Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Only close-minded assholes would behave in a manner of which I don't approve ...

 

As a Christian, these bills dismay me, in part because it shows Christians narrowing their view of sexuality to a political party's take on it, and in part because Christians not wanting to be around people who don't have Christ is an idea completely antithetical to the great commission.

Why some Christians equate spiritual fidelity with religious comfort - or, frankly, broad freedoms - is beyond me. I can only conclude they haven't read the Bible much, or their pastor is a prosperity-gospel type offering "fire insurance." We don't need to pray in schools; we can pray anywhere. We actually don't need to be wedding photographers and cake bakers with a church-approved clientele; God really couldn't care less if the free market breaks in our direction and giving up the business would be the greater sacrifice, if it was that offensive to a specific person, than pressing for laws that guarantee we can hold some view without any cost.

Generally speaking, we're often at our weakest when most in sync with governing authorities, because it concerns us more with retaining those privileges than following the "Jesus muse" toward injustice. I can't think of a dumber right we'd need to protect than the Christian businessperson who doesn't want to serve a GLBT client.

 

The point still stands, the law is designed to offer protection for someone who doesn't want to make a same sex wedding cake and Hobby Lobby found a way out of being mandated to pay for (most? all?) of an employee's birth control based on Christian tenents. I suppose if there was a Jewish objection to birth control/gay marriage/tiddlywinks there might still have been a law passed, but you have a hard time selling me on the notion any other religion gets the same consideration. And that's really my thesis here. It will be interesting to see if the courts actually go along with the law.

 

Preach it, Alma. If you follow Jesus or care about the Constitution, you'd be horrified by these Hoosier lawmakers.

 

Please refrain from mentioning Jesus and the Constitution in the same sentence. You don't want to be a close-minded asshole who refuses to keep them separate.

 

Hobby Lobby did not win the right not to be forced to pay for certain forms of birth control. Hobby Lobby did not pay for birth control. It paid for insurance. It won the right to not be required to pay for insurance that included coverage of birth control methods that act to inhibit a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, coverage that may never be used by any of its employees.

You are correct, though, that a number of posters haven't focused on the fact that the Indiana statute applies when there is some state law that allegedly infringes on a (broadly defined) person's sincere religious beliefs.

 

Do you think every person who disagrees with you on legislation is an asshole?

 

Will Holy Ghost fly?

 

Possibly. A lot of people disagree with me and there are a lot of assholes, so the math works.

In this case. I can't see any real reason to have this law except for the right wingers to flex their muscle and pander to their base.

 

Say, for instance, that an individual or group of like-minded individuals took care of some of these close-minded assholes in a manner consistent with THEIR religious beliefs. If that were to occur, would you a) smile at the schadenfreude or b) ignore it in the name of tolerance?

 

Ooh, Sunshine got the butt-hurt going on this one.

 

Ha! I'm having a great time. Just basking in the knowledge of the board's most tolerant denizens.