# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/421 "2015-04-07T20:28:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > . . . You cannot force expression. . . . You cannot offer to sell expression in the marketplace, and then deny your services on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc. If you cannot serve your customers equally, then you can be sued. If you do a crappy job, deliberately (as you suggested) you can also be sued. If a singer sings on-key for an all-white wedding, but sings off-key for a mixed-race wedding (and if this can be demonstrated – shouldn’t be hard: wedding video is commonplace) then the singer can be sued. You seem to have this weird idea that businesses are “social encounters” for which the Free Association clause applies. They aren’t. They’re businesses. Hi, I’ll take money, and give you a service. “You” can’t be selective on the basis of race. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/422 "2015-04-07T20:53:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If this statement is intended to suggest, without saying outright, that my statement was misleading to the point of deceit, then I disagree. We live in a country that is steeped in Christian influence and tradition. Virtually every person reading this is aware that, apart from Catholics, most Christian sects in the United States do not object to divorce and remarriage. > > So I absolutely reject the suggestion that what I said was misleading or deceptive. I’m just Googling a few denominations. [Lutherans](http://www.lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#divorce): > [@](#): > > A: The LCMS believes divorce is contrary to God’s original design and intention for marriage. While divorce can be justified scripturally in certain situations (adultery or desertion), it is always preferable for couples to forgive and work toward healing and strengthening their marriage. Because no two situations are alike, LCMS pastors deal on a case-by-case basis with members (or potential members) who are wrestling with the issue of (past or present) divorce. [Southern Baptists:](http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1205/on-the-scandal-of-southern-baptist-divorce) > [@](#): > > WHEREAS, The Bible reveals that marriage is a gospel mystery, pointing to Christ’s union with His church (Ephesians 5:22-32); and > > WHEREAS, The Bible teaches that marriage was established by God “in the beginning” to be a permanent one-flesh union (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:1-9); and > > WHEREAS, Our Lord Jesus commands us that what “God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:9); and > > WHEREAS, The biblical story shows us that one of the lamentable aspects of sin is the destruction of marriages and families, a destruction seen from the Fall until this present darkness; and > > WHEREAS, The rampant divorce rate in our culture has come with great social and economic cost, with women and children suffering disproportionately in ways that are incalculable; and > … > > WHEREAS, Even the most expansive view of the biblical exceptions allowing for divorce and remarriage would rule out many, if not most, of the divorces in our churches; and > > … > > RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to proclaim the Word of God on the permanence of marriage, and to provide ongoing marriage enrichment opportunities, in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and God’s abhorrence of divorce; and be it further > > RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to unite in marriage only those who are biblically qualified to be married to one another and who demonstrate an understanding of the meaning of lifelong love and fidelity; and be it further > > RESOLVED, That we call on our churches in our wedding services to maintain the gravity of the vows being undertaken, not simply as a token of a couple’s romance but as a covenant before God, until death do them part; and be it further > > RESOLVED, That we call on our churches to minister to couples and families in crisis through counseling, mentorship, and, where necessary, through biblical church discipline . . . . And [Presbyterians](http://www.fpcjackson.org/resource-library/policy-and-vision-documents/on-marriage-divorce-and-remarriage-guidelines-for-first-presbyterian-church) (this may not be official–I’m having trouble finding anything official): > [@](#): > > Anyone who divorces for reasons other than those permitted by Scripture and who marries again commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9) > Anyone who marries another who is other than biblically divorced from his or her spouse commits adultery; and anyone who divorces his or her spouse other than biblically and marries another commits adultery. (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:8). > Anyone who other than biblically divorces his or her spouse causes the spouse to become an adulterer or an adulteress (if he or she remarries); anyone who marries a person who has been other than biblically divorced commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32) So no, I’m not convinced that “most Christian sects in the United States do not object to divorce and remarriage.” ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/423 "2015-04-07T21:18:02Z")
This thread could use a change of scenery (and could have used one long ago). I’m moving this over to GD. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/424 "2015-04-07T21:22:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Businesses can have religious beliefs because they do have religious beliefs, plus the law already said they did. Dictionary Act, look it up. > > Not to mention Hobby Lobby is an expressly Christian business run along the lines of Christian ethics. They didn’t object to the birth control mandate as their first act of being Christian. If Chik-Fil-A had objected no one would have been surprised either. Chik-Fil-A is closed on Sundays, for goodness’ sake. Their faith is pretty out in the open. Screw the Dictionary Act. Corporations are not people and cannot have religious beliefs. What faith is General Motors? GE? AT&T? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/425 "2015-04-07T21:45:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If this statement is intended to suggest, without saying outright, that my statement was misleading to the point of deceit, then I disagree. We live in a country that is steeped in Christian influence and tradition. Virtually every person reading this is aware that, apart from Catholics, most Christian sects in the United States do not object to divorce and remarriage. > > So I absolutely reject the suggestion that what I said was misleading or deceptive. Sure. In the same way that saying very little fast food in the US is pitched by clowns because very few fast food chains have clown mascots. ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/426 "2015-04-07T23:47:03Z")
What else the Indiana RLFA hath wrought: > **[Indiana Religious Freedom Law Breeds 'First Church of Cannabis'](https://time.com/3764983/indiana-religious-freedom-law-breeds-first-church-of-cannabis/)** > > Could the use of marijuana as a religious sacrament be protected under Indiana's new law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/427 "2015-04-08T00:28:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m just Googling a few denominations. > > [Lutherans](http://www.lcms.org/faqs/lcmsviews#divorce): As your quote clearly says, “While divorce can be justified scripturally in certain situations (adultery or desertion), it is always preferable for couples to forgive and work toward healing and strengthening their marriage.” Sure, I can’t imagine too many faiths that would disagree that the preference is forgiveness and work towards healing. But the fact remains that Lutherans will marry a person who was previously married and then divorced. > [@](#): > > [Southern Baptists:](http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1205/on-the-scandal-of-southern-baptist-divorce) That’s a resolution from the 2010 Southern Baptist Convention. And it says, “That we express our further conviction that a denomination defined missiologically ought to recognize how damaging Southern Baptist accommodation to the divorce culture is to our global witness for Christ…” This clearly shows that the resolution is urging Southern Baptists to no longer be accommodating of divorce, as they had been previously. And as their website carefully explains, “A resolution has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed.” > [@](#): > > So no, I’m not convinced that “most Christian sects in the United States do not object to divorce and remarriage.” When I said, “Do not object,” I meant to convey an objection not only of form but of substance. You’re right to point out that my words may be taken two ways, and the literal meaning is in error. Most Christian sects DO “object” to divorce in the sense that they counsel against it, provide resources oriented towards saving the marriage, and so on. But my comment was made in the context of whether most Christian sects would consider a divorced and remarried person an adulterer. I apologize for phrasing my point so unclearly. My point was intended to be: most Christian sects would NOT consider a divorced and remarried person to be an adulterer, although Roman Catholics do. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/428 "2015-04-08T00:31:07Z")
So let’s assume there _is_ damage that this law is designed to prevent. How bad could such damage get? Churches burned? Clergy lynched? Tax-exempt status questioned? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/429 "2015-04-08T00:31:33Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Screw the Dictionary Act. Corporations are not people and cannot have religious beliefs. What faith is General Motors? GE? AT&T? Corporations can have religious practices. Those religious practices are protected just as the religious practices of a natural person are. I suggest you call your Congressperson if you want that changed, because it’s the law regardless of your personal view on the wisdom of the concept. ---
**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 8, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/430 "2015-04-08T00:34:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So let’s assume there _is_ damage that this law is designed to prevent. How bad could such damage get? Churches burned? Clergy lynched? Tax-exempt status questioned? Cakes sold? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/431 "2015-04-08T00:37:10Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Sure. In the same way that saying very little fast food in the US is pitched by clowns because very few fast food chains have clown mascots. Good grief. These are easy numbers to find and they easily rebut your insinuation. Catholics are the single largest Christian denomination in the United States, but still make up a minority of all American Christians. 83% of Americans self-identify as Christian. [Cite.](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356) But: > [@](#): > > Added up they show that 53 percent of Americans are Protestants, 22 percent Catholics and 8 percent other Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/432 "2015-04-08T00:44:33Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Whoa. Really? I’m in the minority then. I know that Catholics are very against divorce, but I did not know that other sects were not similarly against it. I mean, there are venomous snake handling sects, right? All I know about them is the snake part. Yes, I now realize that my phrasing was terrible. When I said, “Do not object,” I didn’t mean in an aspirational sense. I was referring to the subject that spawned the observation: the regarding of a divorced and remarried person as an adulterer within the meaning of the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue. It’s of course very obvious that most Christian sects “object” to divorce on some level, and will encourage their members to reconcile instead of divorce. Very few hold the dogmatic position that a sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved by legal process. But Catholics do: they’re not simply “against” divorce; they don’t recognize it as ending a valid, sacramental marriage. A Catholic who obtains a civil divorce is unable to re-marry in the Church, and if he or she civilly remarries, is considered an adulterer. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/433 "2015-04-08T01:53:24Z")
My position is firm and unalterable, I will not pass through Dutch doors, nor eat anything from a Dutch oven. A slutty cousin is much better than a Dutch uncle. And that sauce that they claim? Is actually from Lyons, and everyone knows you can’t hide your lyonnaise. As you might expect, I have experienced relentless and fierce persecution from the people of the Nether Land. But this is clearly a matter of my religious freedom! Even as an agnostic, I recognize that if there is a God, He and I see eye to Eye on this issue. So, send me some money. By the way, if you are a liberal and you don’t send me some money, it proves that you guys are the ones who are _really_ intolerant! So, send me some money. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2015, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/434 "2015-04-08T02:53:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Screw the Dictionary Act. Corporations are not people and cannot have religious beliefs. What faith is General Motors? GE? AT&T? Those companies do not have a faith. Public companies in general do not, nor have I ever heard of a public company trying to express religious faith. Family-owned businesses are different. If the family has a faith, it is likely to be expressed through their business dealings. And since the business can express faith, then according to the 1st amendment, it has a faith that must be respected. That’s why the 1st amendment doesn’t mention persons. It simply says that Congress cannot infringe on certain freedoms. “Persons” is a rather arbitrary distinction. For example, why wouldn’t the founders have meant citizens only? It really doesn’t matter, since they made it illegal for Congress to pass laws on those subjects, regardless of who the laws were targeted at. And just in case one was confused on the point, the Constitution also makes bills of attainder illegal, so there can’t actually be a target at which laws are aimed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2015, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/435 "2015-04-15T20:55:37Z")
Has anyone esle seen the Politifact page on this? > **[PolitiFact - Did Barack Obama vote for Religious Freedom Restoration Act with...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/29/mike-pence/did-barack-obama-vote-religious-freedom-restoratio/)** > > Indiana Gov. Mike Pence decried an "avalanche of intolerance" directed at his state Sunday after he signed a law that he \*When Pence signed SB 101 in a private ceremony, three people who work for groups that supported the same-sex marriage ban and want to limit civil rights for gays and lesbians were in attendance. One of the lobbyists, Eric Miller of Advance America, heralded the state’s law as protecting Christian bakers, florists and photographers from penalty “for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage, among other examples.” This is a direct reference to high-profile cases of Christian wedding vendors refusing to provide services for gay couples in other states. In his ABC interview, Pence said Indiana’s law followed the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court last year, in which the court ruled 5-4 that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects family owned corporations from being forced to offer insurance that covers contraception under the health care law. In one sense, there isn’t all that much difference between the bill that got Obama’s vote in Illinois 17 years ago and the bill that Pence signed into law last week. But how people want the law applied, on top of other legislative changes, has changed the landscape dramatically, said Steve Sanders, Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor of family and constitutional law. “What has completely changed are the politics around the issue, the symbolism of what voting for one of these laws means,” Sanders said. In other words, it’s how some conservatives want Indiana’s law to work that fosters fear among civil rights advocates for how it might. Still, constitutional law professors say both sides are misinterpreting the point of these laws. The courts have not approved exemptions to discriminate against gays under religious freedom laws, and likely would not because the government has a compelling interest in protecting civil rights. The two sides are essentially yelling past one another about a non-issue when they should be working on enacting protections based on sexual orientation in Indiana, said Robin Fretwell Wilson, professor and director of the family law and policy program at the University of Illinois College of Law.\* ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/436 "2015-04-15T22:38:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In one sense, there isn’t all that much difference between the bill that got Obama’s vote in Illinois 17 years ago and the bill that Pence signed into law last week. But how people want the law applied, on top of other legislative changes, has changed the landscape dramatically, said Steve Sanders, Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor of family and constitutional law. > > “What has completely changed are the politics around the issue, the symbolism of what voting for one of these laws means,” Sanders said. > > In other words, it’s how some conservatives want Indiana’s law to work that fosters fear among civil rights advocates for how it might. > > Still, constitutional law professors say both sides are misinterpreting the point of these laws. The courts have not approved exemptions to discriminate against gays under religious freedom laws, and likely would not because the government has a compelling interest in protecting civil rights. Gosh, I wish I had said that. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/437 "2015-04-15T22:49:19Z")
Current poster I have seen a couple of times:If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means that a Christian baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean that a Christian retailer participated in the murder? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/438 "2015-04-15T22:53:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Current poster I have seen a couple of times:If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means that a Christian baker participated in their marriage, > does selling a gun to a murderer mean that a Christian retailer participated in the murder? That doesn’t strike me as particularly similar, though it may be an effective rhetorical device for some people who haven’t thought about it very hard. ---
**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 15, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/439 "2015-04-15T22:58:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Current poster I have seen a couple of times:If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means that a Christian baker participated in their marriage, > does selling a gun to a murderer mean that a Christian retailer participated in the murder? Only if the person buying the gun told the salesman he was buying it in order to murder someone. Otherwise, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2015, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exactly-did-the-indiana-gop-think-was-going-to-happen-when-they-passed-this-anti-gay-law/716378/440 "2015-04-15T23:15:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Only if the person buying the gun told the salesman he was buying it in order to murder someone. Otherwise, not so much. Does the homosexual person need to tell the baker that the calories in the cake will be used to power hip muscles that will thrust his dong into his husband’s beef cave? [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=21) [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=23)