‘Grossly Misconstrued’: Indiana Governor Says Religious Freedom Act Isn’t About Homosexuality

PenceINDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — The governor of Indiana is defending his signing of the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, stating that it is has been “grossly misconstrued” and made to be an issue about discrimination against homosexuals when the bill mentions nothing about homosexuality or any issue at all.

As previously reported, Gov. Mike Pence signed SB 101 into law in a closed ceremony, with an estimated 70 t0 80 invited guests attending the event. The bill mirrors the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law in the 1990’s by then-President Bill Clinton.

“A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,” it reads.

After signing the legislation last week, Pence cited the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby abortion pill case, and noted that while a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act exists, the law does not cover state action.

“Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action,” he said. “In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those states [who have passed local legislation] and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.”

However, homosexual activists and advocates soon rose up against Pence, asserting that the bill made provision for Christians and others to discriminate against homosexuals. On Saturday, hundreds rallied outside of the Indiana state house in opposition to the law, and op-eds quickly were published online decrying the Act as being bigoted.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) even announced that he was banning state-funded travel to Indiana, as did Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy (D). The mayors of San Francisco and Seattle, Ed Lee and Ed Murray, have done the same, and a number of corporate business executives also spoke out against the measure and called for boycotts.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Washington will join other states and cities in opposing this law and I will impose an administration-wide ban on state funded travel to Indiana,” Inslee said in a statement. “We in Washington stand for equality.”

Homosexual advocates assert that the bill could be used to allow Christian photographers, bakers, florists and other wedding-related businesses to decline involvement in same-sex ceremonies, and do not believe that religious entities should have the right to decline an order because of their convictions.

However, others have rather noted that the law could protect Christians and Catholics from being made subject to any government action that might mandate involvement in abortion, or could provide religious freedom for Jews, Muslims and others from being restricted from practicing their faith, such as wearing headscarves or serving pork.

Pence has therefore been making the rounds on various media outlets to clarify that the bill does not pertain to homosexuality.

“I stand by this law, but I understand that the way that some on the left and frankly, some in the national media, have mischaracterized this law over the last week might make it necessary for us to clarify the law through legislation,” he told Fox News.

“Our new law has been grossly misconstrued as a ‘license to discriminate.’ That isn’t true,” Pence further outlined in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Tuesday.

“With the Supreme Court’s ruling, the need for a RFRA at the state level became more important, as the federal law does not apply to states,” he reiterated. “To ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year the General Assembly enshrined these principles in Indiana law. I fully supported that action.”

Pence repeated that the law does not contain any language regarding homosexuality.

“If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore,” he wrote. “As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it. Indiana’s new law contains no reference to sexual orientation. It simply mirrors federal law that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.”

Pence is a professing Christian and attends Community Church in Greenwood, Ind.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • RWH

    If this bill is not about discrimination, why did the Governor refuse to answer George Stefinapolis’ simple yes or no question?

    • Paul Hiett

      Because he’s a liar.

    • brine

      I want to know why you maintain you’re a Christian but refuse to give your testimony…all while continually arguing on the side of immorality at every single turn.

      • RWH

        Brine, And I’m not exactly sure who you think you are that somehow I should be accountable to you for anything. I stated a fact and asked the same question that many others have asked. If the Governor truly believes that this bill is not about discrimination, why did he evade a simple yes/no question. If you think that this stands for inmorality, I really have to question your judgment and your logic. What is apparent, though, is the timing is just a little too convenient for this bill not to be all about the gays. I also reject this seemingly myopic view of yours that only people who think like you can claim to be a Christian.

        • brine

          You question my judgment and logic?

          Matt: 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

          You come on to a Christian website, argue on the side of wickedness or imply the side of wickedness is right, never seem to have any scripture to back up your ‘arguments’, and refuse to give your testimony. I also always think it funny that when a person rightly divides the Word then people such as yourself say,’that is just your narrow interpretation’….Jesus was born of a virgin (that is just your interpretation)…Jesus said you have to be born again (that is just your interpretation), God commands a person to walk Holy (that is just your interpretation), God says avoid youthful lusts which war against the soul (that is just your interpretation), God says that if a person is living in sin and claim to be a Christian you break fellowship so that they may repent (that is just your interpretation), God says the lost will spend an eternity in the lake of fire (that is just your interpretation)…

          Christ was narrow minded and rebuked sin…He said that there was a narrow way and a broad way…the broad way doesn’t end too well. Christ was dogmatic. He said a person must be born again and goes through Him or isn’t going. Christ was a bigot by todays standards as He rebuked sin and stated what marriage was…a man and a woman. As a matter of fact, in His Word He clearly cries out agains all manner of wickedness…including homosexuality as it is a ‘marker sin’ of a nation imploding. Christ said we are supposed to embrace sound doctrine…therefore we can know what sound doctrine is…

          Let me run this down for you….again.

          1. Paul (as any Christian should) was more than willing to give his testimony and did…and it had a strong scriptural foundation. Line upon line, precept upon precept could be proven out.
          Eph. 6:19-20 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

          You and anyone else proclaiming the name of Christ always ‘owe it’ to any Christian to be able to prove yourself, especially when you come off as a deceiver. I John warns that ‘Many deceivers are entered into the world’ Revelations commends people in the body of Christ for ‘trying those that claim they are apostles and are not and has found them liars’.

          Titus 1:10-13 has a good principle…
          For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
          Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
          One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
          This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

          Here is a good one for you to ponder: 2 Timothy 3

          This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
          For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
          Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
          Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
          Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
          For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
          Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
          Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
          But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.
          But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
          Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
          Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
          But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
          But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
          And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
          All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
          That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

          2. Christians, business owners or otherwise are commanded not ‘partake of other mens sins’ and ‘to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness’. They have every right to not be expected to be coerced by the government into trying to disobey God by participation or using their God given talents to promote wickedness. And as laws become more unjust Christians are to act in civil disobedience if the laws contradict God.

          • RWH

            Well Brine. It’s quite obvious that you have a keen sense of entitlement on steroids. I owe you nothing. You are not Christ, nor are you the Apostle Paul. All you can do is to cherypick Scripture–ripping it out of context–to justify your biases. What is really apparent is that I have hit a nerve, and you are now doing the superiority strut much like the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live. What you are is poor soul that can’t tolerate anyone challenging your precious God-given biases. Until you can prove to me that you have some special mandate from Christ to play the busybody and to pass judgment on someone’s spritual estate, I’ll just cross you off as a wannabe mediator between God and me. That’s Satan’s job. He’s the one responsible for telling people that God doesn’t love them and for separating people from God’s rich mercy–which, by the way, none of us deserve.

          • brine

            I feel no superiority and know by way of the new birth of God’s mercy and grace of which I was unworthy. I cherry pick no scripture but give ample evidence and proof for the fact of righteousness and God’s superiority and His warnings of collapse….and the people that push unrighteousness and how to deal with them. God told us to judge righteous judgment…that was a command. Again, God stated in His Word with regards to people that would attempt to mislead that they are to be rebuked…SHARPLY…because they lead people astray with twisted logic not based in scripture. So God was in error when He did that? His people are in error when they do it? That doesn’t make me a mediator as there is only ONE mediator between God and man, The Lord Christ. However Christians aren’t supposed to run around with their heads in the sand and ignore clear dictates of His Word. And they are to SPEAK based on His Word and leading…not the PC Winds and ‘man’s vote’ that decides His Word is outdated….

            Why are you so afraid to give your testimony…why do you argue on the side of unrighteousness? Why do you have no scriptural backing for the things you state? See the problem is when a person takes a stance and argues for ‘wrong’ or man over God…The ‘world’ cannot be saved by telling them their sin is fine…God called for repentance and said that there is a final judgment He will execute…but that we are to judge ourselves and to speak boldy…to cry aloud and spare not…’through Thy precepts I get understanding therefore I hate every false way’. That sir is truth…’love’, as you imply, is not letting someone perish so they can cling to their sin. ‘ Love is not accommodating sin….Christ paid an awful price for sin. A Christian knows what their sin cost and should have no desire to provide pathways to live in rebellion to a Holy and Just God… Christ did not perish so people could ‘use the grace of God for an occasion of the flesh’. Christ suffered and bled and died so that man could see TRUE love and repent and walk in fellowship. God makes new creatures that, while no means perfect, have a Spirit in them that wars to crucify the old man…not make excuses for it. The only ‘superiority’ that I have is in what Christ has done for me. And I am not ashamed of Him and what He asks.

          • RWH

            An interesting justification for the following simplistic formula: You don’t agree with me; therefore, you are not saved. As a result, I’m allowed to pass judgment and call hell fire on you. ***You don’t know me; however, I have met your type before. Generally, they are loathsome, ugly, judgmental people. I have seen this type drive people away from Church, and perhaps God. What is worse; these people feel entitled to start prying into the lives of those whom they feel don’t meet up with the standards, and they feel entitled to ruin people’s reputations under the spiritual guise of “we need to pray for. . . .” Now, that being said, can you understand why I don’t trust your motives? Can you see why this type of posture turns people off?

          • brine

            There is simplicity in Christ. Someone may not agree with me but that doesn’t make them not saved. But everyone better agree with God…even against ourselves and not make excuses for why God is less than what He is and didn’t mean what He said. Someone that argues constantly against clear teaching and dictates is questionable at best. Christ said He came not to bring peace but a sword….His word divides people. Paul pried into people’s lives that tried to label themselves as Christians and ‘executed judgment through action’ although not the final judgment God imparts. The early church did the same thing under the commandment of God. There are wolves in sheep clothing and Paul warned continually by the space of 3 years night and day. Again, seems there is scripture to back that up pretty plainly…some of which I have already provided. Someone that always runs from scripture is covered in the bible as well.

          • RWH

            There is a significant difference between teachings of Christ–which is absolute truth–and the clear teachings of Brine–which is filtered truth. I don’t particularly accept your filter, especially when that filter attempts to grant you the same authority as Christ and St. Paul, thus in essence adding you a fourth member to the Trinity. In real churchy terms, that is called prelist or hubris. It is the difference between that which is Orthodox, and that which is heterodox. In simplistic terms, it is the spiritual arrogance which states that God’s thoughts are my thoughts.

          • brine

            My thoughts are based on His Word. My actions should be based on His Word. As someone without a redeemed body I still sin but do not rejoice but repent…and I never give anyone thoughts of encouragement that their sin is acceptable in the eyes of God.
            David said, “Through thy precepts I get understanding therefore I hate every false way.” According to you David following Gods will, or Paul, or any other Christian, based on the clear teaching of scripture is wrong. Christians should be silent, go along to get along, even cater to sin. While I am by no means Paul all Christians are saints. That’s in His Word too. So when Paul said to mark them which cause division (based on clear teaching of the word of God), remove from fellowship those living in sin and refusing to repent (based on the clear teachings of God), he was trying to make himself the 4th member of the trinity. See the Word is supposed to change how we think and conduct ourselves…we aren’t supposed to change it and to make God a liar because of our weakness and sinfulness. Amazing how Scripture covers all of this…I know…my interpretation…Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    This law would render all existing anti-discrimination legislation in Indiana potentially null and void based upon nothing more than a business owner saying that his/her sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from serving a particular customer. This goes way beyond gay people. This could be used against any individual.

    It would also render existing laws in parts of Indiana which protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, null and void.

    This is not about “religious freedom”. Religious freedom does not include the right to express your religious beliefs in any way, at any time, and in any place, one cares to, nor does it include the right to violate anti-discrimination laws by citing religious belief, as the courts have ruled for decades.

    “Pence has therefore been making the rounds on various media outlets to clarify that the bill does not pertain to homosexuality.”

    The timing is incredibly coincidental. To the point of disbelief.

    • Paul Hiett

      If anyone ever wanted to find an example of political suicide, one need look no further than Pence.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

        Sadly that is not the case. Success in the GOP still requires fealty to the Christian Right.

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart-slowlyboiledfrog.com

    Please. The very intent of this law is to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people by providing them with an affirmative defense. Moreover, unlike the federal RFRA, it provides an affirmative defense in litigation that does not include a government entity.

    The federal RFRA does not supersede state and local non-discrimination laws. The Indiana version renders municipal laws unenforceable. If Pence is sincere then he should champion adding sexual orientation as a protected class in Indiana as it is in Illinois and many other states that have similar RFRA laws on the books.

    • Paul Hiett

      I think they will…money talks. The threats and actions of some large companies have put financial pressure on the state, and he will have little choice but to back pedal, as he clearly is.

      • SFBruce

        So far, he’s not backpedaling nearly far enough. According to Pence, the only thing wrong with the law is the misreporting by the media.

  • John Richter

    So businesses can refuse service to Pence since he cheated on his wife and divorced her, both of which are against the Catholic religion? As a matter of fact, Adultery is the subject one of the 10 commandments. Homosexuality is not. his law should be towards people like Pence.

    • Maria Wilson

      John go and read the Bible right .Read Leviticus 18:22 where is saying very clear man shell not lie in bed with another man and have sexual relations ,is a sin an abomination.

      • Paul Hiett

        1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Says a woman should remain silent in church.

        Do you?

        • Anonymous

          When Paul spread the ‘good news’ around the Roman Empire, many women joined and preached the Word of God. But Romans didn’t allow women to do such things (e.g., speak in public, have positions of importance, etc.) That’s why he advised them to be silent and avoid disturbing Roman rule. Women participated a lot in underground churches.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ok…but this is in the Bible. Are we going to cherry pick what is and what is not valid in the Bible now?

          • Anonymous

            I know it’s in the Bible. I’m not cherry-picking anything. I’m just explaining how that passage came to be and how at the same time, women were actually preaching and discussing the Word; they just didn’t do it in public because many Jews were no longer trustworthy and Romans weren’t happy with that ‘new faith’. It was all part of the plan to avoid persecution and imminent death.

          • April J

            I believe the only purpose of having a comments section is to allow people to showcase their “cherry picking” skills haha

        • John Richter

          Womans role is very clear in the bible. She was created to be mans helper and man is to rule over her. Laws against employers discriminating against women are against our freedom of religion rights.

      • Danny Watts

        Wow thanks for that insight! Was wondering in the Bible where it literally said that.

        • Paul Hiett

          Do you accept the Laws of Leviticus to be valid, then?

      • John Richter

        Go read the 10 commandments. See what they say about adultery? Homosexuality is not even mentioned. Read the Leviticus verse that commands us to put to death any one who curses their mother or father. Should offing our mouthy kids be our religious right?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Homosexuals are continuing to show their true intent to dominate and force people to accept their sexually perverted desires. Even when a law does nothing to inhibit their debauchery, nor allowing others to abstain from it, they throw a collective tantrum.

    Judgement is coming and all those who have affirmed sin and being good shall be cast away into Eternal Darkness.

    • Paul Hiett

      I find it laughable that you were lucky enough to be born into a Christian family, raised as a Christian, and then think that your geographical golden ticket gives you the right to judge others.

      • FoJC_Forever

        You are fishing for information.

        • Paul Hiett

          Fishing? How so? It’s a fact that your religious affiliation is nothing more than a case of demographics. You were born to Christian parents, and raised as a Christian.

          • Angel Jabbins

            True Christianity is not inherited or transmitted to a person by family, demographics or heritage. There are lots of people calling themselves Christians that are not. True Christians are born again by the Spirit of God and made new creatures in Christ regardless of whatever background they come out of.

            What you describe are nominal ‘Christians’….raised in some form of Christian teaching, but never surrendered to repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone. Believe me…nominal Christians, when push comes to shove, will just throw their nominal Christianity aside and go with the flow. Real Christians, however, will obey God and suffer whatever the consequences may be. They know that, as Christ suffered for us, they may be called upon to suffer for Him.

            Soon it will be apparent who the true Christians are…and the number will be few

          • Paul Hiett

            So your parents weren’t Christians?

          • Angel Jabbins

            No, Paul, they were not, though I am sure they thought they were. We went to church every week and I was taught the basic tenets of the Christian faith. But it was head knowledge which never penetrated my heart. I was born again at age 28…repented and trusted in Christ alone. Before that, I had faith in a church system and in my efforts to follow that ‘faith’ rather than faith in the Savior alone.

            I know it will be hard for you to understand, but many who call themselves ‘christian’ today are not. True Christianity is a narrow way. We will see many denominations, Catholic, mainline Protestant and Evangelical, cave in and compromise on the gay issue in the coming years. Those who stand firm on what the bible teaches will not. It would be much easier to just go with the flow and many will. It will be a definitive issue, separating true Christians from false. And rightly so. Christianity is not meant to be an easy road.

          • Danny Watts

            Preach it my friend! I found Christ at college and was not raised by any Christian family really. When God sees it fit he will give a person the chance to be awaken in the Holy Spirit.

          • RWH

            It’s rather painful to see people, like some on this list, that draw up egocentric definitions of what a Christian is and then presume to judge others by those construed definitions. I have been going to a number of churches throughout my life, and I have met very few people who are faithful attenders that I would even dare to presume that they are nonbelievers. Because people don’t think your way–or use your own particular vocabulary–, their differences don’t render them unbelievers. Before they disappeared from the list, we had two people who mocked the Ethiopian Christians as dying in vain when they were killed by ISIS. The Ethiopian Pope was grateful that ISIS kept the testimony of these people on the tape instead of editing it out. Yet, people on this list were so certain that these people went to hell because they didn’t follow someone’s self-centered terminology. Do people even realize that some of this terminology such as “surrendered to repent” never existed in the sense that it has been thrown around until Torry’s and Billy Sunday’s sawdust trail revivals of the 1800s. Real Christians died by the millions during the Russian Revolution and the horrible persecutions. They didn’t feel that they suffered persecution because of trite and contrived persecutions for refusing to make a flower arrangement for someone they didn’t particularly like.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            If I may interject, while I agree with much of what you are saying here, I think Angel is merely pointing out that calling oneself a Christian or attending church regularly does not make one a Christian. I have seen members these two classes of people “fall away” numerous times or just plain be “Christians” on Sunday and pagans on Monday through Saturday. If Jesus has not made an objective difference in one’s life (through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), I do agree that the term “nominal Christian” is correct, and I believe I can back that up with Scripture, and with an appeal to the faith statements of almost every denomination under the 3 branches of Christianity: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox.

            So, while it is incumbent upon us to accept the self-professing Christian at face value upon meeting them, we should still consider the fruits. Obviously, I would have to agree with you that any self-professing Christian who dies as a martyr for not denying Jesus is going to have more crowns in Heaven than I can even count!

            As to your statement “They didn’t feel that they suffered persecution because of trite and contrived persecutions for refusing to make a flower arrangement for someone they didn’t particularly like.”

            I do think you are mis-representing the facts and badly so here. In every case that I am familiar with, the Christian florist or baker or photographer served gays regularly and even befriended them. So, it is clearly NOT a sign of “not liking them.” But, when the line was crossed to the point where they had to actually affirm or participate in a gay “wedding,” that is when they could not deny Jesus, and they courageously stood by their faith. When the state of Washington orders the total financial ruin of one of these individuals, that is neither “trite” nor “contrived.” God bless you, RWH!

          • Basset_Hound

            As my old youth group leader used to say..

            “going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a Ford”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I LOVE it, Basset_Hound – thank you so much for showing more wisdom in one sentence than I could in 4 paragraphs!

          • RWH

            I guess that we will have to disagree in certain areas. I have personally known a score of people who suffered the most severe persecutions from the Bolshevik Revolution. These were people who led most godly lives and who truly forgave those who persecuted them. They were truly humble people. There are a lot of Americans who need to learn what true persecution is. I have no time for florists or bakers who can’t heed to Christ’s admonition that calls us to service without complaint. Rather than offer their cloak when someone demands their shoes, or they walk the second mile when others demand that they walk the first, they whine and complain. These people could have been a blessing by baking the cake, or by making the flower arrangement. Instead, they raise a huge fuss and play the martyr. And the self-professed Christians elevate uncivil behavior as some sort of virtue. Most recently, we have a news item of a woman who disrespects the very parents who raised her so that she can score points. Her dad was a deadbeat dad, and she had two parents who sacrificed to raise her the right way–and she turned out well. How does she repay them? She appears to let the deadbeat dad off the hook. But she destroys the reputations of the two women who raised her well on websites like this one. And the self-professed Christians hold that woman up as someone virtuous and worthy of respect. Judgment of others belongs to God and God alone, and it is God alone who judges the household of faith. It’s Satan’s job to make others believe that God doesn’t love them. Way too many people on sites like this one, who in spiritual pride and glee, dare to sit back and condemn others because they don’t think like them. Let them face real persecution rather than this contrived stuff designed to score points. Maybe, and only maybe then this type of people will think long and hard before they presume to even think that God loves them more than he does others who take issues with their ugly behavior.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I have no time for florists or bakers who can’t heed to Christ’s admonition that calls us to service without complaint.”

            They were servicing them without complaint – until the services required them to participate in sin. Are you saying that Jesus requires us to participate in sin?

          • RWH

            Baking a cake or making a flower arrangement is not partaking in anything more than a creative act. I leave the partaking in sin up to the busybodies who have nothing better to do than to meddle in other people’s affairs. And I leave it up to the gossipmongers to ruin the reputations of others. A baker or a florist makes a product, and someone either comes to pick up that product, or they deliver the product to an address. This is done before people even arrive at a festive occasion. These people normally do not know what happens to that product. For all that florist knew, the guests could have eaten the flowers. The wedding might have never taken place, and the cake might have been thrown away. The bottom line is that these people made a product, and they sold a product, and perhaps they even delivered that product. After that, it’s nobody’s business what they do with that product. The transaction ended. When Christ commanded us to walk the second mile, He never asked us to concern ourselves as to where the other would have us walk. Did Simon of Sirene sin because he carried the cross for Christ, knowing what the cross could be possibly used for?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “When Christ commanded us to walk the second mile, He never asked us to concern ourselves as to where the other would have us walk.”

            Christ never commands us to sin – never. You are just looking for an excuse to sin – and still call yourself “Christian.”

          • RWH

            Well, Christ has given us the answer. Let he without sin cast the first stone. It’s unfortunate that you can’t disagree without proclaiming damnation on others. I used to watch the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live. The superiority strut that Dana Carvey would do so accurately describes some of God’s very favorite elect.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Let he without sin cast the first stone. ”

            Then, why are YOU casting the first stone?!? More self-refuting nonsense. And, when it comes to superiority struts, you take the cake. (Pun intended.)

            Are you sure you are not an a-theist troll? I mean, a-theists are so full of blind faith it is pathetic. And, they are also self-refuting absurdists.

            Regardless, your Biblical hermeneutics needs a lot of work.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            They respectfully and humbly declined to participate in a “wedding.” Then they provided the “couples” with alternative sources for the participatory services they desired, and the ones who raised a huge fuss and played the martyr were the “offended couples.” And then they called down the godless state upon women and men of faith. What part of a state-sponsored directive to financially ruin the florist in Washington is not persecution?!?

          • brine

            During that encounter the people were considered with trapping Christ. They were not concerned with the spiritual well-being of either offender. Note the Christ told the lady to ‘go and sin no more’. To say that Christians are to be silent in the face of sin goes against a vast amount of scripture.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The ones who made the big fuss and played martyr were the gays, not the Christians. Then they called down the power of the state on the Christians. You have difficulty telling good from evil. You might wish to check out Isaiah 5:20.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Judgment of others belongs to God and God alone”

            Then why are you judging so many other Christians?!? That is quite self-refuting. Google “Stand to Reason The Judgment on Judging.”

            I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you are making an apology for homosexual behavior or SSM. Calling out the sin (required) is far different from condemning the sinner (not allowed). Are you sure you are not setting aside Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy in favor of defending or even participating in homosexual behavior or SSM?

          • RWH

            Well, if you looked at people as people rather than a collection of sexual body parts, you would have your answer. People can’t possibly look at others as God looks at them. I have no time for people whose minds are so depraved that they can’t think of others as anything more than what they do in bed.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “People can’t possibly look at others as God looks at them.”

            Then, how can you possibly make such a claim regarding others’ depravity?!? Again, you refute yourself. For depravity, you might look up “sexual immorality.” You seem to be a “Christian” who wants it both ways: to be able to sin at will and to also follow Jesus. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

          • RWH

            Well, in order to know that these people are depraved, you must reduce these people down to a collection of sexual body parts. What is your evidence that they are depraved? By the simple fact that you can pin a label on them? Did you ever bother to get to know them before you cavalierly pass judgment on them? Why not be happy that someone found someone he can be in love with? Why must you think in terms of the dirty and sordid? Isn’t companionship with a special person better than living a promiscuous life without love?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are the one who brought up sexual body parts, Sweetie. So, that is where your depraved mind goes.

          • brine

            So you seem to make the argument that ‘sexual orientation’ is what you feel and has nothing to do with ‘biological assignment’. God said male and female made He them…and that had to do with physical body parts…God pinned the label on people involved in unnatural sin…such as homosexuality. For you to imply otherwise is clear twisting of scripture. Companionship with a person in the wrong manner is wrong…promiscuous life is wrong…there isn’t a ‘this is better than the other so it is okay’ rule with regards to sin.

          • RWH

            Well Brine, when it comes to sexual orientation, there’s a lot of stuff that we don’t know. People are left-handed, and we have their testimony that they are left-handed. At one point, children were severely punished for writing with the wrong hand. Yet, we have found nothing in the DNA or anyplace else that pinpoints lefthandedness. Yet, we know that it exists. The same goes for sexual orientation. We do know the chromosones, and we do know that there are some that are born with the sexual organs of both male and female. They are called hermaphrodites. One of my friends owns such a dog. We also know that there are animals out there, especially among the worms, that are born intersexed, so to speak, so the strictly male/female binaries have their exceptions. The problem that you have is that you imply that the Bible is a book of science, which it is not. We have found seeds smaller than a mustard seed even though Christ claimed that it was the smallest seed. There are reasons for this, and one may possibly be that Christ gave up a lot of knowledge during his incarneation. He did not know when the Second Coming would be. Where we differ is that I like to look at people as real people, complex individuals full of wants, desires, fears, and all sorts of mixed emotions. I don’t look at labels and then hyperventilate, which is what a lot of people seem to do. I don’t shrink in horror when I am confronted with a gay person and then feel compelled to treat them like a leper. Some others feel that God would have them be rude. I am not one of them. If you have a problem with me because I don’t buy into your simplistic set of binaries, that is your problem, not mine. I am under no obligation to lock down my brain so I can think simplistically. The big problem for conservatives is that people are educating themselves, especially through the Internet, and they are learning to think for themselves, not as some religious leader would have them think. And it’s becoming a bitter pill for some of these to swallow. The conflict in Indiana is one such example.

          • brine

            Sexual deformities are a result of the curse from a sin plagued world. People may have tendencies to be drawn to one sin or another but that is not an excuse to fulfill those desires. As far as the mustard seed…When looking at what exactly is being said in the verse it is clear that the subject is the mustard tree, as an herb. Therefore, the mustard seed IS the smallest seed; “among the herbs”! Secondly, not everytime the word “all” appears in the Bible is it to be taken to mean “without exception”. An example of “all” not meaning “all” is when Paul says he was made “all things to all men” for the Gospel’s sake(1Cor9:22). Did Paul become a pagan worshipper to convert pagans? A harlot to convert harlots? Of course not, and likewise when Jesus says the mustard seed is “the least of ALL seeds” he doesn’t necessarily mean every single one without exception. He is simply contrasting that although it’s size is quite small, that little mustard seed can grow to be an enormous tree after a little water and light (there’s a sermon in there somewhere).

            The bible is more of a science book than you care to admit…because then it throws out man being wiser than God.

            And finally. We don’t attack homosexuals nor are we rude to them. We have had interactions with people caught up in all kinds of sin…we just don’t tell them they are fine and just keep doing what they’re doing…nor do we support them in their sin. Just like we don’t go buy people addicted to drugs more drugs as a sign of our loving them.

          • Angel Jabbins

            The florist you berate was good friend with that gay man. He did business with her for years. You make it sound like, once she found out he was gay, she couldn’t do any business with him. No, she did a lot of business with him…for many years. But when he wanted the cake for his gay wedding, she felt conflicted about it because she truly loved this man, but she also loved her Savior. She felt it would be dishonoring her Lord to take part in something the bible forbids and she took great pains to lovingly explain this to him. Her conscience told her to honor God above men. Now you may not agree with her in that, but it is her personal religious belief and she is entitled to that by our constitution.

            No one should deny any service to a gay person simply because they are gay. However, if the issue is providing a service for a gay marriage and the business owner feels she would be sinning against God to in doing that, she should not be forced to abandoned her religious convictions.

            I listened to a recording a few weeks ago of a man who repeatedly called bakeries in his area just to see what would happen if he wanted a cake for a pro-traditional marriage event. He said he wanted the cake to read, ‘Gay marriage is wrong’. He was refused by every bakery he called. Funny how, when the shoe is on the other foot, the rules change, huh?

            As to the woman who shared her story of being raised by two gay mothers, she did not ‘disrespect them’. She said she loved them and still had good relations with them. As to her dad, as I was explaining on another thread, we cannot judge him by what we read in that article. We don’t have all the details. My nephew’s wife divorced him for another man and made his life so miserable, made it very difficult for him to see his kids. She was vicious and turned them again him. He ended up having a nervous breakdown. He finally had to stop coming around because the stress and anguish had destroyed him. I am sure she told the kids he had just abandoned them.

            We don’t know all the details therefore we have no right to make conclusive judgments based on what her mother told her about the dad.

          • brine

            Repentance is scriptural not just a figment of Billy Sunday’s imagination. Repentance is between God and the person and is a heart matter. There should be fruits, per scripture and God says ” Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” If a person claims to be born again and receives no chastisement for sin they have proof they are not born again…per scripture. The new birth is clearly defined in the bible as an Act of God, not of man, not of the will of man, ceremony, natural birth, occupation, church attendance, denominational affiliation. Christ said you Go through Him, not Mary, Joseph Smith, a Pope, a denomination, or a religious ceremony. The bible is not silent on these matters. If I say my salvation is because I trust in putting a coconut on my head by scriptural truth I know that is wrong. God accepts One sacrifice…not many. God said there is One way. Not many. God has a narrow interpretation of the New Birth, not many…per Scripture. Just because man makes a claim doesn’t mean God did a work…again He provides proof and fruit. Can a Christian ‘get their feet dirty in the world?” Yes…but again, God has a cure for that…He chastens those that are truly His and tries to lead them back. And for those that are really His there is a sin unto death.

            And you can find in Scripture how proper judgment via the Word can and should be utilized in ‘proving’. You act like that doesn’t exist.

            And just because a person dies…and even if a person dies under a claimed banner…doesn’t make them a Christian in fact.

          • RWH

            Brine, It’s amazing. How much more direct can I get with you and still be civil? It not an issue about my faith. I know exactly where I stand. It’s a question about my supposed “obligation” to prove anything to you. Can’t you understand “none of your business” when you inquire personal information of someone over the Internet? If I am not about to give you my age, or my occupation, or my phone number, or my address, or anything else about me, why do you suppose that I am somehow obligated to tell you something very personal about myself? Have you noticed that I have not pressured you for personal information? Is this so hard for you to understand? I have been around plenty of types who feel that somehow it is their obligation to micromanage other people’s lives and to provide them with unsolicited information on how to raise their kids and other stuff that is absolutely none of their business. The big problem is how to get them to back off in a tactful manner when these people have no sense of tact whatsoever.

          • brine

            1. It is even more amazing that you would ‘defend’ your standing in academia to promote your opinion and then refuse to provide evidence for your claim on something more important to discussions at a Christian website. That’s not strange at all….
            2. Nobody asked for age, occupation, address, bank numbers etc. that would make you a ‘target’.
            3. Nobody is trying to micromanage anything. You have made a claim on a Christian website and seem to have no supporting evidence other than to argue against teaching of sin and conduct as clearly laid out in scripture.

          • Angel Jabbins

            John 14: 6 Jesus said, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, except by Me.’

            Matt 4:17 ‘From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”’

            Mark 1: 14-15: ‘Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

            Jesus did teach repentance.

            Romans 6:13: ‘Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.’

            Romans 12:1: ‘I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.’

            Galatians 2:20 ‘I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’

            1 Corninthians 6:20 ‘For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

            Matthew 22:37 ‘And he (Jesus) said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

            In these and many other verses, Jesus and the scriptures teach surrender.

            I would never question the salvation of a person who was willing to die rather than deny Christ. I will leave it to God to judge. If someone here mocked those people, they were wrong to do that. Only God knows what was in their hearts at the moment of death. That aside, to be a Christians, one MUST, at some point before dies, sincerely repent of his sins and trust in Christ completely, not any good works he has done or is doing for God. Christ alone.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re making a statement that refers to information about me you do not have in your possession. You are expecting me to comment directly on what you’ve said about, thereby discovering personal information that you can use in your trolling arguments.

            I’ve seen many of your kind. Your discussions only produce bad fruit.

          • Paul Hiett

            Cute, but the point stands. Religion is primarily a geographic and demographic result. Would you care to refute the point or just go ad hom again?

          • jmichael39

            Tell that to the millions of former muslims converting to Christ, even under threat of death. Tell that to the millions of Africans converting to Christ. Just because our country was founded upon the principles of Christianity and has made it EASIER to live as a Christian here does not make it an issue of demographics. This is especially true in like the history of Christianity having had it roots in a Jewish demographics. You’re contention is logically fallacious n every level. Try something new, Paul. You’re sounding like a broken record…and an illogical one at that.

          • jmichael39

            That is the lamest red herring I’ve ever heard. I guess by your insane attempt at logic, you can blame you stupidity on where you were born.

      • Danny Watts

        Christians are allowed to judge other Christians only. We just can’t condemn anyone. It’s rare you see a Christian lesbian or gay man.

      • bowie1

        But aren’t you judging them?

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Homosexuals are continuing to show their true intent to dominate and force people to accept their sexually perverted desires.”

      Please. Spare me the hyperbole. No one can be “forced” to accept anything they do not care to. People are free to accept or not accept whatever they want. Unlike what some Christians want to do, which is force their views on marriage on all citizens and when they can’t, they throw a collective tantrum.

      • FoJC_Forever

        There is no exaggeration in what I wrote. And, yes, people are trying to force others to accept homosexuality and perverted marriage. If they don’t, they will be punished.

        God defined marriage. God hasn’t changed. Even nature, which God created, testifies that marriage is between man and woman. Without lifelong, monogamous relationships between man and woman, societies fall into ruin and they do not procreate (reproduce themselves) in a healthy manner.

        • Paul Hiett

          So…God defined marriage after marriage was already in existence.

          Yeah, that makes sense.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Please explain to me how someone can be “forced” to accept something they don’t want to accept.

          God did not define civil marriage. Man defined civil marriage.

          Allowing same-gender civil marriage in no way inhibits the ability of males and females to enter into lifelong, monogamous relationships and procreate.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sometimes I wonder if they think “marriage” didn’t exist until Christianity came about.

          • RWH

            Paul, I really wonder if they realize how much the entire institution of marriage has changed? I remember listening to the Story of Jacob. He got stuck with wife number one, but he went ahead and married wife number two. The Sunday School teacher never got into any of this except that the man had two women hanging around. Nobody ever talked about that aspect, and we just went along with it as we colored in the pictures with our Crayolas. Marriage based on love didn’t come around until the Renaissance. Before that, it was all about property and ownership. It has been only in the past sixty years or so that we have done past the idea that the husband owns the wife and there was no such thing as marital rape.

          • Paul Hiett

            Old Testament allows polygamy, actually, and ironically enough, monogamy in marriage was a Roman ideology, not Christian. And you’re absolutely right, marriage was never about love for much of our history, it was about furthering blood lines, making alliances, increasing wealth, etc.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The Creator defined marriage when He created man, then created woman from a part of the man He created. He brought the woman to the man and defined marriage. This divine institution has been reaffirmed for thousands of years as the one which propagates an ongoing, healthy society, while homosexuality, as well those who accept and practice it, have been proven to be destructive, unfair, and predatory.

            It’s not about “allowing” homosexual ‘marriage’. What the homosexual agenda is promoting equates to forced acceptance and participation by those who know it to be Sin. Just as they have twisted Scripture to convince some (or many) that God created homosexuality, they also want people to believe the Lie that those of the same gender can be married.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly free to hold to whatever beliefs you care to regarding God and marriage. Your beliefs, however, are not the basis for our civil laws. Civil marriage was created by man and is subject to the laws of man. It is not determined based upon Biblical teaching.

            “homosexuality, as well those who accept and practice it, have been proven to be destructive, unfair, and predatory.”

            Examples?

            “What the homosexual agenda is promoting equates to forced acceptance and participation by those who know it to be Sin.”

            No one can be “forced” to accept anything they do not care to, nor can they be “forced” to participate in anything they do not care to. Suggesting otherwise is simply a lie.

            “they also want people to believe the Lie that those of the same gender can be married.”

            It is not a lie. It is a reality in 37 states, soon to be all 50.

    • April J

      I think Christians are just as guilty of throwing tantrums…

      • jmichael39

        Oh not THAT make logical sense. That’s a GOOD reason to affirm the idiocy of the lies that are being spewed about this law.
        Nineteen states have the same law. The Federal Government has the same law. It was introduced by very liberal Chuck Schumer and signed by Bill Clinton. Even Illinois voted on a similar law when Obama was a state senator and he voted on it.

        So tell me, what the HELL is all the fuss?

  • The Last Trump

    “Indiana’s new law contains no reference to sexual orientation. It simply mirrors federal law that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.”
    So why all the fuss, haters? You religious bigots just can’t stand the idea of protected religious rights. Foaming at the mouth over it! Attractive. Your discrimination is shameful.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “It simply mirrors federal law that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.”

      But that is not true. It goes far beyond the federal law.

      The Indiana law is broader than most, extending the notion to companies, societies or loose groups of people who all believe the same thing. But the big difference in wording is the Indiana law also says this person or society or group can refuse to do something even if the government isn’t involved.

      What the previous laws are supposed to mean is that if the government is forcing citizens into behaviors that go against their faith, those people may challenge that burden in court and let the courts decide if the state’s actions are fair or not. What the Indiana law allows, instead, is for anyone who claims religious faith (whether or not this faith is even a tenet of their religion) to refuse to provide whatever services they wish to anyone they disapprove of, and then trust that, if it ever goes to court, their state’s uniquely broad bill will protect them. But that’s the long-range view.

      The short view — the immediate application — is that, without proving any burden or hardship or even demonstrable faith, people now get to turn away people they don’t want to serve. They get to have their “no straight, no god, no service” moment and crow (or perhaps I should say, Jim Crow) about how the law is on their side.

      So, no, the Indiana action does not “mirror” the federal law that Clinton signed in 1993.

      • The Last Trump

        Always find it interesting when I address a post to haters and bigots to see just who responds. You know, those people who support breaking the law and oppressing religious freedom.

        Always a pleasure “thoughtsfromflorida”. Nice to see you still representing the group. Where’s the rest of the “gang”? The hypocrites who cry “live and let live” and then troll Christian websites daily to attack our beliefs!
        Oh, nevermind. I see them.
        Just like clockwork.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          What laws do you believe I support breaking and what is your basis for that belief?

          What religious freedoms to you believe I want to oppress and what is your basis for that belief?

          I don’t represent any group. I share my thoughts.

          • The Last Trump

            Sorry? I don’t remember speaking to you AT ALL, never mind accusing you of anything.
            You looked me up.
            Remember?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            LOL

            You replied to my post above. In your reply, you stated that I represent a group that supports “breaking the law and oppressing religious freedom.” Therefore, I asked the questions:

            What laws do you believe I support breaking and what is your basis for that belief?

            What religious freedoms to you believe I want to oppress and what is your basis for that belief?

            If you are going to make accusations, you should at least be able to provide your basis. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than bearing false witness.

          • Paul Hiett

            Gotta love the ad hom’s around here…

          • Nhdriver

            Fear not Paul. If you notice just like the Guvnor, They have to tap dance on the head of a pin to justify their opinion.

          • The Last Trump

            Little ‘ole me? Make accusations? 😉

            I’m sorry, I’m still confused. Why did you respond to a post addressed to haters and bigots? To those who oppress religious freedom and tolerance? Never mind. Everyone here knows why.

            And to be clear, “The hypocrites who cry “live and let live” and then troll Christian websites daily to attack our beliefs” was the gang I associated you with. Tell me I’m wrong? You’re a Christian convert, here fighting for religious tolerance, right? Riiight.

            And “provide your basis”?! Your own posts on this very website speaks volumes. Folks can very well judge for themselves.
            Well, enough word games and twenty questions for one evening. Back to your agenda. Thanks for taking the bait, though!

            Really, you guys make it TOO easy. Post a comment for haters and bigots and you guys are knocking each other over trying to be the first to comment! Too funny! 🙂

            (Oh, hey Paul! Knew it wouldn’t be long until you showed up. How goes your crusade? Any new converts to selfishness, misery, debauchery, hopelessness and despair?)

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I’m sorry, I’m still confused.”

            Well that much we agree on.

            “Why did you respond to a post addressed to haters and bigots?”

            I responded to the part of your post providing a quote that the Indiana law mirrors the federal law passed in 1993.

            “And to be clear, “The hypocrites who cry “live and let live” and then troll Christian websites daily to attack our beliefs” was the gang I associated you with.”

            From your post:

            “You know, those people who support breaking the law and oppressing religious freedom.

            Always a pleasure “thoughtsfromflorida”. Nice to see you still representing the group.”

            You clearly associated me with a group that supports breaking the law and oppressing religious freedom. So I’ll ask again:

            What laws do you believe I support breaking and what is your basis for that belief?

            What religious freedoms to you believe I want to oppress and what is your basis for that belief?

            “Your own posts on this very website speaks volumes. Folks can very well judge for themselves.”

            So you can’t point to any laws that I support breaking or to any way I want to oppress religious freedom. Your statements were lies. Tell me, how do you reconcile lying with your supposed religious beliefs?

          • The Last Trump

            Ouch! Struck a nerve?

            Don’t be too angry for being so utterly foolish in taking the bait so easily and so quickly. Happens a lot to your “kind”. It was expected, and you didn’t disappoint. Nobody here is surprised.

            But the childish antics are pretty immature and embarrassing.
            They just make you look petty. You embarrassed yourself by responding to a post addressed to haters and bigots. Don’t make it worse with continual posts about YOU ?? (somebody thinks they’re a rock star!). Thanks for the REPEATED attempts to talk endlessly about you, but, I’m sorry, I’m just not that into you.

            And that tired tactic of, “IF you DON’T answer all of my questions and personally quote from all of my posts, THEN….your statements were lies!” Hee, hee! Too cute!
            No one needs to prove what everybody already knows, silly! Called common knowledge. And anyone who cares to look can go over all of our posts on social media. Again, you responding to my original post, not surprising to anyone here. And avoiding the question “Tell me I’m wrong? You’re a Christian convert, here fighting for religious tolerance, right?”, also not surprising.

            So please. Stop trying to act surprised. It isn’t working.
            But if it makes you feel better to call me a liar, oh responder to posts addressed to haters and bigots, then so be it. I would expect nothing less from such.

            Can I go now? Sheesh! You’re like that girlfriend that you just can’t break up with. Been stalking me since my original post. Listen, if having the last word is what you’re all about, knock yourself out. I’ve said my peace.

            Time to see other people. 😉

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            ” Struck a nerve?”

            Not in the least.

            What “bait” is it you think I took?

            “But the childish antics are pretty immature and embarrassing.”

            What “childish antics” are you referring to?

            “But if it makes you feel better to call me a liar”

            It doesn’t make me feel better. I think it’s unfortunate that people have to lie to make a point.

            If you can’t back up your statements, you can’t. In absence of proof, they become lies. I know how much you enjoy making statements and then trying to figure out ways to get around proving them – it is a common tactic among those who lack substance. Nearly as popular as using the excuse that it is the other person’s fault that you aren’t willing to explain what you said. Such a cowardly way of interacting – but that it all some people have.

        • SFBruce

          If you think thoughtsfromflorida has it wrong, why don’t you try refuting what he wrote? The invective and name calling you resort to instead won’t change any minds and makes you appear to be the hateful one. I see nothing in his remarks that could even remotely be characterized as an “attack” on anyone’s beliefs.

          • The Last Trump

            I didn’t call anyone names, thanks. I addressed a post to haters and bigots. Hypocrites who discriminate against religious tolerance.
            Thanks for responding “SFBruce”.
            Something told me you might.

      • jmichael39

        Okay, rather that point blank calling you a liar, I will request that you provide the language of the Indiana law that supposedly does what you’re claiming. Prove it.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          It no longer does. It was modified and that portion is no longer relevant.

          • jmichael39

            The question still stands. SHOW US WHERE IN THE BILL it EVER called for the things you accused it of doing. It should be easy now, if the parts recently changed are the ones that will support your accusations. SHOW US. or be considered a lying fool.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Sec. 7. (a) A person whose exercise of religion:33(1) has been substantially burdened; or34(2) is likely to be substantially burdened;35by a violation of section 6 of this chapter may assert the violation,36or impending violation, as a claim or defense in a judicial37proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political38subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

          • jmichael39

            So you find it hateful that a person would be allowed to obtain due process over an issue where they are asked to do something they believe substantially burdens their free exercise of faith? You think its a BAD thing that Americans are afforded an opportunity to freely adjudicate what they believe is a violation of their freedom of religion? I don’t see how any of that supports your earlier accusations…but thank you for substantially proving all of our points that this is not about discriminating against gays, but being allowed to discriminate against people of faith without fear of them having any judicial remedy. Thanks.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You think its a BAD thing that Americans are afforded an opportunity to freely adjudicate what they believe is a violation of their freedom of religion?”

            Quite the opposite. I fully support the right of citizens to seek redress through the courts.

            The federal act states that the government is not allowed to create a law which substantially burdens the free exercise of religion by an individual unless the government can show that doing so is the only way to further a compelling interest.

            The Indiana law, as originally written, did not limit that to individuals. Rather, it extended that to businesses, LLCs, Corporations, etc. Further, there was no requirement that a law be involved. Rather, a person was simply allowed to discriminate citing nothing more than their own statement that doing so was a belief they held.

          • jmichael39

            You’re truly ignorant. The federal applies ONLY to federal laws and federal agencies. You’re ASSUMING that all elements of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the States as a result of the 14th Amendment….they have not…not yet anyway. The stupidity of the federal courts haven’t gotten that bad yet.

            THEREFORE, the states HAVE to pass their own similar laws for the same to apply. At least until the left has convinced the courts to ignore the intent of the 14th amendment and incorporate the rest of the Amendment to the states.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, I am aware that the federal law does not apply to state laws. That was a SCOTUS ruling.

          • jmichael39

            so once again, you fail to make your point as to why those provisions that you side of this argument were so intent on getting rid of needed to be removed. They did NOTHING that you say they did. They merely offered judicial remedy for people of faith. I guess that’s asking too much…you know, equality.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It’s unfortunate that you don’t have a better understanding of the law.

          • jmichael39

            You’re so FOS it must actually suck to be you. There was NOTHING in the original Indiana RFRA that would have summarily given ANYONE the right to discriminate and simply use religion as their reason. ALL it did was afford them the judicial due process rights of having their reasons for not wanting to abide by some provision of a particular law for religious purposes heard by a judge. Its exactly what the Hobby Lobby case was about. They felt that a provision of ACA would force them to violate their religious conscience. And the Court held that so long as the employees of HL could still access those birth controls options outside of HL and they do so in a way that was not burdensome either to them or to society as a whole, then HL didn’t have to violate their religious conscience.

            Same thing here. If the state of Indiana were to pass another law that a business owner felt unduly burdened their religious conscience, they could find due process in the courts to become exempted from the law or the portions of it that burdened their religious conscience…BEFORE the law took effect. Otherwise, they would have to wait till the law took effect and they were confronted with a direct situation where they had to either violate the law or their conscience. This law would have given them the standing to be able to argue its burden BEFORE it became a burden.

            But that’s not good enough for the radical left who want their opportunity to force Christian business owners to either kowtow to their gay agenda or face fines, suits and the stain of the Scarlet H pinned to their chests. Without the Indiana law those gay activists lose the edge. With the law, the business owner could take the lead by bringing a case to the courts BEFORE the gay activists could play their little game of “let’s see if we can ruin another good business owner’s life”. They could show just cause to be exempted from certain provisions of any law that they feel unduly burdens their religious liberty. Does that mean they automatically win these cases? NO! The law doesn’t give them that. They still have to PROVE an undue burden to the court.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Again, your understanding of the law leaves much to be desired.

            ” due process rights of having their reasons for not wanting to abide by some provision of a particular law for religious purposes heard by a judge.”

            Laws are put into place by governmental bodies. As such, if a law was challenged, the appropriate government body would be involved. Please note: “regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.”

            So, no, no law had to exist. The Indiana law, as originally submitted, allowed for discrimination and allowed for a rationale of religious belief to exempt a business from claims of discrimination.

          • jmichael39

            Where the hell did you learn the law? You’re not even remotely understanding WHAT the RFRA laws were about. There is no Federal jurisdiction relevant to any state or local ordinance unless the federal government has established regulatory jurisdiction. The 31 states (which is a correction I have to make from earlier) who have RFRA laws on the books do so BECAUSE the federal government doesn’t have regulatory authority over every area of our lives…despite the fact that people like you either seem think they do or should.

            THUS, they create their own RFRA laws to guarantee religious liberty is allowed as a grounds for standing in appealing for an exemption from the application of certain state and local laws.

            Just because the federal government passed their own RFRA law does NOT equate to them suddenly taking over regulatory jurisdiction over all cases involving religious liberty exemptions to any law whether state/local or federal.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, I’m aware of all that.

            “for an exemption from the application of certain state and local laws.”

            In the original Indiana law, no existing state and local laws had to be in place in order for a person to discriminate and invoke the RFRA.

          • jmichael39

            That’s ridiculous and completely untrue. The Indiana gave no power to anyone to arbitrarily disobey any law. Like all the other 30 states and feds, the Indiana merely gave individuals, business owners and other organizations the liberty to petition for an exemption to certain laws or provisions in certain laws based upon religious conscience. No government would EVER authorize that anyone could simply not obey a law and simply claim religious liberty after the fact.
            And I dare you to prove otherwise with regards to the original Indiana RFRA.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            I’m sorry if you don’t understanding the passage of the original bill. The Indiana bill went further than the Federal RFRA as well as other state RFRAs. If what you say is true, then why did they change the wording?

          • jmichael39

            And yet, not one person making that claim has shown ANY of us how it ‘went further’ and opened the door to allow anyone to arbitrarily exempt themselves or their businesses from any law without a hearing first.

    • MisterPine
  • Deina

    NASCAR has joined the growing list of companies & organizations critical of this discriminatory law.
    http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/news/indiana-religious-freedom-law/

    Some (far from all!) of the others are:

    Starbucks: (SBUX) The coffee chain was the latest big name brand to publicly condemn the law on Monday.

    Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy: Malloy took the unusual step Monday of signing an executive order forbidding state-funded travel to Indiana, saying his administration is “sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated.”

    Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook: In an op-ed published Sunday, Cook said such laws are “very dangerous” and contrary to America’s founding principles.

    Angie’s List (ANGI) CEO Bill Oesterle: The proposed campus expansion project in Indianapolis is “on hold” following the bill’s passage.

    PayPal co-founder Max Levchin: Opposing the law is “a basic human decency issue,” Levchin told CNN.

    Yelp (YELP) CEO Jeremy Stoppelman: Yelp will “make every effort” to expand its corporate operations in states that do not have such laws on the books. “These laws set a terrible precedent that will likely harm the broader economic health of the states where they have been adopted.”

    Salesforce (CRM, Tech30) CEO Marc Benioff: The law is an “outrage,” he said, and that his company will “dramatically reduce” its investments in Indiana.

    Eli Lilly (LLY): “We certainly understand the implications this legislation has on our ability to attract and retain employees. Simply put, we believe discriminatory legislation is bad for Indiana and for business.”
    Eli Lilly employs more than 11,700 workers in Indiana, mostly in Indianapolis.

    NBA, WNBA, Indiana Pacers and Indiana Fever: “The game of basketball is grounded in long established principles of inclusion and mutual respect. We will continue to ensure that all fans, players and employees feel welcome at all NBA and WNBA events in Indiana and elsewhere.”

    NCAA: “We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees.”

    Gen Con: The people that run the video game convention said the law would “factor into our decision making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years.” Gen Con brought 56,000 people to the state last year, according to CEO Adrian Swartout.

  • Lize Bartsch

    By definition Christians are for Creator and creation : designed with purpose in mind, which excludes using anything contrary to the purpose intended. You cannot bake your cake in your washing machine or wash your clothes in your oven.

    • Danny Watts

      Ahmen!

  • Phipps Mike

    looks like Arkansas is going to make the same mistake. Oh well, they will reap what they sow.

  • Chesz Heaven-

    People are sooo assuming..he didn’t even mention homosexuality and yet many people are complaining.. Why? Because of your pride? I get it, you maybe homosexuals but hey, it was a general rule. Just because your so called pride was being trod, you felt like your rights were violated.. Says who? Says yourself.. You see people ,it’s like a sermon, you felt like you were being trod because you felt like you were the person being accused meaning you’re guilty and that doesn’t have anything to do with the preacher..your gay pride is driving you nuts..

  • Phipps Mike

    good news: “INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said Tuesday that he wants legislation on his desk by the end of the week to clarify that the state’s new religious-freedom law does not allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

    Pence defended the measure as a vehicle to protect religious liberty but said he has been meeting with lawmakers “around the clock” to address concerns that it would allow businesses to deny services to gay customers.” http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/03/indiana-governor-says-he-wants-changes-to-religious-freedom-law/

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Pence was either woefully misinformed about the content of the law, or he is simply being disingenuous in his comments. First, the law was put forth by people who adamantly oppose same-gender marriage. Second, the law was signed by Pence in a private ceremony where he was surrounded by legislators who have expressed strongly expressed their opposition to same-gender marriage. Third, the law is not like the law put into place in 1993. To suggest that the law is “not about homosexuality” is simply without merit.

    The Indiana law is broader than most, extending the notion to companies, societies or loose groups of people who all believe the same thing. But the big difference in wording is the Indiana law also says this person or society or group can refuse to do something even if the government isn’t involved.

    What the previous laws are supposed to mean is that if the government is forcing citizens into behaviors that go against their faith, those people may challenge that burden in court and let the courts decide if the state’s actions are fair or not. What the Indiana law allows, instead, is for anyone who claims religious faith (whether or not this faith is even a tenet of their religion) to refuse to provide whatever services they wish to anyone they disapprove of, and then trust that, if it ever goes to court, their state’s uniquely broad bill will protect them. But that’s the long-range view.

    The short view — the immediate application — is that, without proving any burden or hardship or even demonstrable faith, people now get to turn away people they don’t want to serve. They get to have their “no straight, no god, no service” moment and crow (or perhaps I should say, Jim Crow) about how the law is on their side.

    So, no, the Indiana action does not “mirror” the federal law that Clinton signed in 1993.

    • Paul Hiett

      Pence knew exactly what the law was put in place for. The people standing behind him during the “signing” are more than proof of that. Pence has committed political suicide.

      I’m surprised they were so stupid as to think the rest of the country wouldn’t know exactly what they tried to get away with. The citizens should feel embarrassed by their governor; they’re the laughing stock of the US right now.

  • Paul Hiett

    Let’s see…”Pence has therefore been making the rounds on various media outlets to clarify that the bill does not pertain to homosexuality.”

    No? Really? Hmmmmm…

    http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service

    That didn’t take long did it?

  • MisterPine

    Here’s a brand new news story coming out of Indiana from someone who is in no way misconstruing the new law:

    http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-discrimination-begins-indiana-pizzeria-first-to-say-no-gays-allowed/

  • HmmLetMeThink

    If homosexuals are so for “equality”, then they should generally support the bill rather than fight it. The idea is that christian business owners, like photographers, shouldn’t be forced to “accept” homosexuality. Artisans aren’t retail, and homosexuals are still self identified.

  • FoJC_Forever

    It’s not just legal marriage (civil marriage) homosexuals want to redefine. Despite the misleading information from unbelievers homosexuals, and those who accept homosexuality as a viable “lifestyle”, are trying to force Christians to accept this wretched sin. People mistake the facade of kindness as goodness. There is a wickedness underneath the act. This wickedness is driving those who do not know Jesus, even if they claim His name, to accept the next stage in preparing the world for acceptance of the Antichrist.

    • weasel1886

      Isn’t greed a wretched sin? When are Christians going to fight against that also?

      • FoJC_Forever

        We do, and are punished for it. There are those who will try to make a Christian be greedy, but refuse, then they are often overlooked in employment situations because they won’t seek profit above all else.

        • weasel1886

          Who tries to make a Christian greedy?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Satan uses people to tempt Christians to be greedy, to be a homosexual, to commit adultery, to murder people, to play mind games with people, to mock people, to cheat on their taxes, to lie, to reject Jesus Christ, etc…

            Satan can use people, because people have the carnal nature and are, for the most part, easily used to do his will.

          • weasel1886

            I would say those people are 100% responsible. Satan only had the power we give him.
            I’m not a very strong Christian but I’ve never done any of those things if i did it would be totally my doing.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You are wrong about Satan’s power and ability. You are right about your sin being your responsibility.

          • weasel1886

            Satan has no power except what people give him in their own reality

  • BarkingDawg

    The problem is that it is a fundamentally flawed law. Even the subsequent fix ignored those flaws.

    This law is nothing like the federal law. It substantially broadens the impact if the law while being extremely vague at the same time.

    Unintended consequences will make the state regret this law.