Indiana's Religious Freedom Law -- Not About Religion?

@dave123321: Isn't this article an example of a gay person showing compassion for and choosing to accept and respect the beliefs of her fellow human being? If so, isn't that something we should applaud, one human being being tolerant of another, even though their beliefs are so vastly different?

Talk about love, right?

@musicalmac: I said sure already my man

How far that right should go is the issue and has always been the issue

Well how far do you think it should go? Would it matter if the greater culture were made up of individuals like the one in the article, not the ones who ultimately forced the closure of the business?

@musicalmac: they shouldn't have been forced to close down. People should not associate with businesses with practices they don't agree with. Not try to tear them down. A business owner needs to accept that they agree to certain things when operating a business. And thier beliefs will not always be supported, nor should they be. There is a limit to them when running a business.

@dave123321: I may have noticed a discrepancy of sorts in your last post.

You state that, 1. people shouldn't associate with business with practices they do not agree with. That sounds very reasonable. You then say, 2. business owners need to accept that they agree to certain things when operating a business.

Which of these two phrases is more important? If individuals practiced their right to not shop at certain stores, would there be any need for laws requiring purveyors to serve certain groups of people?

@musicalmac: both are a big deal. The 2nd one more so if only because it's talking about protected groups and rights. Certain actions should not be be allowed legally. If a business feels that they don't want to serve gay people, then it becomes a violation of that gay persons rights. The person has every right to fight that and they should. They should do so through legal channels. Trying to tear down the business is not something that they should feel the need to do.

@dave123321: Are the rights of gay people more important than the rights of religious people?

@musicalmac: That's the wrong question. The question should be do certain rights trump other rights. And the answer is yes. You can use different scenarios where the roles are reversed and that will still hold true.

@dave123321: So certain rights triumph other rights. Can you give a couple scenarios that support that specifically related to gay and religious rights?

More specific to this scenario:

-Does belief become secondary to scientific knowledge in matters of law?

This question is important to ask because the first portion of the Declaration of Independence contains words "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This is evidence of respecting belief and while there is no certain evidence capable of being found by repeating conditions of a creator that humanity is aware of, there is a lack of evidence to without a doubt resolve the issue that we are without a "Creator."

That said, while beliefs are important, they are quite well related to morality or a kind of ethical subject, though that is not saying it is acceptable to completely disregard beliefs in matters of importance, though the morality of peace is something that is gaining an increase of relevance in the world with a growing emphasis on an end to nuclear proliferation, segregation and apartheid, and equal rights (though not necessarily equal outcomes in a capitalist society).

I would say yes to that question which is asked in this situation.

What are the rights of gay people, and how do they differ from straight people?

I find that analysis to be quite compelling, indeed. It could cause some to look at the Declaration of Independence and say, "Perhaps we should distance ourselves from some of this rhetoric because it is indeed very old rhetoric." You make quite a case for that here, I think.

Just food for thought -- It's likely that when a person denies services to someone for matters related to their religion, they're probably not thinking about discrimination but about the fate of their eternal soul.

I'm not quite sure how to answer your question, except to ask, for equality shouldn't they be the same?

I'm trying to wrap my head around your question in different ways, and for some reason this popped into my head -- I do know gay individuals who are religous, specifically Christian. Two of them, in fact, are leaders in their respective churches. Just an anecdote.

I am asking that because it seems like there is discussion as if they are different.

It'd be rather ironic if a private transport company decided that black people gays couldnt ride it's busses or perhaps had to sit in their own compartment.

So I was sort of done with this topic until yesterday when I came across a guy on facebook who believed that the lgbt community just needs to, as he put it, "Grow a thicker skin and shut the hell up about this."

I wanted to ask you guys about what your thoughts were on the sentiment this guy expressed.

My thoughts on this (which I did tell him) was that this was not just some isolated act of discrimination, but a legal backing for future discrimination. Not only that, but we live in a society that values free speech and that their response to this law and the discrimination that followed was more speech. To me that is supporting American values in it's purest form.

I can't believe it's 2015 and people are going to be refused sales or services because an imaginary being has decreed that two people of the same gender are not allowed to like one another in any way except platonically.

Does this mean Pharmacies in Indiana can refuse to serve gay people life-saving medications prescribed by their doctors? Or even just OTC pain medications like Advil or Tylenol? Because their religion says it's OK for gay people to be allowed to suffer (or even die)?

While that is a reasonable outcome to my analysis, there are those who could use the words of the Declaration of Independence to experience a further emboldening due to the influence of tradition. Since it remains a valid document that is part of the foundation of the most powerful country in the world, people might think that it is justified in its longlasting tradition. What was once a valid expression of justification may now be utilized as an appeal from authority or a logical fallacy, so the context of the document in its origins may have been quite a different view than it is, now with America as a dominant force in the world.

I agree that religious obligation is likely with regard to the well-being of the soul of a person with said duty or moral good. That said, a potential slippery slope is the forgoing of understanding the logic of any action and, instead, that is replaced by a commitment to tradition regardless of whether it is reliable as a theory for the state of things as they are or is soundly descriptive or reliable to achieve certain goals such as how things ought to be or soundly normative, or not. That is another logical fallacy.

There is good in tradition with checks and balances as seen in the history of the American system. That is not to say it is perfect.

aaaaaand thread/

Indiana is making USA look really shitty and backwards right now.

No, we can see from people pretty much ignoring all of Leviticus except that one thing.

People are picking and choosing.

This is a pretty good read about the realities of discrimination gays experience.

cracked.com/article_22212_5-ways-coming-out-to-your-family-can-go-horribly-wrong.html

Leviticus is OT.

