Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[Tim Steelersfan]

I don't think he would refuse to provide a stripper or a ***** with food.

No, Jesus would have fed her, without question - the way you've written this (to imply she's in need, hungry...)

I don't really want to get in a debate with you personally, as I think we share "some" (not all) similar beliefs on this. However, when you say "Is there some Christian tenet I'm unaware of that forbids baking cakes for sinners?" you imply that no Christian should deny his/her craft as a service to anyone else based on belief. I disagree with that implication. Jesus would not have gone into business to build brothels, being a carpenter. He would not have used his "craft" to support on-going sin. He would have built a place of worship and welcomed them all inside however. That is the difference.

Gays are welcome to obtain flowers or pizza in the business. The business just won't support the "sin."

 

[oneforthebus]

No, Jesus would have fed her, without question - the way you've written this (to imply she's in need, hungry...)

I don't really want to get in a debate with you personally, as I think we share "some" (not all) similar beliefs on this. However, when you say "Is there some Christian tenet I'm unaware of that forbids baking cakes for sinners?" you imply that no Christian should deny his/her craft as a service to anyone else based on belief. I disagree with that implication. Jesus would not have gone into business to build brothels, being a carpenter. He would not have used his "craft" to support on-going sin. He would have built a place of worship and welcomed them all inside.

My point is really not a religious one. I just feel if you want to claim religious freedom to deny someone a good or service, you should actually have some basis to argue that it violates your beliefs. In other words, if you say "I'm a clergy person who won't perform a gay wedding" I'll defend you all day long. If you say "I won't bake a cake for you because I don't approve of your marriage" you really have no basis to claim that baking that cake violates your beliefs. There's no Christian tenet that says we must refuse service to people we view as sinners. The cake has nothing to do with any religious aspect of the ceremony. If you bake cakes for adulterers, fornicators, divorced people, Jews, Muslims, people who get married at a justice of the peace rather than a religious ceremony, all manner of people who are not engaging in valid marriages according to your religion....your objection is not religious, you're not objecting to sinful ceremonies, it's "I don't like gays". You're marginalizing a group of people, not objecting to a violation of your religious beliefs. It's a subtle distinction but a distinction nonetheless.

And again, whether sexual orientation is an inherent trait that should be protected from discrimination or simply a behavioral choice is debatable...but I think more and more people these days are viewing it as the former.

DBS position is that we should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. I don't agree with that, but at least it's consistent.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

My point is really not a religious one. I just feel if you want to claim religious freedom to deny someone a good or service, you should actually have some basis to argue that it violates your beliefs. In other words, if you say "I'm a clergy person who won't perform a gay wedding" I'll defend you all day long. If you say "I won't bake a cake for you because I don't approve of your marriage" you really have no basis to claim that baking that cake violates your beliefs. There's no Christian tenet that says we must refuse service to people we view as sinners. The cake has nothing to do with any religious aspect of the ceremony. If you bake cakes for adulterers, fornicators, divorced people, Jews, Muslims, people who get married at a justice of the peace rather than a religious ceremony, all manner of people who are not engaging in valid marriages according to your religion....your objection is not religious, you're not objecting to sinful ceremonies, it's "I don't like gays". You're marginalizing a group of people, not objecting to a violation of your religious beliefs. It's a subtle distinction but a distinction nonetheless.

And again, whether sexual orientation is an inherent trait that should be protected from discrimination or simply a behavioral choice is debatable...but I think more and more people these days are viewing it as the former.

DBS position is that we should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. I don't agree with that, but at least it's consistent.

I'm not going to argue with that position, that you've put forward before - if you serve one sinner, serve them all. While I'm not 100% on board with it, it's "logical" and bears discussion.

As far as sexual orientation being inherent or a behavioral choice, the fact that "more and more people these days are viewing it as the former [you are born gay]" is illogical Because most people think it's so, it must be true! The earth was once flat too

The science is out and I still don't know how I feel. Some people are fat because of behavior and others are born with a condition that causes them to be so. Those are facts. Homosexuality may be the same. I digress.

I also don't think you can just deny service to anyone for any reason either though.

 

[oneforthebus]

As far as sexual orientation being inherent or a behavioral choice, the fact that "more and more people these days are viewing it as the former [you are born gay]" is illogical Because most people think it's so, it must be true! The earth was once flat too

I don't point that out as evidence that it's true...I'm simply stating that like it or not it is becoming the norm. In terms of public policy, whether it's true or not is irrelevant...people who disagree are welcome to try and disprove or dissuade others from having that stance, but they are having less and less success.

