Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17097
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ccgr » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:41 pm

Image
We need the rep system back...

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:48 pm

What happened to it?

I can't say I've missed it. I am simply curious.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17097
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ccgr » Tue Apr 07, 2015 3:36 pm

There's no phpBB 3.1 version, we had it when we were on phpBB3

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:38 pm

I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and in trying to more eloquently express why it's wrong for the Government to force people to do business practices they object to in cases like these. Obviously, the "freedom" argument isn't enough to sway everyone, because too many people in our society today are happy to sacrifice freedoms if they don't personally feel affected by it. (In other words, people are happy to sacrifice the other guy's liberty for their own convenience.)

And thinking of it that way brought me to this:

Is jail a reasonable consequence for someone refusing to bake a cake with a man/man cake topper on it?

Because that's really what's being argued here. When we talk about Government force what we ultimately mean is things where the penalty is being thrown in jail. It starts with fines, but ultimately if you don't pay them, you get arrested. Look at the baker in CO who was threatened with jail right off the bat.

So if you're arguing in support of forcing someone to bake a gay wedding cake over their own religious objections, what you're saying is that the act of sending a couple down the street to a different bakery is a grievous enough crime to warrant being tossed in jail.

And I find that absurd.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:14 pm


Is jail a reasonable consequence for someone refusing to bake a cake with a man/man cake topper on it?
I already answered that, and I said no. To put someone in jail right off the bat for this is ridiculous and cases where that has happened the government clearly did the wrong thing.

Because that's really what's being argued here.
That's not quite the case. This controversy always keeps going back and forth over the laws, their wording and how they will be applied. The deeper issues behind the controversy as a whole have never been resolved. That's what I've tried to emphasize. If no one can come to some sort of workable solution on this then this issue will keep happening again. It doesn't matter which side "wins out", it is a negative sum equation. No one really benefits from this continual fight and everyone from both sides stand to lose from this, regardless of the result.

It is not just the law itself that is the issue, but the moral, religious, and/or philosophical underpinnings we all have when it comes to how we view said law.

When we talk about Government force what we ultimately mean is things where the penalty is being thrown in jail. It starts with fines, but ultimately if you don't pay them, you get arrested. Look at the baker in CO who was threatened with jail right off the bat.

So if you're arguing in support of forcing someone to bake a gay wedding cake over their own religious objections, what you're saying is that the act of sending a couple down the street to a different bakery is a grievous enough crime to warrant being tossed in jail.
Like I said, jail right off the bat is absurd.

A fine on the other hand depends again on a few factors. The first being what the actual situation is, as I have said before. Does it constitute a genuine religious objection due to being forced to directly participate in the event or not? This circles back to the underpinnings and where we all draw the line. For example, I do not think that the man/man topped wedding cake is a serious enough issue to warrant objection on religious grounds. I always had in mind a more explicit message instead like an example where one couple wanted Bert and Ernie together with a message below more or less saying support gay marriage. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. The former I view as a minor issue that to me is not a big enough deal to be worth the effort and it is best to simply turn the other cheek I think. Any couple could want a top of the couple so that in itself does not constitute something worth raising an alarm about as I do not see it as a politically or religiously charged cake in itself. It is stuff like the latter that is uniquely pro-LGBT and also is intended to make the cake politically or religiously charged.

Second, what kind of fine are we talking about? Is it a minor fine or an exorbitant amount? If it is a minor to moderate fine then honestly, I'd say just pay the fine and be done with it. This isn't a hill worth dying on if that is the case and our energies are better focused elsewhere. If it is a ridiculous fine and/or is intended to make an example out of the business or drive them into the ground, then that is not right as that would be cruel and unusual.

It is a problem that this issue is even a thing to begin with. Now that it is though we need to flesh this out and come to some agreement. We're not gonna satisfy everyone on either side but we can do something where people do not need to violate their faith while LGBT couples can still get cakes without worrying about being turned away for what may not actually be a good reason. Of course, the caveat for them is to also bear in mind that stores that are owned by Christians would object to specific kinds of wedding cakes and be sensitive to that as well. It can work if the majority of people from both sides come together on this.

