It's why we have an off-topic forum. As long as we can keep the conversation civil, I think FFG is alright with it. It's managed to last this long, at any rate, so we must be doing something right.

Anyone who uses this law to discriminate against homosexuals should also have to adhere to every other crazy thing in the bible. The law would last about 2 hours before repeal. Ignoring all the rules except the one about those "icky gays" is just wrong.

Well, I realized why the Indiana law is problematic. They do not have protections against discrimination against sexual preference orr identity.

Anyone who uses this law to discriminate against homosexuals should also have to adhere to every other crazy thing in the bible. The law would last about 2 hours before repeal. Ignoring all the rules except the one about those "icky gays" is just wrong.

I think CNN had a pretty good interview that makes a similar point without reaching very far past the surface of Christianity.

Basically, they asked a florist who said they would turn away gay couples if they would turn away adulterers; the point being of course that 'no adultery' is in the Ten Commandments. To their credit, I think the florist answered truthfully, and I think they'll reflect on their answer as time goes by.

Here's the interview

Right, Gencon wants to relocate to the bastion of conservative anachronicity that is Texas. How forward thinking of them to think that their very presence will set that state right.

I wonder if Austin has the capacity...?

Have you heard of SXSW? That's a staple event here in Austin that lasts 3 times longer and brings in twice the people.

Also, Texas's law explicitly prohibits the law from being used for discrimination.

As a Christian, I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but I certainly don't discriminate against those people who do.

But like Knightshift said, it goes both ways. Should somebody be forced to do something against beliefs because it's "discrimination" if that person doesn't. But should we really supress others freedom to do what they want?

I wouldn't want to be forced to do something against my beliefs, but at the same time, if I'm not could careful, that be discriminating against others, which would also be against my beliefs, it's a very fine line......

Anyone who uses this law to discriminate against homosexuals should also have to adhere to every other crazy thing in the bible. The law would last about 2 hours before repeal. Ignoring all the rules except the one about those "icky gays" is just wrong.

I think CNN had a pretty good interview that makes a similar point without reaching very far past the surface of Christianity.

Basically, they asked a florist who said they would turn away *** couples if they would turn away adulterers; the point being of course that 'no adultery' is in the Ten Commandments. To their credit, I think the florist answered truthfully, and I think they'll reflect on their answer as time goes by.

Here's the interview

Or to refer to previous posts: "Would you turn away menstruating women or people wearing polyester?"

Of course not. Should a restaurant that serves pork or shellfish turn away gays in the name of the bible? No. But it could happen under these ridiculous laws.

As a Christian, I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but I certainly don't discriminate against those people who do.But like Knightshift said, it goes both ways. Should somebody be forced to do something against beliefs because it's "discrimination" if that person doesn't. But should we really supress others freedom to do what they want?I wouldn't want to be forced to do something against my beliefs, but at the same time, if I'm not could careful, that be discriminating against others, which would also be against my beliefs, it's a very fine line......

It is a very fine line, made more complicated by our values shifting as a society. If we look at history, within the current generation it was okay to discriminate against mixed race marriages. Now most people understand that was a horrifying and embarrassing time. And the supporters used the Bible as justification. That's why people are concerned that it has become a matter of law.

And really it isn't needed. There are ways to refuse business without making it an issue. Like wedding planners. Don't want to do a gay wedding, then just say you're unavailable!

Well, if anyone doesn't mind some theology interjected into the discussion...

The reason Christians don't hold to the many, many rules of the Old Testament is because Christ fulfilled the law. The law only served to point to man's need for something higher than himself. When Christ came, He did away with the written law. He brought mankind something new: the rule of love as opposed to the rule of law. Because law unto itself is a thing that kills, that does not give life.

It is not that Christians discriminate against homosexuals. Indeed, real Christians would not discriminate against anyone in the sense that that word is generally understood. Some bring up how there were many who used the Bible to justify slavery. But just as many if not many more were also using the Bible as the moral basis of their conviction to end slavery.

But Christians cannot be made to commit an act that defies their moral principles. And that is what the RFRA (as originally drafted anyway) was written to prevent. Christianity is a faith that leads one to die unto self, to let the old nature fall away so that Christ within is what shows forth. It's a faith that teaches and practices restraint and self-discipline (something rather Jedi-ish), in the understanding that we are to control our flesh, our flesh is not to control us. Including our sexual nature. Especially our sexual nature.

And that is why Christianity in the traditional sense cannot endorse or be made to accept the concept of "homosexual marriage". Because it represents sexuality for sake of itself and indeed, there will be many who argue very passionately that such a thing is a corruption of the natural order.