 

[Vis]

I don't point that out as evidence that it's true...I'm simply stating that like it or not it is becoming the norm. In terms of public policy, whether it's true or not is irrelevant...people who disagree are welcome to try and disprove or dissuade others from having that stance, but they are having less and less success.

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...journals?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451

 

[21STEELERS21]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...uality-how-our-genes-make-us-gay-or-straight/

They are getting closer and closer to definitive answers on how genetic make-up makes people gay or straight.
I don't think Jesus or God would classify anyone a sinner based on genetic make-up. They might consider judging
a person based on their genetic make-up a sin. I guess God needs to send down a new commandment.

 

[Spike]

Science is dead

Stupid humans can't even come up with a spaceship to travel to the stars and spread their seed like they were told

It's time the overlords do another world cleansing and try again with some improved hybrid DNA

 

[Stillers]

My point is really not a religious one. I just feel if you want to claim religious freedom to deny someone a good or service, you should actually have some basis to argue that it violates your beliefs. In other words, if you say "I'm a clergy person who won't perform a gay wedding" I'll defend you all day long. If you say "I won't bake a cake for you because I don't approve of your marriage" you really have no basis to claim that baking that cake violates your beliefs. There's no Christian tenet that says we must refuse service to people we view as sinners. The cake has nothing to do with any religious aspect of the ceremony. If you bake cakes for adulterers, fornicators, divorced people, Jews, Muslims, people who get married at a justice of the peace rather than a religious ceremony, all manner of people who are not engaging in valid marriages according to your religion....your objection is not religious, you're not objecting to sinful ceremonies, it's "I don't like gays". You're marginalizing a group of people, not objecting to a violation of your religious beliefs. It's a subtle distinction but a distinction nonetheless.

And again, whether sexual orientation is an inherent trait that should be protected from discrimination or simply a behavioral choice is debatable...but I think more and more people these days are viewing it as the former.

DBS position is that we should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. I don't agree with that, but at least it's consistent.

100% agree

I think a great analogy in the above is divorce. Christians forbid divorce, correct? It's in the bible all over and explicitly warned against, God hates divorce.

Would the baker provide a wedding cake for a couple on their 2nd time around? It should infuriate him as well, no?
Because, this is explicitly against God's will.
But that scenario would be fine and we all know it.

I believe what's happening, is that "religious" folks are hiding behind their faith to be selective bigots.
Some conservatives can put up with divorce, but gays?? oh my, no.

Is it so hard to just practice what you believe and let others do what they want if it doesn't affect you?
Who the **** cares.

If you're right, they will burn in hellfire eternal.
Seems logical to me.

 

[IndySteel]

, God hates divorce.
.

Well, I'm ******.

 

[Stillers]

Well, I'm ******.

I don't...**** happens.

Just reporting what the Bible says.

 

[oneforthebus]

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...journals?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451

For those who don't want to have to buy the article for 45.00...

https://cambridgemedicine.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/male-sexual-orientation-influenced-by-genes/

Results of a five-year study of 409 independent pairs of homosexual brothers in 384 families find that genetics play a key role in male sexual orientation. Alan Sanders, M.D., a psychiatrist who studies behavioral genetics at NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, was the principal investigator of the molecular genetics study that scanned the entire human genome to search for evidence of genetic links to variation in sexual orientation in men.
“We found two strong links in chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28, which supports that this is not a one-gene, one-trait scenario,” said Dr. Sanders. “These genetic variations contribute to the development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation.
The new evidence “is not proof but it’s a pretty good indication” that genes on the two chromosomes have some influence over sexual orientation.”
Participants in the study were gay men with at least one living gay brother (full brothers, half brothers or fraternal twins). They were asked to provide DNA samples through blood or saliva and to complete a questionnaire about their sexual and personal history and that of immediate family members. The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.
“Understanding the origins of sexual orientation enables us to learn a great deal about sexual motivation, sexual identity, gender identity and sex differences,” Dr. Sanders added.

The study shows that gay brothers have some genetic linkages. It's not proof that homosexuality is genetic, just evidence that genes may play a role.

Personally I think it is some combination of genes and environmental triggers, like many other traits we don't yet understand...regardless, I don't think it's something most people choose.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

For those who don't want to have to buy the article for 45.00...

https://cambridgemedicine.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/male-sexual-orientation-influenced-by-genes/

Results of a five-year study of 409 independent pairs of homosexual brothers in 384 families find that genetics play a key role in male sexual orientation. Alan Sanders, M.D., a psychiatrist who studies behavioral genetics at NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, was the principal investigator of the molecular genetics study that scanned the entire human genome to search for evidence of genetic links to variation in sexual orientation in men.
“We found two strong links in chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28, which supports that this is not a one-gene, one-trait scenario,” said Dr. Sanders. “These genetic variations contribute to the development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation.
The new evidence “is not proof but it’s a pretty good indication” that genes on the two chromosomes have some influence over sexual orientation.”
Participants in the study were gay men with at least one living gay brother (full brothers, half brothers or fraternal twins). They were asked to provide DNA samples through blood or saliva and to complete a questionnaire about their sexual and personal history and that of immediate family members. The study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.
“Understanding the origins of sexual orientation enables us to learn a great deal about sexual motivation, sexual identity, gender identity and sex differences,” Dr. Sanders added.

The study shows that gay brothers have some genetic linkages. It's not proof that homosexuality is genetic, just evidence that genes may play a role.

Personally I think it is some combination of genes and environmental triggers, like many other traits we don't yet understand...regardless, I don't think it's something most people choose.

Translation: We still don't know the root cause. I'm not trying to be indifferent or flippant about it. I still believe it is like obesity. Some are obese because of medical conditions or genetics. Others are because of their environment/choice/lifestyle.

As for the rest of the logic, I've been chewing on it and it makes sense - on the surface. If you use religion to deny service to gays for a wedding, why can you then serve people who've been divorced and are re-marrying, as that too is a sin? It's logical thinking. However...

This is going to seem like splitting hairs, and I'm not sure I fully buy this explanation as I'm trying to figure out how a Christian baker might think. But perhaps it goes something like this...

A couple remarrying after both have been divorced have committed their sin, previously. Per Christianity, we are sinners and God forgives our sins. He will forgive any sin. This couple is starting anew, and "hopefully" to lead a Christian life together in the eyes of God. The baker may feel that they've atoned for their sins, been forgiven by God, and are beginning a fresh start - a Christian life. No different than a prison inmate that finds the Lord, and lives a holy life from there forward.

For a gay couple, it's a different scenario. If you are a Christian and believe homosexuality to be a sin, by servicing the wedding you are condoning on-going sin. When the gay couple weds, they will continue to be gay - every day - and therefore will continue to be sinners every day forward, according to the Bible. Therefore a Christian baker can/could rationalize that they would be supporting a life of continual sin by supporting a gay wedding.

There is a difference, I suppose, if you view it this way.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I would like to get back to the discussion about the RFRA from a different angle...

It's impossible not to see these attacks, like the one on the Pizzeria, as just another battle in the long line of battles that are the continuous war on Christianity in this country. For all of those who would argue it is not, including those in this thread, I've yet to see the outrage over the Muslim bakeries that refuse to make cakes for homosexuals (see the previously posted videos).

If this really was about discrimination, there would be equal outrage over ALL religions being bigoted towards homosexuals. Yet, it is only Christianity that is singled out. The Left, the media, those in the Gay Mafia, will rally to the cause if it's a Conservative or a Christian treating a homosexual "unfairly." But nary a peep is heard when we learn of Muslims throwing gays from buildings, or hanging them. No one has a problem with Apple's CEO condemning the Indiana RFRA, while he does business in Middle East countries that routinely kill homosexuals, as an example.

Instead of letting this conversation migrate to "whether Christian bakers should do this or not that" (and I've contributed to the slide in discussion), why don't we now cover why this is really a war against Christianity in this country and the hypocrisy surrounding these attacks?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

But nary a peep is heard when we learn of Muslims throwing gays from buildings, or hanging them. No one has a problem with Apple's CEO condemning the Indiana RFRA, while he does business in Middle East countries that routinely kill homosexuals, as an example.

Oddly it's only white Christian Conservatives who point this out, along with Bill Maher.

Instead of letting this conversation migrate to "whether Christian bakers should do this or not that" (and I've contributed to the slide in discussion), why don't we now cover why this is really a war against Christianity in this country and the hypocrisy surrounding these attacks?

Bingo.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...-should-not-be-forced-to-make-anti-gay-cakes/

Colorado double standard: Bakers should not be forced to make anti-gay cakes

A good read about the hypocrisy at hand.

It believes the Civil Rights Commission reached the right conclusion in Jack’s case, but it blasted the commission’s inconsistencies when it came to the case involving its client.

“The commission’s inconsistent rulings mean that the owners of these three cake shops may run them according to their beliefs, while Jack cannot,” ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco said.

“These cake artists should not be forced to violate their conscience, but clearly the commission should have done the same for Jack Phillips,” he said. “He risks losing his lifelong business altogether if he continues to run it consistent with his faith. Such blatant religious discrimination has no place in our society.”

That’s a great point. If the owner of Azucar Bakery can run her business according to her beliefs – why can’t the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...tian-pizzeria-slammed-by-modern-day-fascists/

Christian pizzeria slammed by ‘modern-day fascists'

“Crystal needs some time,” Kevin said. “This scared her pretty good.”

I believe that was the mission of the LGBT activists and their Mainstream Media cronies. Welcome to the age of pitchforks and torches.

The O’Connor family has become the face of the religious liberty movement. It seems to me that Christian-owned businesses are being singled out by LGBT activists.

They don't want tolerance and diversity. They want compliance and forced acceptance -- and they want to silence and punish any person who opposes their beliefs.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the stop-gap.

 

[Troglodyte]

The media takes the PC stance of taking the side of minorities. Whether it be religion, race or sexuality.

This might sound strange, but 9/11 really turned me off to all religion. I saw a lot of "See, Christianity is superior to Islam" reaction among Christians. The need to make a comparison seems bizarre to me.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The media takes the PC stance of taking the side of minorities. Whether it be religion, race or sexuality.

Yes and no. If they did, then the media would be all over Muslim bakeries for not supporting gay weddings, or would be all over Islam for killing homosexuals. They are not, so I don't buy this.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Yes and no. If they did, then the media would be all over Muslim bakeries for not supporting gay weddings, or would be all over Islam for killing homosexuals. They are not, so I don't buy this.

The media in this country generally goes for the low-hanging fruit so they don't end up like Charlie Hebdo, Theo Van Gogh, or Kurt Westergaard.

 

[IndySteel]

Apologies if this has already been posted...

 

[oneforthebus]

A couple remarrying after both have been divorced have committed their sin, previously. Per Christianity, we are sinners and God forgives our sins. He will forgive any sin. This couple is starting anew, and "hopefully" to lead a Christian life together in the eyes of God. The baker may feel that they've atoned for their sins, been forgiven by God, and are beginning a fresh start - a Christian life. No different than a prison inmate that finds the Lord, and lives a holy life from there forward.

Depends on the religion of course. Divorce is not actually the sin in the Catholic church...remarriage is. A second marriage is not valid unless the first marriage has been annulled. So by that standard this couple would be committing ongoing adultery. I don't really know all of the doctrines of other religions are on that, they vary widely. Of course many do not consider Justice of the Peace or nondenominational ceremonies to be valid marriages either...so the couple would be committing unrepentant ongoing premarital sex for the rest of their lives technically.

I doubt that the bakery does much investigating into the individual circumstances of everyone they make cakes for.

 

[Troglodyte]

Yes and no. If they did, then the media would be all over Muslim bakeries for not supporting gay weddings, or would be all over Islam for killing homosexuals. They are not, so I don't buy this.

But that's minority vs minority. There's a lot of black on black violence that is largely ignored as well, but the media will sensationalize any form of white on black racism every chance they get.

 

[Vis]

Did the Muslims pass the bigoted law in Indiana? No. But they benefit. I own this apartment building and your wife better wear a burka because it's my sincerely held religious belief that she has to or move.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The Alinsky tactics have succeeded. We are not conflating disgust with two dudes getting "married" with racism.

 

[Vis]

The Alinsky tactics have succeeded. We are not conflating disgust with two dudes getting "married" with racism.

Right. Your disgust is your reaction as my disgust at your attitude towards gay people is mine. But gay is who they are and you can learn not to be the way you are just like former klansmen become civil rights advocates. Just like you, racists have their bullshit reasons for thinking they're right. And society was once with them. Most of society has not left them (not all) and finally most of western society has left you. The law has to be neutral to your personal feeling and treat groups of people the same.

 

[oneforthebus]

Did the Muslims pass the bigoted law in Indiana? No. But they benefit. I own this apartment building and your wife better wear a burka because it's my sincerely held religious belief that she has to or move.

The law doesn't say anything like that.

The law only says that the state must have compelling interest in order to overrule your religious freedom. Prohibiting discrimination is considered a compelling interest. It actually protects someone who wants to wear a burka rather than allowing people to force someone to wear a burka. Your religious freedom doesn't trump anyone else's. This isn't a law that says you can be forced to anything. It's about what you can't be forced to do.

The law does not specifically allow discrimination, as the media would have you believe. In fact discrimination suits have been won in states that have similar laws.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30...ped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/

http://www.newsweek.com/what-indianas-law-everyones-talking-about-318494