@MakeMeaSammitch: read that article yesterday and yeah it was an excellent and eye opening piece.

ok? your point?

While there is wisdom to be learned from the OT, classic Christianity is founded on the belief that the OT is the OLD relationship humans have with God, and the NT is a NEW relationship that largely nullifies OT rules. The OT is old news to Christians, it doesn't work in the context of this debate unless you were having it from people before the birth of the Christ.

It's what people use to justify bigotry against Gays, so I wouldn't call it old news.

No, I don't think one should be applauded for keeling over and bowing to their oppressors. That lady's opinion is misguided at best and downright dangerous at worst. People forget gays are just like everyone else and there exist all kinds of individuals - the individual in question is simply ignorant. Now, if it was the religious business owner who was being compassionate and accepting of gays then that should be applauded. A gay individual being tolerant of someone discriminating against them isn't cool just like it wouldn't be cool if a black man "accepted" the KKK. Being tolerant of intolerance is a bad way to go.

@musicalmac: No, if you want to have a business you should have to serve everyone who wants to give that business to you. You should have no rights in rejecting people service based on whatever religious, sexist, or racist beliefs you have. That breeds more hated than already prevalent. I feel as if you want to serve the public then you serve the public.

I didn't call it old news, I said that today's Christians aren't bound by those laws. If you see someone choose to discriminate against another person because of OT laws, you can feel comfortable telling them this. ;)

Just for fun, do you agree that a gay business owner should have to serve people who are openly anti-gay?

Good question. I believe they should, unless they are in your place of business discriminating against you. But if they are disrespecting you in your place of business, then no you shouldn't have to serve them. Just like if someone walks into your store and starts throwing obscenities at you, well you would ask them to leave.

It's a muddy issue, I think this illustrates it well. Like I mentioned before, folks who would choose not to serve gay people are likely doing so in regards to their beliefs about their eternal soul. It's a fairly deep issue all around.

No, it's pretty strait forward, what's not to get?

Something in Leviticus suggests homosexuality may be a sin. Some people follow the OT.

How do you not get that?

Yeah it definitely is, but just imagine if people were allowed to own businesses and serve to only who they deem worthy by whatever beliefs they have. Walking down a strip mall would be like walking into the wild west not knowing where you could go. It would segregate us more than we already are. The only thing it would do in my eyes to give people full control over who they can and can't serve is breed hatred. "Oh man you want to get some chipotle?" "No I can't Im not a catholic". Right there you would then create tension in two people that otherwise would not be.

Agreed.

I don't get why some people don't see how awful and shitty being against homosexuality is. Or why if that stems from religion that It is somehow supposed to be less awful and shitty

People did it with slavery for hundreds of years.

I think that some people believe that they're correct for religious reasons logic and empathy just fall to the wayside. It seems like an excuse to just not use ones brain some times.

As I understand the Old Testament and New Testament differences, the only change was the means to salvation. Sin remains, but since the Son of Man acted as a sacrifice for our sins, people no longer make animal blood sacrifices. Instead, the only way to salvation, since the Son of Man's death and resurrection, is by accepting him as the literal son of the Most High, a deity of the Israelites.

That might be why many still live by OT doctrine along with NT doctrine.

The coming of a Christ indeed means that the path to salvation was altered. It meant that Old Testament rules no longer applied since following them exclusively, according to Christianity, wouldn't lead to salvation. It's no longer necessary to follow those rules for the sake of salvation. Sin remains but it's a different game. The New Testament God is far more forgiving than the Old Testament God.

I understand your point of view here, but in this day and age with things like Yelp and other business review platforms, wouldn't it would be pretty easy to find places to shop-or NOT to shop depending on one's convictions? I will share that I am most certainly not Catholic, and if I went into an establishment that wouldn't serve me for that reason, I think I might be amused.

Yeah, not Christians.

No true Scotsman

Except the Old Testament is not a Christian document. It was never intended for Christians because Christians didn't exist before the coming of the Son of Man. The New Testament is representative of the new covenant between God and those who believe Jesus was Christ.

If a Christian chooses not to serve an individual because that individual is gay, they're likely doing so because of Romans (which is in the New Testament). Even still, many could argue that their actions based on the text in Romans would be misguided, it is not their place to pass judgement on other people.

And where in the bible does it say you're not supposed to follow the old testament? Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. The reason why it says that being gay is bad in Romans is because the people who wrote it followed Leviticus.

Scholars assert that Romans was written by Paul and serves to explain that the coming of the Christ changed the means to salvation (the rules). The Christ came to change the covenant between God and man. The Old Testament was the old covenant, and the New Testament represents the new covenant. The new covenant is for Christians (because without the Christ and that covenant, Christians would not exist).

The difference between the Old Testament and New Testament in regards to homosexuality is incredibly stark. Leviticus would have recommended putting to death men who lie with other men, while Romans simply says they receive due penalty for their ways. It removes responsibility from man (us) to make judgement or to take action on others.

I think the last phrase in your post above will be difficult to support, because that is simple conjecture.

So you're saying that Paul wasn't a Jew?

Jesus never says that murder is wrong. The only time he mentioned murder was when quoting the old testament. Like I said he was a Jew and he followed the old testament. The idea that the old testament isn't supposed to be followed is simply nonsense.

If you don't want to follow it, then go ahead, but pretending that people are less Christian than you because they do is absolutely stupid. I'm sure there are millions of Christians who will say you're not a true Christian.

I don't think you understand.

I never said Paul wasn't Jewish. The coming of a messiah changed the rules, that's why there was a messiah. If the covenant with man hadn't been altered, there would have been no need for a New Testament at all.

I also never pretended that other people were less Christian because they didn't follow the rules in the Old Testament.