Thank you. Which is precisely why people passing this law off as a religious "freedom" is a total sham. It's bigotry masked as religion. Its absurd that a person can stand up and say, "I refuse to serve you in my place of business because religion", when nowhere within their religion does it suggest a person should do anything of the sort. In Fact, quite the opposite.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Speaks Out Against Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The law is rather ambiguous, in my opinion. As such, I believe it is ineffective on its face. If the law is challenged, I believe it will be struck down at the state level, because it is too broad.
Like political philosophies religions have numerous prohibitions and prejudices. It is not wrong at all for people to believe what they believe. In fact it is being honest.
Baking a wedding cake is in a small way participating in a wedding. If the wedding is one that the baker believes is wrong to participate in then the correct decision is to say no.
The fascists on the left cannot stand it when people make their own decisions but that in no way should interfere with a person taking an honest stand on an issue.
I fail to see why race and sexual orientation are the same thing. Race has no bearing on moral behavior in and of itself. Sexual orientation, however, does.
You seem to be assuming that if someone is born with an inclination to behave in a certain way then such behavior should be protected. Why would you do that? That would seem to necessitate that you protect the right of a pedophile to molest children since they too are born with their inclination (please note that I am not equating homosexuals to pedophiles. I am merely taking your assumptions to their logical conclusion).
But let us say you want to protect a class of people because of an inclination to some particular behavior. Why would you exclude religious people from protection? The vast majority of humans throughout history have been religious. That would imply that "being religious" is in the same category as race (or sexual preference) under your argument.
Last edited:
One can disagree with another person's actions while not hating the person of the action.
Bigotry, in and of itself is not unequivocally a bad thing. All of us are bigoted in one way or another. It depends on the reasoning of the bigotry, in my opinion. I am bigoted against flat soda, liver and onions, the use of LOL, OMG, and other internet slang, along with a myriad of other subjects of daily use or interaction.
As a devote Christian it angers me to no end when people use my religion for political reasons. Now I know how Muslims must feel when murders use their religion for their own causes.
"Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion"
So presumably if I was a Muslim and I wanted to exercise a certain passage from the Qur'an, such as...
"5:38 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
...This bill would allow me to do so.
So presumably if I was a Muslim and I wanted to exercise a certain passage from the Qur'an, such as...
"5:38 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
...This bill would allow me to do so.
Respectfully, but can you please clarify your point? Are you saying that Christians should love God by defending the sanctity of sexuality amongst their neighbors by reserving the right to not participate in the celebration of what is wrong? Jesus, after all, told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more.
Also, there is something of fairness missing in the way I suspect you are applying this passage. Why is it that Christians must be effectively forced to participate in things against their consciences (or else lose their livelihoods)? That sounds most unloving to me. Furthermore, I Cor 8:9 has something to say about not causing a brother with a weak conscience to stumble.
But if you are looking for a verse to support the position that a Christian is not commanded to refuse to do business with immoral person, I think you will find I Cor 5:9ff more useful.
Last edited:
A wedding cake is not part of a marriage or a wedding ceremony. You are not "participating in" a wedding by baking a wedding cake. The notion that material things like pictures, cakes, meals, hotel rooms, etc. are somehow "participating" in a wedding just goes to show how materialistic we have become.
I don't know what religion prevents people from allowing homosexual customers into their stores just because they're homosexual. Maybe if they're doing something that the owner doesn't like that relates in some way to homosexuality (or not, either way), the owner should be allowed to refuse service. But the way they want to use this law is more than a stretch and doesn't seem to relate to religious freedom.
Last edited:
I am of the religious conservative. And I think this law is abosolutely ridiculous. It goes against everything Jesus Christ stood for. You cannot use man's laws to create holiness.
"Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion"
So presumably if I was a Muslim and I wanted to exercise a certain passage from the Qur'an, such as...
"5:38 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."
...This bill would allow me to do so.
Haha. Yeah, there is definitely a conflict between that and U.S. law. You can't really have such a law extending to its limits in a secular nation. I don't have anything against religious nations, but the U.S. is simply not one of them.
I'm reminded of the shareholder meeting where Tim Cook said "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI...If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
Tim Cook knew he would make some people angry, but he also knew those were the people for whom he wouldn't compromise his beliefs, just to keep their business, for moral reasons.
So, some people say business owners have the right to refuse to do business with those who they disagree with, on moral grounds. Fine, but now is the time for other business owners to stop doing things only for profit, and make clear their beliefs, advertise that they're happy to do business with all people, no matter their race, religion or orientation.
Tim Cook knew he would make some people angry, but he also knew those were the people for whom he wouldn't compromise his beliefs, just to keep their business, for moral reasons.
So, some people say business owners have the right to refuse to do business with those who they disagree with, on moral grounds. Fine, but now is the time for other business owners to stop doing things only for profit, and make clear their beliefs, advertise that they're happy to do business with all people, no matter their race, religion or orientation.
FYI, that's a symbol commonly used by Buddhists and Hindus. If you look at an eastern Asian country on Google Maps, you'll see those symbols all over the place. I think you're confusing it with the Nazi one that's rotated 45˚.
Definition of Bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Sounds like what the homosexual community is doing to anyone who tries to restrict homosexual behavior or even says that it is wrong (because if enough people believe it is wrong then they will try to stop people from engaging in that behavior).
But of course, it will be fine to restrict anyone who tries to exercise their religious beliefs because they weren't born with them (i.e. go pick another religion that either ignores or agrees with what I do).
This will not end well for the Christians I fear.
----------
Agreed. And you are right. The application of the 1st Amen will be interesting when the jihad arrives in earnest in the States. It won't be long before we start having the same problems as France and such.
I believe in Hinduism, one goal under Purushartha, is Artha. To cut a long story short, you've got to make money to live a good life. Profit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artha
There IS a passage in the Bible (The Parable of the Ten Minas) about turning a profit, but I'm not sure whether it's to be taken literally or figuratively.
I watched Russell Brand's stand up 'Messiah Complex' the other day and he put it brilliantly. If God had such an issue with homosexuality, wouldn't it be one of the ten commandments? He's more concerned about you robbing your neighbours oxen than he is with a man having sexual intercourse with another man.
That's a little different. It would be like someone whose religion bans cakes working in a bakery. But it's an interesting thought. In the spirit of the law, should the business have the right to not hire the person because of their religion?
There are many kinds of freedom that we can reasonably expect to be protected by the government, but "freedom to discriminate" is not one of them.
"I refuse to serve gays because I'm a Christian."
...is no more acceptable than...
"I refuse to serve blacks because I'm a member of the KKK."
While religious people are generally allowed to get away with a lot of very poor behaviour, there is a limit, and it is reached when this behaviour starts to adversely affect the lives of other people.
This quote sums this whole thing up pretty well.
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins."
"I refuse to serve gays because I'm a Christian."
...is no more acceptable than...
"I refuse to serve blacks because I'm a member of the KKK."
While religious people are generally allowed to get away with a lot of very poor behaviour, there is a limit, and it is reached when this behaviour starts to adversely affect the lives of other people.
This quote sums this whole thing up pretty well.
"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins."
Last edited: