Professor: Indiana RFRA ‘Fix’ Could Send Christians to Jail

[ShagNappy]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...diana-rfra-fix-could-send-christians-to-jail/

The “fix” maintains the religious liberty law in Indiana but says Christian business cannot use the law in declining to endorse a same-sex wedding. Christian business owners — florists, bakers, caterers and others — will now be forced to provide service for religious ceremonies that go against their “deeply held religious beliefs.” But the fix also says the law cannot establish a defense against not just civil actions but also “criminal prosecution.”

 

[Sapper Woody]

The problem is, and always will be, what constitutes a "deeply held religious belief", and what validates those beliefs?



For instance, if I believe God told me to never walk on a cracked sidewalk, because it's impure, people would call me insane. How many people does it take to believe something for it to be validated.



If I remember correctly, the courts years back split religious beliefs into two categories: religious convictions and religious preferences. Convictions were declared protected, but defined as a belief you were willing to die for. Preferences were not protected.



I may be wrong, but this is what I've been told for years. (On my phone on break. Can't fact check right now.)



So, are these businesses willing to die in order to avoid catering to homosexuals? Probably not. Which means it's a religious preference, and therefore not protected.

 

[Tom Bryant]

The problem is, and always will be, what constitutes a "deeply held religious belief", and what validates those beliefs?



For instance, if I believe God told me to never walk on a cracked sidewalk, because it's impure, people would call me insane. How many people does it take to believe something for it to be validated.



If I remember correctly, the courts years back split religious beliefs into two categories: religious convictions and religious preferences. Convictions were declared protected, but defined as a belief you were willing to die for. Preferences were not protected.



I may be wrong, but this is what I've been told for years. (On my phone on break. Can't fact check right now.)



So, are these businesses willing to die in order to avoid catering to homosexuals? Probably not. Which means it's a religious preference, and therefore not protected.

I remember when David Gibbs talked about that, but things have changed and the gays now have the political muscle to make their right to perversion more important than our Constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I remember when David Gibbs talked about that, but things have changed and the gays now have the political muscle to make their right to perversion more important than our Constitutionally protected rights.

I have to start this post with a warning: I am going to sound a little like Zaac here.



I personally would have no problem catering a gay wedding, or baking them a cake, etc. Photography is a little different, imo, because you'll be asking them to do things such as kiss, hold hands, etc for a good photo.



But, if we refuse to cater a gay wedding, we'd be hypocritical to cater the wedding of couples who are shacked up. They have degenerated the meaning of marriage as much as homosexuals, and in fact paved the way for it.



Homosexuality is sin equally as much as fornication. And both are equally as damaging to the idea and sanctity of marriage.



[Begin Zaac's voice] The problem is we get caught up on the politics of homosexuality rather than the evangelizing of homosexuals. [/End]



I'm not saying everyone does that, but I am saying that this is the appearance the church is giving.

 

[Tom Bryant]

This will end with pastors being sued and later on arrested for not performing weddings.

 

[church mouse guy]

I could not cater a Clinton event--they are so immoral.

 

[matt wade]

But, if we refuse to cater a gay wedding, we'd be hypocritical to cater the wedding of couples who are shacked up. They have degenerated the meaning of marriage as much as homosexuals, and in fact paved the way for it.

I agree that if someone refused to cater a wedding because it promotes one sin that it would be inconsistent if they didn't refuse on the basis of other sins.

I stand firm in my belief that a business should be able to pick and choose who they do business with for any reason at all. If a business chooses to be racist, so be it. If they choose to stand on religious beliefs, so be it. It the business doesn't like fat people, ok. If the business doesn't want to serve women, go for it.

I firmly believe that the free market will take care of this situations. And if a business continues to thrive? Deal with it.

Government entities and essential utilities should be forced to provide equal service across the board.

Government shouldn't be in the business of marrying people. Leave that to the churches. Remove any recognition of marriage from our laws, regulations, etc.

 

[Jedi Knight]

This will end with pastors being sued and later on arrested for not performing weddings.

Thats where its all been heading to...... sodomites beating on the door! Liberals...what a terrible brain to waste.

 

[Salty]

I

But, if we refuse to cater a hom0sexual wedding, we'd be hypocritical to cater the wedding of couples who are shacked up.

(slightly edited to conform to L.E.F.T.)
Excellent point - I will mention this. We had a couple in our church who were shacking up - and finally after two kids - they went got married. I did not go to the wedding. If asked, I would have officiated - but during the counseling, I would have insisted they maintain separate quarters until married. Also, I would not officiate at a gala wedding.

It the business doesn't like fat people, ok. If the business doesn't want to serve women, go for it. .

So if a business does not carry clothes that will fit my tall and big (but I'm not tall), I should be able to sue them because they discriminate against me? Why are they so fatist

 

[matt wade]

So if a business does not carry clothes that will fit my tall and big (but I'm not tall), I should be able to sue them because they discriminate against me? Why are they so fatist

Who said you should be able to sue them?

 

[Salty]

Who said you should be able to sue them?

because, I will become a liberal and say that is discrimination!!!