful tone with which he makes this claim is disgusting. What definitions are you relying upon, in the “various anti-discrimination acts?” ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/215 "2015-04-01T19:31:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And I suspect that business is getting its information from the opposition! > > That is, they’re hearing the same misinformation as everyone else is, and incorrectly concluding that they can refuse service. > > Pizza is not expressive conduct. (I will stipulate that if they offer some weird custom feature, where an engaged couple hires the pizza maker to create a new dish that embodies the unique expression of their love and new life together – if that sort of offering is involved, I believe the pizza maker can legitimately refuse.) If they are simply asking for the pizza maker to make the same kind of pizza they make for everyone else… then, no. Then the florist that makes the same kind of floral arrangement that he made for traditional weddings is not engaging in “expressive conduct”, the baker that makes the same cake that he made for a straight couple is not engaging in “expressive conduct” and the wedding planner that books the same venues and vendors that he books for traditional marriages is not engaging in expressive conduct. There seems to be some misconception within these “Christian businesses” that they will be required to make flower arrangements that depict lilies being sodomized by sprigs of babies breath, or bake giant penis shaped wedding cakes, or provide lube and rubbers for the post-ceremony orgies - rather than provide the same products and services that they provide to traditional couples which is all the law requires. Which is what the fear-mongers are pushing [http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/28/judson-phillips-gay-wedding-cakes/](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/28/judson-phillips-gay-wedding-cakes/) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/216 "2015-04-01T19:34:09Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Then the florist that makes the same kind of floral arrangement that he made for traditional weddings is not engaging in “expressive conduct”, the baker that makes the same cake that he made for a straight couple is not engaging in “expressive conduct” and the wedding planner that books the same venues and vendors that he books for traditional marriages is not engaging in expressive conduct. Correct. None of those people can rely on any such protection. If they use this law, it allows the florist a chance to say, “Here is my sincere religious practice, and this law that requires me to serve that particular customer burdens that religious practice.” The court then gets to decide (a) if the practice arises from a sincere belief, and (b) if it’s truly burdened. The court then gives the government a chance to explain whether the law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. I have no doubt that the prevention of discrimination against gays is a compelling government interest. I assume you agree. > [@](#): > > There seems to be some misconception within these “Christian businesses” that they will be required to make flower arrangements that depict lilies being sodomized by sprigs of babies breath, or bake giant penis shaped wedding cakes, or provide lube and rubbers for the post-ceremony orgies - rather than provide the same products and services that they provide to traditional couples which is all the law requires. > Which is what the fear-mongers are pushing > [http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/28/judson-phillips-gay-wedding-cakes/](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/02/28/judson-phillips-gay-wedding-cakes/) Well, they’re poorly informed. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/217 "2015-04-01T19:52:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Insufficient information to answer. > > For one thing, you’re advancing the quoted Bible texts as exhaustively authoritative. Not all Christian religions believe this – as a Roman Catholic, for example, I believe that scripture is interpreted by the Church, rather than simply read as a recipe. I disagree. While I believe that you would side with the current Pope and his progressive stance, I think we have some information on which to draw a conclusion that not all would agree with you. A number of religious business owners freely admit that they would discriminate based on their personal interpretation of religious tennets. What’s more, even if the current interpretation by the Catholic Church is leaning more moderate, we’ve seen how that can fluctuate and be subject to change of leadership and social tides. Would your tolerant position change to one less tolerant if the next Pope was much more conservative in his interpretations? Or do you have an opinion on the subject that is not influenced by the Church? > [@Bricker](#): > > Secondly, you say the purpose of the law is to protect religious beliefs and practices of people who discriminate against one group more than others. Even if that’s true, and even if that’s somehow contrary their own version of their religious tradition, I cannot agree that law is unfair or unjust unless it _actually has that effect_. In other words, you’ve hung your hat on the supposed purpose of the law. I don’t care about the subjective motivations of those who passed it: I care about the plain text of the law and how it can actually be used. So you’re suggesting that there is no merrit to examining the spirit of the law; only the letter. But Supreme Court battles are fought over and over again about just such differences in interpretation, no? Does it not behoove us to consider how it may be interpreted by some? After all, you yourself admitted to the fact that gays would likely suffer more discrimination than adulterers under a law that does not explicitly single out one over the other - but which admittedly would have that net effect nevertheless. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/218 "2015-04-01T19:54:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a confusing mish-mash of claims. What religion do you imagine is in play here? > > The Old Testament prohibitions against mixed-cloth wearers and shellfish eaters don’t apply to Christians. > > I imagine that the Christian pizzamakers would also refuse an adulterers’ love-fest or the catering of a thieves’ conference. People have had a lot of fun pranking Sweet Cakes by Melissa, abakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. > **[Anti-Gay Bakery's Hypocrisy Exposed By Undercover Reporter](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-oregon_n_3355314)** > > Anti-Gay Bakery's Hypocrisy Exposed By Undercover Reporter Apparently they have no problem with expressive acts that involve making cakes that celebrate Out of wedlock births Pagan rituals ( with pentagram decorations, even) Divorce parties Human cloning And Elane Photograohy LOST their cases, by the way. So much for expressive acts as a defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/219 "2015-04-01T20:02:28Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I disagree. While I believe that you would side with the current Pope and his progressive stance, I think we have some information on which to draw a conclusion that not all would agree with you. A number of religious business owners freely admit that they would discriminate based on their personal interpretation of religious tennets. No, I think you agree. My point was not the particular position I might take, but that a definitive component of Catholic teaching is that we do NOT rely on “sola scriptura.” Therefore, any effort on your part to read Bible verses and infer likely behavior by Christians is limited. In other words, you said: “If the purpose of the law is to protect religious beliefs and practices of individuals who, by general consensus, could be shown to discriminate against one identifyable group more than others (despite the quoted biblical texts seemingly treating them as being on par), then is the law fair/just to all?” I was pointing out that the phrase _despite the quoted biblical texts seemingly treating them as being on par_ was not a valid line of argument, because not all Christian rely simply and solely on the text. I wasn’t making any representation about my own opinion on the underlying issue. > [@](#): > > What’s more, even if the current interpretation by the Catholic Church is leaning more moderate, we’ve seen how that can fluctuate and be subject to change of leadership and social tides. Would your tolerant position change to one less tolerant if the next Pope was much more conservative in his interpretations? Or do you have an opinion on the subject that is not influenced by the Church? I do. My opinion is: a business owner is in business to make money. A foolish business owner is one that refuses to serve customers. My further opinion is that it’s a legitimate aim of government to forbid unequal treatment at places of general public accommodation. > [@](#): > > So you’re suggesting that there is no merrit to examining the spirit of the law; only the letter. But Supreme Court battles are fought over and over again about just such differences in interpretation, no? Does it not behoove us to consider how it may be interpreted by some? After all, you yourself admitted to the fact that gays would likely suffer more discrimination than adulterers under a law that does not explicitly single out one over the other - but which admittedly would have that net effect nevertheless. Sure, there’s merit in examining the spirit. But that examination should consist of a honest recitation of the law’s actual, legal effects. If, in your zeal to repeal the law, you are moved to make factually false claims, or to elide relevant distinctions because they hurt your cause, you have left the side of angels. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/220 "2015-04-01T20:07:20Z")
Wowie Zowie! Some positive, unintended consequences. [The First Church of Cannabis Inc. has been approved by Indiana’s secretary of state after the state’s religious freedom legislation was signed into law last week.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378.md?page=12)