What exactly did the Indiana GOP *think* was going to happen when they passed this anti-gay law?

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.

Except re-marriage after divorce while the former spouse is still alive is an expressed intent to continue in an adulterous relationship (if you believe that divorce is forbidden). So if she accepts that it’s sinful, the situation is the same.

There is no organized, financed pro-adultery, or anti- for that matter, movement in politics (in the US, anyway), so no value in trying to pander to one. But there’s money, *big *money if you’re small, in pandering to gay-bashers, still a large minority here.

I do wonder why Christians focus on gay issues so much. It’s just not a big deal to have such a priority.

In a secular country, did you know that we can work on Sabbath? Why isn’t Ben Carson up in arms about that? Did you know that they sell pork at supermarkets? Openly! And people eat it! In public! I’m calling my rabbi to call my Congressmen, this has to stop.

Now I do agree that individuals should have the right to refuse to participate in activities they regard as sinful. That’s part of being a person of faith. I just wish people of faith would keep their peculiar beliefs out of the political system. And that goes for things like usury too, not just sexual morals. And what’s with Germany making it illegal to for many businesses to be open on Sunday? It’s not any more charming when it’s done for liberal reasons.

BTW, here’s a forced expression case that a cakemaker won: a fundie was trying to get her to put anti-gay messages on a cake. She refused, he sued, he lost. But by the same token, you also wouldn’t be able to force her to put pro-gay messages or images on a cake:

Yes. Yes, they can.

Yep. Indiana doesn’t stand at the forefront of much.

This is a really weird state. Once, when I told someone I didn’t celebrate Christmas because I was Jewish, he said “What does that matter? Everyone has the right to celebrate Christmas.”

Personally, I see this as an opportunity to know who to take my business to, and who to avoid. There are actually places putting up signs that say “Everyone welcome here,” with rainbow lettering, or something, just so there’s no mistake about the meaning. I make a point of going to those places. Sometimes I even stick my head in and say “I don’t need your services now, but if I does in the future, or i know someone who does, I’ll remember you.”

She refused based on what not based on who. Presumably she wouldn’t put an anti-gay message on a cake for anyone gay or straight.

But that also applies to pro-gay messages. You cannot force expression. So if you want a cake decoration of two men kissing, then that could be refused.

Yes, but relatively few Christian faiths believe that divorce is forbidden.

Divorce isn’t the problem, it’s the re-marriage.

Relatively few Christian faiths believe that re-marriage following a divorce is forbidden.

I beg to differ. The largest sect, the Catholic church, won’t perform a second marriage unless the first is annulled by the church. I personally had to wait for my wife to get the church to annul her first marriage before we got married. Had to go get it signed off in Rome and everything.

He very carefully said

, which means that the Roman Catholic Church, despite it’s massive numbers, only counts as one “faith”.

Pretty damned convenient considering The Bible is quite clear on the matter.

Yes.

Does this mean you are not careful about what you say here?

Well, you don’t have to convince me. As a Catholic, I agree that a valid marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, and may not be dissolved except by the death of one of the parties to the marriage.

Piffle. It’s like saying that only some of the colleges in Washtenaw County, Michigan are in the Big Ten, discounting the largest one by far.

Careful? Maybe. Tricksy? Misleading to the point of deceit? No.

There’s an argument that the expression is of two people kissing. Willingness to draw a man and a woman kissing, but unwillingness to draw a man and a man kissing, might constitute discrimination, because in that case the only thing that’s changed is who you’re drawing, not what you’re drawing.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about that argument; it may well have ramifications I haven’t thought through. But on initial glance it looks fair to me.

Thus I might refuse to draw anyone holding up their hands and saying, “Don’t shoot!” on a cake–but if I only refuse to draw black people in that pose, it’s racist. I might refuse to film anyone speaking at a lectern, but if I only refuse to film a Jew speaking at a lectern, it’s antisemitic.

But I might refuse, for example, to assist in the making of a documentary that compliments Pentecostals, while agreeing to make one complimentary of Catholics, without running into problems. Maybe.

Anyway, not sure about that argument.

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.

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.