Until we really get down into the nitty gritty of why we take the stances we do on this issue, we aren't going to come any closer to developing a solution tht allows both to peacefully co-exist and each having a proper understanding of the other.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2967
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Sstavix » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:27 pm

I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and in trying to more eloquently express why it's wrong for the Government to force people to do business practices they object to in cases like these. Obviously, the "freedom" argument isn't enough to sway everyone, because too many people in our society today are happy to sacrifice freedoms if they don't personally feel affected by it. (In other words, people are happy to sacrifice the other guy's liberty for their own convenience.)

And thinking of it that way brought me to this:

Is jail a reasonable consequence for someone refusing to bake a cake with a man/man cake topper on it?

Because that's really what's being argued here. When we talk about Government force what we ultimately mean is things where the penalty is being thrown in jail. It starts with fines, but ultimately if you don't pay them, you get arrested. Look at the baker in CO who was threatened with jail right off the bat.

So if you're arguing in support of forcing someone to bake a gay wedding cake over their own religious objections, what you're saying is that the act of sending a couple down the street to a different bakery is a grievous enough crime to warrant being tossed in jail.

And I find that absurd.
I quite agree, and pretty much is what I've been trying to say as well.

As for the solution, it's easy. Everyone needs to learn to leave everyone else alone and respect other's beliefs. If someone refuses to serve someone else for whatever reason? Then the customer can simply take their business somewhere else. Problem solved. And the government doesn't (and shouldn't) imprison or fine anyone. Besides, the government needs to be focused on other, more important things, like securing our borders or making sure the roads are in drivable condition. Unless it gets to the point where people are shooting at each other - which would be absurd in the example of a gay marriage cake - then there's no reason for the state to step in.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:27 pm

Second, what kind of fine are we talking about?
It doesn't matter. You can't impose a fine for a penalty unless you're prepared to ultimately incarcerate the person if they refuse to pay it. So it still comes back to the original point. If you're going to make a law over it at all, you have to be ready to incarcerate.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:00 pm

Second, what kind of fine are we talking about?
It doesn't matter. You can't impose a fine for a penalty unless you're prepared to ultimately incarcerate the person if they refuse to pay it. So it still comes back to the original point. If you're going to make a law over it at all, you have to be ready to incarcerate.
I don't think incarceration is the only possible outcome. It would be far more likely that repeated refusals to comply would result in a revocation of the business license instead. Still not desirable but certainly would not involve jail time.

Also, the type of fine or penalty does matter, as does the reason for it. The two points I made previously (the nature of the penalty and the actual situation that led up to it) are interconnected. If the religious objection is warranted, then the business has a right to refuse and claim a legitimate grievance due to violation of 1st amendment rights. No penalty of any sort should be given. If the objection is not warranted (and I have laid out repeatedly the criteria for distinguishing the two) then no, the business does not have a right to file a grievance because their beliefs are not under attack in the first place. Thus, since it is not a right, businesses need to go with whatever the law of the land is and accept the consequences if they do not do so.

There is no one size fits all answer for this issue. Not every objection has equal merit to it, and some are not right. This is why I was hoping we'd follow through on the theology and application part of this thread that started before we got onto this current tangent. Ultimately that is what all of our other viewpoints are flowing from, so we should discuss those. These aren't mere differences of opinion, we are talking not just about objections based off of beliefs, but what the beliefs actually are. There are right and wrong answers to the question of whether a particular belief is true or a speculation has a solid foundation to it. We must dig deeper to find those otherwise we'll just keep having the same old tired debates each time this comes up. We won't make any real progress and never address the real issues.

If a genuine religious belief is violated, such as a cake having a blasphemous reference (like a Raptor/Zombie Jesus, explicit pro gay marriage message, or depicting Mohammed in a Muslim owned business), then yes, the owners have a right to not partake on this as it would be an infringement on their first amendment rights. If that is not the case, and the assertion that a belief is being violated is in fact wrong the business does not have a right to refuse service.

