Christian Bigots Behind Indiana’s Anti-Gay Law Did, In Fact, Mean For It To Be Anti-Gay

The social conservatives behind Indiana’s anti-gay law intended the law to shield business owners from same-sex marriage. This is despite the fact that Indiana lawmakers, including Governor Mike Pence and others on the right, insisted that the law was not about discrimination. However, even as Pence signed it into law, they cheered their victory against marriage equality.

The Washington Post reports that one press release proclaimed:

VICTORY AT THE STATEHOUSE!

Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!

The Post also says that these people see a distinction between turning away an LGBT customer, and refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. The problem is, there is no distinction. If you do weddings, but you refuse to do a same-sex wedding, you’re turning away LGBT customers because they’re LGBT.

According to the Post’s article on this, a spokesman for the Alliance Defending Freedom said that cooking a rack of lamb and putting it on a table in front of someone is not endorsing their marriage. However, for, say, a wedding singer, if someone says, “We want you to perform all the ceremonies at our wedding,” that does amount to endorsing their marriage.

That could be seen to be true. It turns into a problem, though, when that caterer uses the same religious freedom law that the wedding singer does to say, “Putting a rack of lamb on a table at a gay wedding violates my religious beliefs, so I’m not going to do it.”

During debates over Indiana’s anti-gay law, the “plight” of Christian wedding vendors was brought up repeatedly, according to the Post, despite the fact that the bill’s sponsors cited the Hobby Lobby contraception case instead of Christian wedding vendors. With those people’s “plight” brought up on the floor, though, the cries of, “It’s not meant to discriminate, and does not target the LGBT community,” are disingenuous at best. At worst, they’re outright lies.

Members of Fox News very recently said that they can’t understand what the purpose of Indiana’s anti-gay law is, now that its teeth have been removed with the “fix” that prohibits businesses from using the law to discriminate against anybody. They thought it was about discrimination, too, despite all their cries that it wasn’t.

So there it is. The truth behind Indiana’s anti-gay law is that its intent was…anti-gay.

 

Featured image “Rainbow Flag” by Benson Kua. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons. Cross image by Murraytheb. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. Images merged and altered by Rika Christensen/Liberalistics

Send to Kindle
  • http://www.newnets.com Carly

    Do not completely agree… it’s not Christians in the true sense. They are groups like the Family Research Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, Texas values, Liberty Institute and the likes are not real Christian organizations they are not political organizations. They radical extremist organizations similar to ISIS, ISIL, any Islamic extremist group. They are essentially no different than any other religious group we deem to be terrorists. Stop allowing them power and influence in our local, state and federal government. The do represent Christian values or freedom loving values this country was founded on! Just my opinion.

  • SolomonTerra

    Their position can be supported by the Bible, at least that part of it
    shared with Judaism. As there is nothing in the New Testament which
    changes that particular taboo from the old, it can only be assumed that
    it still stands as part of modern Christianity. There’s no point in
    pretending they’re not “true Christians” just because they cherry-pick
    the Bible differently than the peace/love crowd. Which they must, if they think
    Christianity is all about love, peace, kindness or tolerance. It isn’t.
    Nor are Judaism, Islam or any of a number of other religions I could
    mention. Those things are included as part of the text, yes, but they’re
    alongside all the Yahweh-ordered violence, discrimination, butchery and
    enslavement. One simply cannot claim that any of these
    religions promote peace or love while maintaining any significant amount
    of intellectual integrity.

    • Bmac

      I see where you are coming from, but you are in fact making an assumption by supposing: “As there is nothing in the New Testament which changes that particular taboo from the old” Actually, it was Paul who said that the old laws were a curse when the new Covenant was made. The new Covenant was sealed when Jesus died on the cross.

      Galatians 3:13

  • Raji the Green Witch

    It comes down to this. If a “Christian Baker” would refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between two Hindus, or two Wiccans for Religious reasons then their refusal to bake for a gay wedding also is valid and needs to be protected. If, however, they WILL do so for the Hindus or the Wiccans but NOT for the Gays then they ARE discriminating SOLELY based upon their personal bigotry against gays and THAT is NOT to be protected. In other words, to make the claim of Religiously based refusal, the business owner MUST be 100% consistent, across the board with its Religious claims.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Nope. A business establishment is a public accommodation. If you provide *A* *SERVICE*, you have to provide the service to whoever may legally buy it. If someone doesn’t like that, they have no *business* being in ‘business’

      • JoJoViolet

        It has to be open to the general public and honestly I’m not sure how that is determined. I know lawyers can turn away clients. Psychotherapists can also refuse to accept someone as a patient. I know that storefront type businesses are considered open to the general public but not sure why others aren’t bound by the same rules.

    • Bmac

      Raji, based on your example you pointed out two different religions versus one sexual preference. So, I will fix your example to better allow you to understand:

      If a baker makes cakes for heterosexuals, they must also bake cakes for homosexuals. Otherwise they are prejudiced against homosexuals and are being bigots.

      Also, baking a cake is not a defensible religious right that should be protected. Where is the religious concern regarding what the cake is used for?

      • Raji the Green Witch

        Well Bmac, I used my example in order to demonstrate that the followers of a particular Faith can effectively discriminate against the followers of another Faith for Religious reasons and get away with it. For example, a bakery owned by Christians can NOT be expected to provide a Kosher Cake for a Jewish Wedding, or a Halal one for an Islamic one. Christians are not QUALIFIED to prepare Kosher or Halal food. so that would be an unreasonable expectation. However, there are NO such Religious qualifications for Gay wedding cake and therefore anyone can prepare a cake for one. However, you too make an excellent point, as well. My example IS specifically aimed at Religiously based criteria whereas yours is aimed at specific social classes. One can not expect to get served a ham sandwich in a Kosher or a Halal delicatessen and those reasons ARE Religious concerns. If you wish to EAT Kosher or Halal then you MUST patronize a Jewish or a Halal establishment. Additionally if you WISH to keep Kosher or Halal then you MUST patronize Jewish or Islamic establishments.

        With respect to Religious concerns regarding cake, it comes down to the shortening or fat which is used in the cake ingredients. Kosher and Halal may not contain pork or animal fat of any kind, only vegetable shortening or Dairy (butter). AND the sources for even those must be approved by the respective clergy. The eggs that get used must ALSO pass Kosher/Halal Standards, as determined by the respective clergy, as well. It’s really not as cut and dry as you would like to imagine it would be.

        • Bmac

          I know all this. In regards to Jewish and Halal food preparations, these are food safety guidelines woven into the fabric of their religion. The only infringement would be to prepare foods using ingredients there were not approved. There is no religious rule or law that states who is allowed to buy it or consume it.

          There is no scripture in Christianity, Judaism, or Muslim which states food that has been prepared in accordance with religious law cannot and should not be consumed by those who do not follow the associated religion. Nor does it say that those who have broken religious law are not allowed to purchase and consume such products.

          Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether a Jewish baker makes a Kosher cake and sells it to a homosexual. A homosexual, at any time, can walk into the Kosher isle of their favorite supermarket and purchase said product without any infringement on Judaism. The same is true for Halal foods. There is no law that says a homosexual cannot enter into a building or store that is owned by a religious individual. There is no religious doctrine that suggests the money that is given by a homosexual has any taint against religious law.

          Ultimately, there is no argument that supports a public vendor from discriminating against a homosexual purchasing their products.

          The point is so ridiculously obvious, that to make a contrary statement against, is to do so willfully.

          The majority of the humans that live on planet Earth have progressed and evolved to a level of awareness that no longer supports or tolerates hatred based on differences be they skin color, religious preference, sexual preference, clothing preference, schooling preference, etc.

  • Raji the Green Witch

    No one is villainizing Christianity. The ONLY ones who are being singled out as the villains are those who make a conscious CHOICE to be bigots with respect to LGBT people who have NO choice but to be themselves.

    • Paul Duca

      Raji….he talks like Christianity actually DID something for him.

  • Dr. Phil

    Three thousand? Aren’t you being disingenuous with your lack of understanding? Or are you just trying to be a cute troll?

  • http://greenleegazette.com/ James L. Greenlee

    Racks of lamb and wedding singers are at receptions though, and I’m having a hard time ever remembering a religious reception. . .

  • Dr. Phil

    So you are pretty much saying that all the fairy tails ever told are true to make the silly statements and outright contradicting words true by association? What a flimsy argument! What about the talking donkey? And talking snake? How are those true? You need to work on your argumentive skills. Not that you lack conviction, you just lack the simple understanding that someone will not just accept what you have said as truth just because you say it is so. Make people think with their own minds and come to a judgment based on your view. Don’t just tell then it is fact! That is the trolls way of arguing!

  • Arizona Eagletarian

    I would make the distinction that it was the Dominionist bigots in Indiana and yes, they indeed did intend it.

    It’s really not fair to hang it on all Christians. A substantial percentage of whom would not necessarily take the same view of the issue as the Dominionists.

  • Ponyhome

    People being killed for being gay is hardly unknown in the USA. People being tormented for being gay until they commit suicide is painfully common in the USA. When was the last time you heard of someone being murdered for “acting Christian” in this country (not that I see very many people acting Christian)?

  • Bob Blaylock

      I guess only a “bigot” would object to being compelled by law to participate in and support that which he knows to be immoral.