It's NOT just homosexuality, mind you. So it is also with adultery between man and woman. It's something that defies the designs of God. And that goes for ALL sin. That is what sin is: a violation of the order of God. ANYTHING that does that is sin, no matter how major or minor the offense.

The Christian-owned bakeries and florists and pizza joints can serve homosexuals as any other customers. And they should. If they do not then that IS discrimination. They would be businesses that I would not want to solicit anything from. But they can NOT be forced to give tacit endorsement of something that runs counter to their convictions. "Homosexual marriage" does not... and CAN NOT ... exist according to the precepts of Christianity as it has existed since the earliest days. Such a thing may have the endorsement of the masses and the legislatures and the judges, but it does NOT have the endorsement of Christians who have sought nothing more or less than to live their lives in accordance with scripture.

And to attempt Christians to go against their beliefs, by force, under penalty of fine or discrimination or harassment or threats to property and life (why has most of the hate and intolerance generated by this act been directed at professing Christians by those who allegely preach "tolerance"?) is wrong. Not just wrong. It is evil.

Once upon a time, Jewish-operated businesses were grafittied with "JUDE" and the Star of David on the windows and doors of their businesses. The Jews who owned them were hated for their faith and that they dared to practice it.

How is what has happened to the family who owns Memories Pizza in the past week any different from the mentality that so persecuted the Jews of Germany?

Just my .02

Theologically speaking, according to Judao Christian beliefs, God created all things. Nothing exists without God. So the existence of gay people is only because God wills it, and it is not our place to qustion God's will

Also you have a gross misunderstanding of what homosexuality actually is. People don't practice homosexuality because they seek sex for the sake of sex. Gay people are born with an attraction too someone of the same sex. With that goes the same feelings of love and compassion that straight people have. I mean the very fact that these people are fighting for the right to devote themselves to one person their entire lives shows this to be true.

Going back to theology. Jesus spoke way more about the evils of divorce than homosexuality. If shop owners were really using this law to protect their beliefs they would also refuse to serve divorcies and wedding planners would refuse to work with people that had been previously married. It's the selective application of their beliefs that show this law is motivated by bigoty and not any actual religious belief.

Also your analogy is so misguided it's almost offensive. The National Socialists used eugenics and Christian faith to turn the Jews into scapegoats for Germanies struggling econonmy. People gathered at rallies to publically denounce them. Laws were passed stripping them of their rights. Shops refused to do business with them and they were marked so "the pure" wouldn't be forced to interact with. I'm sorry, but it's the supporters of RFRA that are the Nazis in this analogy.

Now I am really glad to live where I do.

Where I come from, you are free to be who you are and you are to respect the beliefs of others. That's it. It is just that simple.

I don't like the idea of homosexuality but I practice the "eggplant" approach to it. I don't like eggplant and will never touch the stuff (turns my stomach), but I would never harass, be disrespectful, or mistreat someone who does.

People who work in the service industry have chosen to work in a profession where they are compelled by law to treat all customers equally. If serving homosexuals violates their morality, they have the choice to change professions. They are not being forced to serve but choosing to do so.

If you start allowing religious beliefs to dictate the level of services given in establishments, then how will all the other faiths, not just the centric Christian ones, deal with all the differing morality and ethics. Muslim proprietors could not serve women who are bare faced, or married couples who touch each other. Jewish service could deny things that are not kosher. Buddhists could enforce strict vegetarianism on customers or employees. Can Catholics proprietors stop serving female pastors, or people married by female pastors? What about serving bastard children? Services would then become split down religious divides.

As an atheist, would that mean that I couldn't get service for anything, anywhere? But I need my tires changed and I have money I'm willing to pay for someone to do it...

This is just the tip of the iceberg in this line of thinking and why there are so many people decrying this law. The law is supposed to be non-secular for this reason. Allowing denial of service options that are free from prosecution only allows judgemental people to enforce their judgement on someone else without consequence.

I don't think the legislature thought this one through enough and should repeal this law.

As a Christian, I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but I certainly don't discriminate against those people who do.

But like Knightshift said, it goes both ways. Should somebody be forced to do something against beliefs because it's "discrimination" if that person doesn't. But should we really supress others freedom to do what they want?

I wouldn't want to be forced to do something against my beliefs, but at the same time, if I'm not could careful, that be discriminating against others, which would also be against my beliefs, it's a very fine line......

Again, there should be absolutely zero support for cherry picked religious beliefs. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining; I have a brain, and I know better. We could always play the slippery slope game, if you like. Where does religious freedom end and abuse begin? Sure, under some circumstances that would be a difficult line to draw. Not so here. We went through this in the '60s, and the only difference between blacks and gays is... well, there really isn't a difference. People are people, and discrimination is wrong, no matter the justification.

Religious freedom is a thing in this country, it's true. So is separation of church and state. Keep your beliefs out of my politics, and I'll keep my politics out of your beliefs.

Relgious freedom is the freedom to believe in what you want, without the Tought Police breaking down your door and hauling your ass of to a concentration camp. Relgious freedom does not give you the right to go about harrassing other people. (no matter what your "holy" book sais.)

Maybe those who believe that their religious freedom gives them the right to discriminate against homosexuals should be subjected to Sharia law for a little while. After all, we have freedom of religion here in America, not freedom of Christianity. How would it feel to to have a Muslim dictate what you "good Christians" can and can't do, who you can and can't socialize with, and which shops you may and may not patronize? Surely those Muslims have rights too.

That's actually what I've been pondering... Will this law allow me to run my business in accordance with Shiria, and how will the law makers react?

(Yes, I'm being facetious )

That's actually what I've been pondering... Will this law allow me to run my business in accordance with Shiria, and how will the law makers react?

Hmm so someone steals from you and you can cut their hand off!

No country has laws based on religious commandments, sure killings illegal but you are allowed to have gods before Yahweh, you can legally make idols and people lie about their neighbours all the time.

Bronze age laws no longer apply, I will wear mixed fabrics if I want to and refuse to wear tassels.

"No shirt, no shoes, no beard, no service."

The context in which we see these laws popping up not only betrays their purpose, but also how petty they are. Gay marriage is becoming legal in the US, at a surprisingly fast pace. Unable to stop the legalization of gay marriage, a faction of conservative Christians are trying to pass a set of laws that will give them legal grounds to thumb their noses at gay couples who are getting married. Of course the laws had to be worded with enough vagueness to allow for plausible deniability of their actual intent; vague enough to open a whole can of worms as it turns out.

This is less about protecting religious freedom or discrimination than it is about pouting over a lost cultural battle. Thankfully the success in that battle has been enough to get the Indiana law defanged.

Number one reason for milenials leaving religion is they don't like all the anti gay bigotry they see, the more the right wingers tighten their grip the sooner they'll strangle the religion they are trying to protect.

As a Christian, I don't believe in same-sex marriage, but I certainly don't discriminate against those people who do.

But like Knightshift said, it goes both ways. Should somebody be forced to do something against beliefs because it's "discrimination" if that person doesn't. But should we really supress others freedom to do what they want?

I wouldn't want to be forced to do something against my beliefs, but at the same time, if I'm not could careful, that be discriminating against others, which would also be against my beliefs, it's a very fine line......

Again, there should be absolutely zero support for cherry picked religious beliefs. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining; I have a brain, and I know better. We could always play the slippery slope game, if you like. Where does religious freedom end and abuse begin? Sure, under some circumstances that would be a difficult line to draw. Not so here. We went through this in the '60s, and the only difference between blacks and gays is... well, there really isn't a difference. People are people, and discrimination is wrong, no matter the justification.

Religious freedom is a thing in this country, it's true. So is separation of church and state. Keep your beliefs out of my politics, and I'll keep my politics out of your beliefs.

I don't think you understood what I said, but I'm not gonna argue religion and politics on a miniatures forum (and I completely agree with your entire post, so I don't think you read my post right)

either way I'm out of this thread.

Number one reason for milenials leaving religion is they don't like all the anti *** bigotry they see, the more the right wingers tighten their grip the more millennials will slip through their fingers.

Fixed it!

"Right wingers" and "left wingers" and "conservatives" and "liberals" and "Republicans" and "Democrats" are terms that have been used so many times that they have lost all meaning.

People use them without thinking. Worse, they use them as pejoratives against others without having any clue what the he** they're talking about.

Those words have made legitimate conversastion and discussion almost impossible. Try writing and speaking without them. I dare you, everyone. Engage your mind constructively, in a way that does NOT focus on using labels. Because for too many people labels is ALL they have.

Right wing commies

Leftist nazis

point their fingers

rumours linger

We don't care what you think.

We don't care what you think.

Type-O-negative

We hate everyone

Right wing commies

Leftist nazis

point their fingers

rumours linger

We don't care what you think.

We don't care what you think.

Type-O-negative

We hate everyone

Welp now I'm listening to Type O negative. This building will now be engineered with 100 percent more pentagrams now.

You can never have enough pentagrams/hexagrams or elder signs.