To determine this for sure we must continue to examine the beliefs themselves and how we are to interpret and apply them in our lives. Only then will we have a better idea of whether something is truly contrary to the faith or not. Some are obvious (like the examples I mentioned), others may not be so easily determined. I'm certainly not comfortable with this sort of catchall idea of just let each owner decide for themselves, cause if anyone is going to claim it violates the Faith and the ability to practice it, they better make sure they are objectively right about that.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:21 pm

I don't think incarceration is the only possible outcome. It would be far more likely that repeated refusals to comply would result in a revocation of the business license instead. Still not desirable but certainly would not involve jail time.
Dude you go to jail for not paying parking tickets if you wait long enough, and getting your license suspended won't save you from it.
If the objection is not warranted (and I have laid out repeatedly the criteria for distinguishing the two) then no, the business does not have a right to file a grievance because their beliefs are not under attack in the first place.
And are your criteria completely safe from abuse by either side?
There is no one size fits all answer for this issue.
Sure there is. Don't use the Government to force people to violate their beliefs, and don't try to have the Government decide whose beliefs count. It's impossible to draw that line equitably, so it's better not to even try. Let private business owners be private business owners.

Because ultimately, trying to decide whether someone's beliefs are sincere enough is still putting all the control in Government hands, and that isn't what rights are.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 6:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:52 pm


Dude you go to jail for not paying parking tickets if you wait long enough, and getting your license suspended won't save you from it.
Is that how it would work regarding businesses though? I actually don't know the specifics so filling in that blank would help.

And are your criteria completely safe from abuse by either side?
I would certainly say it is by far a lot safer from abuse than the currently proposed solutions. Both options of just letting private businesses do as they wish and telling everyone they must comply with all requests despite beliefs (correct or not) leave the door wide open for abuse. Whichever side "wins" and gets their way can and most likely will abuse it. The problem is that there are those on both sides who will not merely be satisfied if the rulings went their way. These same vocal people often want to push for more and won't be satisfied until they have completely taken over. Both parties have been guilty of that as of late. So I do not trust either solution and a better one needs to be implemented. As it stands now, the current choices we have been presented go too far in one direction or another. Whichever side it happens to favor will have all the leeway they need to take advantage of it in ways that may not have been the intent. Since only the letter of the law matters these days and both sides have put a lot of effort into shaping and manipulating the law to favor their side, do you think it will really stop once one side prevails on this particular issue?

The answer is no, which necessitates the need for a solution where there is some give and take along with an honest examination on the part of both sides of what is really important. We need to determine what really constitutes discrimination and a violation of beliefs. With clear cut criteria that leaves little room for ambiguity that is arrived at through a common agreement and understanding, it is possible. It will provide a far more solid foundation, a common understanding of how the laws are meant to be applied, and thus by far leaves a lot less wiggle room for people with malicious intentions to work with. This stands in stark contrast to what each side is proposing right now, which hands the kind of wiggle room these same people would want to them on a silver platter in my opinion.

Sure there is. Don't use the Government to force people to violate their beliefs, and don't try to have the Government decide whose beliefs count. It's impossible to draw that line equitably, so it's better not to even try. Let private business owners be private business owners.

Because ultimately, trying to decide whether someone's beliefs are sincere enough is still putting all the control in Government hands, and that isn't what rights are.
I disagree, because there are multiple possible scenarios and therefore sometimes the government should stay out and other times it should intervene. Even if they do the level of intervention is not a one size fits all answer either. It all depends on the situation.

It is possible to draw the line equitably, or at least come very close to it. Certainly it is possible to greatly improve on what we have right now at the very least. The issue isn't whether it can or cannot be done, but the willingness of people on both sides to come together and actually try and do it. Until that happens, this issue is never going to get resolved in any way that respects the rights of both sides. This is the conversation that needs to happen but until the people are ready and willing to do so this no progress towards a better resolution will be made.

Also, the issue isn't sincerity of the belief, the issue is correctness of said belief as I said before. Sincerity has nothing to do with it in this case. While we may not trust the government to decide all of this (and not without due cause, as the government shouldn't decide on theological matters), I certainly do not trust the public enough to just leave this to each individual to decide on their own in a vacuum either. This sort of subjectivistic approach will do nothing to resolve an issue that requires objective answers. So we need to figure out some third option then if neither of the other two are viable choices. Thoughts?
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2967
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Sstavix » Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:24 pm

I think we may be getting to the heart of the disagreement here.
Also, the issue isn't sincerity of the belief, the issue is correctness of said belief as I said before.
Who is the one who determines whether or not the belief is "correct?" Is it the government that legislates morality in this nation? Is it the individual communities? Is it the individual?

