Some say that the Indiana religious freedom law is just like a Federal one Senator Obama supported in 1993, neglecting to mention it was held unconstitutional in 1997. Some say Indiana’s is like that in 19 other states, though it defines exercise of religion exceptionally widely:
“exercise of religion” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
So it encourages antisocial behaviour if the actor imagines s/he might attempt a defence of it using that law.
Other such laws give a defence to litigation by the State, but in Indiana it applies to litigation by any legal person. So this law encourages speculative and frivolous defences to court action. Thanks to Benjamin Studebaker, who had done the work already. The law protects the religious acts of businesses as well as individuals, though only in America could a business have religious beliefs. That Atlantic article points out that quite recently, Americans were pretending race discrimination was a religious issue. It is, but those Americans had it the wrong way round.
I wanted to know why any Christian would want to discriminate against gay people. The lobbyist behind the bill, Eric Miller of Advance America, said Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection! Ew. But, why? I got that quote from Pragmatic Mystery, who points out that Jesus dined with prostitutes and thieves, and those of us who follow him should see the image of God reflected in all people, and reach out in friendship to them.
I thought of St Paul, and found this quote from Proverbs in Romans: To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Jesus said, Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.
So I asked bloggers appearing sympathetic to the Act. Susan Bea Good, whose aunt is a trans woman ostracised by Susan’s mother for transitioning, says that baking a cake for a gay marriage is encouraging the sin of homosexuality, which is not loving. MT Hayes uses the word “Condoning”, but has another point: I believe the exaggerated response to sexual sin is a matter of psychology, not Scripture. We’re afraid of the powerful temptations of sex and so fixate on those sins in fear. Mmm. I can get uncomfortable seeing PDAs. The unashamed gay person is a symbol of sexual freedom, which torments the sexually unfree.
Black3Actual alludes to 1Cor 8. Even those Christians who know they may associate with queers, if they tell that to those who believe otherwise, they may wrongfully harm their faith. So a refusal to associate with queers should be respected, even if not truly Christian. And bad company ruins good morals. But for him, it is chiefly a freedom thing. That if enough ostracised them, gays could be driven out of a place, which would hurt the straights too, carries no weight with him. Though I have some respect for his contrariness: we explain to him, and he refuses to be told what to do. It is what made America great. Appalachian philosopher goes further: forcing the Christian to bake that cake is “akin to rape”.
For The Grey Enigma, his right to freedom is absolute. The right of free association is the right to refuse to associate; the right to free speech is the right to say nothing. Both derive from the right to freely think, deduce, infer and judge. Collectivists cannot accept these facts as they know that their desired stances are incapable of being derived from these freedoms. Indeed. They derive from the fact that we are a social species. The bell tolls for thee.