I have a friend named Bob, who I have diaried about before.
Bob is a great guy, very nice, open, and tolerant.
As a black man, Bob has also experienced first hand some very insulting and degrading discrimination.
But Bob is also a sincere Christian and holds two doctorates of Divinity.
Which means, Bob supports the Indiana "Religious Freedom" law; not because he hates gays, but because he sincerely believes homosexuality is a sin and religious people should have the right to excuse themselves from participation in an activity they believe is morally wrong such as a gay wedding.
Because I respect the hell out of Bob, I listened to his argument and his reasons quietly and let him present them without push back. As he is very intelligent, he presented them logically and soundly and when he was finished, I understood his point.
The crux of Bob's argument was this: Christians believe in God and that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins. As such, he cannot speak to other religions, but for him, the Bible is not just a life guide or some writings of 2,000 years ago, it is the Word of God. He may not understand it, he may have difficulty following it, but he must - as best he can as a human being - respect it as Holy and therefore, it trumps everything else he might find important.
As such, the Christian believes homosexuality to be sinful. To the Christian, gay marriage is not recognized in the eyes of God and therefore is a relationship that is being entered into sinfully. Although Bob will not attempt to reverse the legalization of gay marriage, or condemn any Christian who willingly participates in one, equally, as a Christian, he can not participate.
Non-believers may not like the fact that to Christians, this is a real and important issue, but that does not give them the right to force the Christian to perform an activity they find religiously offensive. Past Christians died refusing to perform acts that they considered blasphemous. Today's Christians are only asking for the right to say "I would rather not."
In his view, that is all the Indiana law is attempting to allow.
My reply to Bob follows.
To start, I told Bob I respected his beliefs. They weren't being made out of hate or ignorance. He was not saying that gays could not be married, only that he didn't want to participate. As far as that went, there was nothing wrong with what he was saying. His beliefs were his beliefs.
However...
Indiana does not allow discrimination for political beliefs, only religious ones. Does that not mean that religious beliefs were considered superior to political beliefs?
I am an atheist and in my work I am required to provide services to my company's clientele. Many of these people are types I would rather not deal with. Many are sexist or racist. Many express hard right or extreme religious views that I strongly disagree with. I am required to provide the same level of service to these people as I provide to people I agree with.
Wasn't the Christian basically saying that their religious beliefs trumped my political beliefs. How was that fair in an equal, and more importantly, secular society?
To illustrate this point, suppose there was a Christian caterer who was asked to provide services to a gay Wedding. Under the Indiana law, the caterer could refuse for religious reasons. Now suppose a caterer who happened to be an anti-Semite was asked to provide services to a Jewish wedding. Under Indiana, he couldn't refuse without risking a lawsuit.
This was inequality. Either everyone in business had to provide the same services offered for the same price to everyone, or everyone in business should have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they may have - religious, political, etc. Otherwise, in a secular state where church and state were separate, religious law was trumping civil law.
There was also a problem with the law that also went beyond "personal belief". Bob has suffered discrimination growing up from people who apologized at the time, telling him that if they did not, they would lose customers or in some way be punished by their community. I reminded him of this and he agreed this was a common enough statement growing up.
This excuse for discrimination was made invalid by anti-discrimination laws. After it became illegal to refuse to hire or provide services to people because of their race, no one could make this claim and expect it to be accepted.
Yet, with this law, how does Indiana stop that now from happening to the LGBT community? Let's suppose our Christian caterer has no objection to providing service to the gay wedding. What is to stop his church or Christian clientele from condemning him, boycotting his business or applying pressure to make him fall in line?
Prior to the law, the caterer could rightfully say he had no choice; it was the law that he had to provide service to anyone who was willing and able to pay for it. He could be sued if he refused. Now, with Indiana, what is there to protect those who do not want to discriminate?
That was my legal objection to the law, but my objection also extended to the religious as well.
My argument was basically; Christians were cherry-picking.
Although I had no illusion that I could teach Bob anything about the Bible (the man can read it in Greek and Hebrew), I did point out the inconsistency of applying a proscription to participating in a gay wedding as opposed to other weddings.
I knew from the start it would be pointless to quote anything from the Old Testament; since the immediate response would be "Jesus fulfilled the Old Law of Moses through his death. Therefore, when Christians follow His teachings, we are following the Law". So I did not bother quoting food laws or calls for stoning.
Instead I focused solely on the New Testament.
The basis for NT anti-homosexual religious opinion is found in 1 Timothy 1:8 - 11
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
It was right there in black and white: "the law is made not for the righteous but...for those practicing homosexuality". No denying it. It is right there.
However....
I pointed to 1 Corinthians 5: 11
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
Greedy. When was the last time you heard of a Christian Church or business refusing services on the grounds the person was greedy?
Sexually immoral. Are prospective Brides or Grooms ever questioned about their sexual habits prior to a business providing service? Was such a question even considered appropriate?
Drunkard. This was a big one, since prohibitions on alcohol consumption ranks big in Christianity. Yet, did Christian businesses ever refuse services to a person who drank? Did any Christian business refuse to provide services to a wedding where alcohol was going to be provided? Did not many Christian businesses actually serve alcohol? And if gay marriage was intolerable, why were Christians not demanding a restoration of prohibition?
Paul was saying without any wiggle room "Do not even eat with such people." They were to be shunned. Now, of course, Paul was speaking of Christians with other Christians. Yet Christians today did not shun such people and raise no objection to them. Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, the Catholic Church child abuse scandals; there are actually to many examples to mention. When did we hear of a Christian business owner petitioning for special exemption from providing services for these reasons?
Then there was 1 Corinthians 1-5
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
This was in reference a woman who had left her husband and moved in with his son (her step-son). Paul wrote this was a kind of sin "that even pagans do not tolerate it".
Yet, what of the case of Woody Allen and Soon Yi Previn? To quickly recap, here is the Wikipedia entry:
Around 1980, Allen began a relationship with actress Mia Farrow, who had leading roles in all of his films as a director from 1982 to 1992. Farrow and Allen never married and kept separate homes.[122] In 1991, The New York Times opined on Allen's family life with Farrow: "Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does."[122]
Allen and Farrow separated in 1992, after Farrow discovered nude photographs that Allen had taken of Soon-Yi, Farrow's adopted daughter who was around 20 years old at the time.[123][124] In her autobiography, What Falls Away (New York: Doubleday, 1997), Farrow says that Allen admitted to a relationship with Soon-Yi.[125]
To all intents and purposes, Allen and Farrow were married and Soon Yi was Allen's step-daughter. Yet, when this scandal broke, I could not recall a single instance of a religious objection to Allen possibly marrying Soon Yi or of demands that any possible arrangement be prevented. To this day, a step-parent can legally leave their spouse to marry their step-child so long as that child is of age.
I have also never heard of a Christian stating that they needed legal protection so that they would not have to provide services to such a wedding. In fact are people even questioned regarding their relationship prior to their wedding to ensure that they weren't former step-relations?
Then there was divorce. This comes from Jesus Christ Himself
John 4: 16-17
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
1 Corinthians 7: 10-12
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
Pretty clear and straightforward. Yet I have never heard of a Christian saying they needed legal protection to refuse service to a couple that were previously divorced. There are many divorced politicians who enjoy the full support of the Christian community. Do those who now object to providing services to a gay wedding, ever ask other people if they had previously been divorced? Again, I have never heard once of any religious person asking for special legal protection so they can deny service to divorced people who are remarried.
It is also important to place the above in context. So, what do these verses say in context?:
1 Corinthians 5: 9-10
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.
In other words: "You can provide services to homosexuals without sinning".
John 4: 7-9
7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)
9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.[a])
Gee - Jesus Himself had no problem associating with a person whose mere touch would have rendered him "unclean" in the eyes of His community; and a woman to boot.
In other words: "You can bake a cake for a homosexual wedding if you Lord and Savior had no problem asking a Samaritan woman for a drink."
Christians, it seemed, appear to have no problem exercising Jesus' commandments to love, forgive and to not judge the drunkard, the immoral, the adulterer, the divorced or the greedy. They seem to be able to set aside their religious objections when asked to provide services or assistance to those the Bible calls sinners "worse than pagans". They do not question whether the Bride or Grooms at weddings they provide services to are re-marrying, marrying a step-relation, if there will be alcohol involved or if the it is the wedding a greedy person. They do not demand that their government intervene to restrict, prohibit, outlaw or prevent these "sinners" from marrying, nor to they ask for special legal protection so they can refuse to participate.
Except that is for the LGBT community.
Here, they have a particular objection. A unique abhorrence. Only here do they need the government to step in and provide legal protection. Only here, do we have demands for laws and amendments to prohibit and disallow. Only here, apparently, does this particular "sin" seem to matter.
That is bigotry. Dress it up in as many religious arguments as you like; the reason for the objections are nothing more and nothing less than bigotry.
And that, according to the Bible and the written word of Jesus Christ, is a sin.
When I ended by reply, Bob, to his credit, said I had given him something to think about. I don't know if it was because he accepted my argument or that he simply didn't want to risk a fight with a friend, but that is where we left it.
For my part, as much as I like Bob, this is one area where he couldn't be more wrong; both for secular and religious reasons.