On a related note, where do you believe our rights come from?

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:55 am

Who is the one who determines whether or not the belief is "correct?" Is it the government that legislates morality in this nation? Is it the individual communities? Is it the individual?
Agreed, I think this is the crux of the issue. People who are comfortable supporting the Government enforcing particular moral behaviors as of they're objectively true are forgetting that in a secular context, morality is subjective.

As Believers we know morality is objective as it comes from Heavenly Father, but we can't decide laws based on that because not everyone shares our belief.

So you can't have it both ways. You can't have both a secular Government AND a Government that enforces laws based on someone's idea of morality... because whose morality is the standard?
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Chozon1 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:38 am

I still think that's painting too broad a brush, but supposing that the vast majority of homosexuals were like this...

Even with that as an additional hurdle, there are ways to bring it up and ways not to bring it up. Most people are aware of what Christianity teaches but it is important to note several things:

1) It is only homosexual activity, not their sexual orientation in of itself.
2) To make clear that it is an automatic condemnation any more than heterosexual ones (more on this later in the post).
3) There is no double standard that makes homosexuality any better or worse than anything else. I understand this may come off as being "soft", but I think this perspective is due to an unnecessary level of harshness and attention.
4) We are no better than them
5) We are not trying to "change" their sexuality either by trying to "make them straight" or something. There are all kinds of horror stories talking about those and it kind of relates to #1. It is not their orientation or identity we are trying to change (of which they may not have any control over).

There is also the fact that Christians have all too often done the same thing in regards to this and other similar controversies as well, which doesn't help our case much.
For number one, there's a fine line there that's often treated as the Grand Canyon. And I tend to not see it being practiced in churches who have accepted it. For example, homosexual pastors and becoming a norm, and no restraint is placed on their relationship; but can you imagine a church where even the youth pastor was having sex outside of marriage? Instant job replacement.

For three, I'm going to have to say no again; all sin will separate us from God, and is equal in that way. But it does not logically follow that all sin is equal, or less harmful. Moreso when you consider that homosexuality is quickly becoming an accepted "life style". I don't mind parroting myself here, since that's kind of important. There is no acknowledgement of sin, and thus no repentance.

Fours true completely, as is five. Christians homosexuals aren't called to be straight, but to be holy. But there's the minor problem that a large amount of people won't accept that, homosexual or otherwise. They see it as an unnecessary and backward tradition.
I didn't say that it was, although I don't think these are the only two options. Rather than this line of reasoning, it would be better to re-emphasize teachings about heterosexual relations. Again, the whole point here is to show that there is no double standard.
Who said there was only two options? I certainly didn't.

One of the problems here that we're fighting over is that you're perceiving a double standard, whereas I'm perceiving a lack of acknowledgement that it's a sin. You want me to to treat all sin as equal, assuming I don't. I don't want homosexual peoples persecuted or preached at more than the norm, but I would like an acknowledgement that their lifestyle is wrong. Which is incredibly hard to get nowadays.
Not sure if we are defining the term lovingly in the same way here. I think part of that love is to of course is to say what Christianity teaches, but people need to come to it in their own time and just to have someone who will be there for them regardless. If they come to the realization, great, if not, that should not change how we relate to them. It seems to go back to once again, the idea that treating this without incredibly harsh or austere measures is mistakenly thought of as "too soft". Tell them the fullness of the truth when they are ready to hear it and possibly consider and/or accept it. Each situation is different and to give a heavy handed one size fits all approach would be ineffective at best and downright cruel at worst.
See, there's a point where that becomes enabling, and not love. Compassion and gentleness are not always love. To put it in another perspective, suppose you know someone who's an alcoholic. Which is love? To continue picking them up from bars and driving them home until they get tired of the lifestyle, or dead? Or to check them into AA? Or even to set them down with family and have a chat over how they're wrecking their life?

You know, I had a friend back in college who was a heavy smoker. We were on a smoke free campus with a $50 fine if you were caught. So he asked me to guard his books one day while he went and found a place to smoke. Without thinking too much, I agreed. Was nearly late to class for it too. So was I showing him love? Or enabling harmful behavior without so much as a word to the contrary?

