I do hope this at least results in a bigger push for anti-discrimination laws. I’m not sure the general public realizes that it’s perfectly legal, in most of the US, for people to be fired or denied service for their sexual orientation or gender identity.
And the big walk-back continues…
First Pence, then Hutchinson in Arkansas (coming out as the smart one in all this), and now the 180’s begin from the Presidential candidates who jumped in to support Pence in Indiana in moronic fashion. Jeb Bush just completely changed his position.
Cruz will continue to support it because he has to win in Iowa, but I suspect that Jindal and Rubio and Perry will have begun their walk-back by this time tomorrow night. Walker and Rand were smart enough to stay out of the fray.
This is not true.
Christianity holds that one particular human was created unequal, I grant. Catholicism also holds another human being was created unequal, and she ended up being the mother of the first example.
Beyond that, your example is factually inaccurate, and a great example of using a falsehood to promote your cause.
What’s moronic is BArack Obama and Nancy Pelosi voting for RFRAs themselves, and now opposing them. Without explaining their own actions at all.
There is clearly an attempt here to deceive people about what these laws do. The public supports the RFRA. So the Indiana law must be portrayed as different.
And that’s easy to do, because it *is *different. As you well know.
Essentially because Wal-Mart asked him to veto it just in time. He was going to sign it as soon as the ceremony could be arranged.
The word they’re using is “clarify”. 
Yep, that’s the big takeaway.
Couldn’t resist trying to throw in this partisan snipe even though you’ve been reading the thread right along. You know the law isn’t the same law that was voted for by Obama or Pelosi. You know the judicial interpretation is different now than when Obama or Pelosi voted for a similar law. You know the reasons for passing the law are different then the reasons Obama or Pelosi used for voting for a similar law.
And you aknowledged reading Bricker’s explanation:
But hey why not pass a law or take a political jab and hope no one see’s through your bullshit.
Some Christian denominations preach the doctrine of the “Elect.” This holds that some people were saved…from the beginning of time. Others were born damned, and nothing they can ever do will spare them from damnation.
Not all Christian denominations hold this, but some do.
Some Christian denominations teach that black skin is the Mark of Cain. This is pretty rare, but they do exist. Others teach that black skin is the sign of the curse of Canaan. This is also rare, but by no means a trivial part of the House of Many Mansions.
Most Christians do not preach persecution. But…some do. The more conventional doctrine is “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” Alas, that isn’t universal, and no few Christian groups practice shunning and other aggressive anti-social acts.
Joools, I think, erred in making statements that were universally quantified when they should only have been existentially quantified. The claims are not untrue for all cases.
Real-life example: I’ve said before that driving my moving van through rural Idaho, I pulled in for gas. The attendant came to my window and said, “I don’t know what you are, but keep driving.” Whether this was homophobia, a perception of race/ethnicity based on my skin color, or about being a woman alone in a moving van, I don’t know. What I do know is that it was about “what” I am, and if there hadn’t been another station within a few miles, what I’d have been was in deep shit with no gas. People want to legitimate this?
What are you worried about? All you have to do is sue them, get a court date (and I guess the DA automatically wants to pursue this for you - I’m not clear on this part), and then the gas station gets to express their sincerely held religious belief that swarthy lesbos shouldn’t have access to gas, and then the state can offer its opinion that there’s a governmental interest in allowing swarthy lesbos access to gas, and then you sit back and wait for the court to decide.
Trust the process. There’s just no downside to this!
Where’s the falsehood? The only US movement to deny rights to LGBT individuals due to their inborn sexual orientation or gender identity is an undeniably and vocally Christian movement. The argument they advance is that this denial of rights is a theological imperative of their religion. I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth here.
Is this not a belief in unequal creation? Is denial of rights not a form of persecution?
Educate me: where am I wrong?
It’s not bullshit. Okay, fine, you don’t have to advocate for repeal of RFRA. But at least acknowledge that you oppose RFRA, that you believe passing the original one was a mistake.
No. The original one was passed in order to end a discriminatory practice. The new one was passed in order to support a discriminatory practice.
I concur.
All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares.
Christianity does not hold this. Some Christians do.
And not just Christians. Some Jews.
Ok, very fair point. I overgeneralized. It would have been correct to say “some” or “many” Christians believe this.
But this is not a niche Christian position. A church may profess a theology that all men are created equal. But if they also hold that by virtue of being born homosexual a person must be denied the right to have a sexual relationship or to marry, then that church does not live up to the ideal described by the Declaration of Independence. Even if it can rationalize that contradiction within its own theology.
This is the stated policy of most major Christian denominations - including the Catholic Church. And depending on denomination somewhere between 40% and 80% of observing US Christians believe in denying equal rights to LGBT individuals.
Their effects are the same.
The Churches in question don’t accept that someone is “born homosexual”. It’s not a terribly radical view, as most of us over 40 were taught that growing up. Now, I have learned otherwise, but some people haven’t. Remember, we’re also talking about a religion that believes in the literal idea of demon possession, miracles, and virgin birth.