I don't have this idea that homosexuals should be chained to a chair and forced to hear fire and brimstone until they repent. I despise that, I never suggested it, or even implied it. I literally have no idea where you're getting it from in my posts.
I am not sure of my answer second question just yet but I will gladly explain my reasoning regarding the first...

As for Paul, there are verses such as the one quoted here and others relating to it to take into context. I do not think the words used to describe homosexuality in this passage or other related ones are limited to just that one item. In another one he lists a whole bunch of people who will not inherit the Kingdom, which includes heterosexual sins (fornication) as well. They are all lumped in together.

Although, as he also writes all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is merciful to all of us, and we do not deserve it regardless of what the issue is. As he also writes in Corinthians God will judge those outside the Church. Our responsibility is towards those in the Church. Therefore, once more, proclaiming a final judgment would not be the correct thing to do. In like manner, to say that the harshest words only apply to one particular sin that Paul names to me is a misinterpretation. It seems here and elsewhere he treats them all equally.

There is much more I could say on this topic but I think this is enough for now. Hope that helps.
True. But with a caveat. In that passage with Paul (or maybe the later one in Corinthians), directly afterwords, he says "And some of you were such things". The emphasis is mine, but I think it's important because it shows repentance. Not going straight, but repentance. Which, to repeat myself, is not something you're going to get in a world which does not acknowledge sin. Why repent if you're not doing something wrong?

Our responsibility is towards those in the church regarding judgement. But that doesn't mean we're not responsible for policy and life outside of the church, where we're supposed to be salt, light, and pull people from hellfire. No one is proclaiming final judgment here; or even in the court cases concerned with this thread. It's the other way around, actually. The law is in place so that we're not judged and penalized. Or anyone who disagrees with someone else, for that matter.
Refusing to be a part of something that is believed to be wrong isn't an irrational request in itself. However, it circles back around to what constitutes as being a part of an event in the first place. Not every business situation does and therefore it would not be the right thing to do in those cases. Some beliefs can be mistaken and therefore wrong. I have made clear that refusing service on the issue of wedding cakes under any or all conditions is a wrong viewpoint to have. I may not have explicitly said that until now but that's the main thesis. I believe that some situations do not constitute as being asked to partake in something that goes against someone's beliefs and thus these situations are not covered by freedom of religion. These do not constitute a right and should not be defended as if they were.
And you are entirely, 100% entitled to believe that. It's a God-given right. You are allowed and encouraged even, to hold to that belief. And because of human rights, given by God and acknowledged at times by Uncle Sam, you can sit here and tell me about your views.

But you are not entitled to force me to agree. Least of all at the threat of legal action. Hence, the Indiana law. Nor vice-versa; I cannot force you to admit that I shouldn't have to do something I think is wrong.
Image

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Chozon1 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:39 am

Image
This, by the way, is the greatest.
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:54 pm

Thanks. I posted that pic because it's a great example of another moral dilemma that has nothing to do with either Christianity or homosexuality. This whole debate (and I mean in general, not just this thread) keeps being all about a culture war between homosexuals and Christianity. Maybe that's because, on some level, that's what it's really about. Islamic owned bakeries, photography studios and wedding venues aren't being attacked the way Christian ones are, and nobody's being attacked over any issue other than gay weddings.

Image

My personal feeling on why that is: The homosexual community isn't worried about their rights, or being catered to at their weddings, or any of that stuff. What's happening here is a combination of a desire for validation from a community that has openly and adamantly refused to provide it, and a healthy dose of comeuppance for those who feel like they'd been persecuted by Christians for years prior.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything like that. I'm saying that this fight is all about claiming the moral high ground. Christians have had it in the past, the LGBT community wants it now.

Image

We can debate all day about the right to do business or the right to expect service, but everybody's got their own particular views on it and all we can do is share ours and move on.

My only aggravation is when legalizing gay marriage was the big debate a few years ago the claim was "This wouldn't affect anyone but homosexuals who want to get married, so you have no right to deny us!"

Here's a sample from 2011:

Image

We knew better than that then, but we were shouted down for being paranoid. And now that lie has been revealed and there is no acknowledgement of that fact, nor will there ever be, from the pro-gay marriage folks.

And that makes me bitter.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest