THIS is what taking the Lord’s name in vain looks like.

For some people, hearing others mutter ‘goddammit’ in frustration is an unpardonable sin. They believe this is a violation of the commandment against taking the Lord’s name in vain. And maybe it is; after all, I’m hardly a biblical scholar.

But then I come across a video like this of televangelists talking about their desperate need for private planes:

I try to imagine what a loving God would care most about: a spontaneous utterance out of anger or the deliberate use of the Lord’s name to fleece honest people out of their hard-earned money? I know which one I find more offensive.

I could spend all day picking apart this video and highlighting how offensive every single word is, but frankly I’m not willing to listen to this much slimy deceit again. This is stomach-churning stuff, but it’s important to know these people are out there and how they operate.

The intent of our actions matters. Someone might curse and it might make some immediately uncomfortable, even though there was absolutely no religious thought or intent behind those words. Then again, some might recite biblical language in a spiritual context and harm us more than any curse words ever could.

Feel free to curse around me all day and night, but leave me out of the biblical appeals for private jets and mansions.

“We don’t discriminate but we don’t serve gay people.” Huh?

I keep hearing this from people in the media, most notably small business owners such as the owner of Memories Pizza:

“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” says O’Connor.

We heard the same line from 111 Cakery last year:

“[The owner] said, ‘We don’t do that [cake for commitment ceremony]. If I can help you with anything else, but we don’t discriminate.’

This is a little strange, right? They freely admit they’re unwilling to serve these couples, yet at the same time they are adamant that they do not discriminate. How can this be?

It’s so frustrating because it feels like they’re deliberately denying a rather obvious truth, that denying service based on sexual orientation is pretty much the very definition of discrimination.

What’s more infuriating is that Mike Pence in particular takes the same approach. After much thought, shame on Mike Pence and the state legislators who voted for this. It’s their job to know better and to protect ALL Hoosiers.

I’m not sure I feel the same about the small business owners who have been caught off guard by this discussion. It’s not their job to think deeply about these issues and how they impact all people. I think it’s clear from the additional context of their comments that they really don’t see this as discrimination.

Memories Pizza, for example, made it clear that they would serve anyone in their restaurant, regardless of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other reason. Their objection is to catering a same-gender wedding, which they have never been asked to do before and don’t anticipate being asked to do so anytime in the future.

The owners of 111 Cakery expressed similar sentiments. They were happy to provide other services, just not for a same-gender ceremony.

I think in each of these circumstances, the owners do not see themselves as being discriminatory. They feel uncomfortable being at a religious ceremony for a practice they don’t endorse. I’m not sure why they feel providing food for an event they don’t agree with is so traumatic for them, but they’re entitled to their emotions.

There’s another component to this that I’ve discovered recently: Knowledge of basic civics lessons is badly overestimated in our society. I’ve had numerous people, many of whom lived through the civil rights movement, tell me recently that LGBT people should not be given special privileges.

They continue on to say “If I own a restaurant and I don’t want to serve an African-American or a Muslim or anyone else, I don’t have to. I can refuse service to anyone for any reason I want, so why should I be forced to serve gay people if I don’t want to?”

This ignorance about basic civil rights informs their view more than their desire to engage in discrimination. Many freely admit that they wouldn’t discriminate personally but that they feel people should have the right to do so. They don’t realize that private business owners do not have this ‘right’ already. A restaurant putting up a sign saying they can refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason doesn’t mean it’s actually legal to do so.

Unfortunately, these views are reinforced by politicians like Mike Pence, who deliberately obfuscate the issues and use the uninformed pubic to build a case that bears little resemblance to reality. This is one more reason why it’s so critical to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. It’s also a terrific opportunity to remind people of the protections in place for Hoosiers and all Americans.

LGBT Supporters: Dial it down a bit, alright?

The RFRA debate in Indiana continues to spiral out of control. To this point, most of the anger and outrage has been (appropriately, I think) directed at our state legislators who are causing incredible harm to our state.

One business made the unfortunate decision to fill the void of pro-RFRA business supporters and enter the fray:

The O’Connor family [Memories Pizza, Walkerton, IN] told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza.

I think that first part is important to acknowledge. Anyone can eat in their restaurant on a daily basis with no problem. However, they do have a problem with serving at weddings. Well no gay couple that I know would ever have a pizzeria cater their wedding, so this isn’t going to be an issue for them. Why the O’Connor family wanted this attention, I’ll never know but they have it now.

Their Yelp page has been overrun by negative reviews the vast majority from people who have never been to their restaurant, admittedly spurred on by uninformed comments about homosexuality being a choice. Is their view on LGBT rights ideal? No, but neither is it indefensible. This is the kind of situation communities sorted out for themselves before the state legislature decided to stupidly, stupidly draw a line in the sand for no good reason.

I’m not going to bother posting or repeating any of the reviews; if you want to read them, go to the page yourself. I will say that many of them are hateful and explicit in nature. I have no doubt that many of these reviewers are not even from Indiana, however the reviews are from LGBT supporters.

Friends, this is not a good look. One thing that’s been in our favor during this RFRA debate is the fact that we have the moral high ground. No one should be on the side of discrimination, ever. That being said, that high ground drops a bit lower when you behave with more hateful rhetoric than the side attempting to discriminate against you.

I understand the anger and resentment toward our state legislators. I also understand that there has been no outlet to channel resentment toward businesses that seek to discriminate. However, destroying everyone with a different opinion is not how this is going to work. We desperately want everyone to act with love and compassion towards those who are different from ourselves. That also goes for supporters of LGBT rights.

Choose to spend your dollars somewhere else. Make people aware of businesses that are discriminatory. But do it in a way that you can be proud of, that doesn’t give in to destructive, hateful impulses. Not everyone has had the same experiences or is able to reconcile their childhood teaching with the still-recent change in cultural expectations.

As we seek to promote equality for all people, I think it’s important to do so in a way that maintains one’s own personal dignity. I recognize that many LGBT supporters have had truly horrific experiences and feel compelled to lash out and punish those who want to discriminate against them. While understandable, I think it ultimately does more harm than good.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I think Bob Dylan said that (just kidding, I know it was Neil Young). It’s a good rule to live by; let’s all follow it.

There’s 2 Kinds of Dumb. Indiana’s Legislators are the Second Kind.

Look, mister, there’s… two kinds of dumb, uh… guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter, the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.
-George, “Hoosiers”

---

No question, Mike Pence and the state legislators who voted for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) are the second kind of dumb. In my previous post, I laid out my belief about why this law was passed. Here, I’ll discuss why this law is just so stupid, unnecessary, and hurtful to everyone.

RFRA is stupid.

Republicans regularly paint themselves as the party of the job creators and of small government. Well, is this law helping or hurting job creation? Our state is losing millions of dollars in potential conventions, sporting events, business travel, and other opportunities. The damage to the hospitality industry in Indianapolis won’t be known possibly for years. It’s not irreparable (I hope), but it is an incredibly stupid self-inflicted wound that serves no real purpose.

As for Indiana Republicans’ small-government mantra, it was only a few weeks ago that Governor Pence tried to develop his own state-run news service before being shamed into abandoning it shortly after it was announced. The RFRA debacle is just another misstep for a party that continues to shoot itself in the foot.

If you truly believe in small government, there should be a compelling reason to pass a new law. After all, it only makes sense that passing unnecessary laws would not be consistent with a small-government philosophy.

Yes or no: Is there a compelling reason for RFRA?
No. (See what I did there?)

Why do I say there’s not a compelling reason for this law? Well…

RFRA is unnecessary.

This law is not seeking to address any actual, real-world problem. There are no cases in Indiana that lack a process to resolve disputes. With all the obsessive attention lavished on this law, I have yet to hear of a single case in Indiana that this law purports to address.

I do however, know of an instance very recently in Indianapolis where a company did in fact deny a gay couple service due to their religious objections. What happened?

The couple wanted to celebrate their love with a commitment ceremony in April. Mike called 111 Cakery downtown to order a cake.

“[The owner] said, ‘We don’t do that. If I can help you with anything else, but we don’t discriminate.’ That was the end of it,” he said. “It’s disappointing.”

“…We found someone that will do it for us so we’re going to focus on the good,” said Mike.

This is how Hoosiers often solve our problems. Our goal is not to bend others to our will through sheer force but to believe in the goodness of each other and trust that those who don’t exhibit these qualities won’t be around long. (Indeed, 111 Cakery is no longer in business, although the owners stress their closing is unrelated to this incident.)

As I said, this law is unnecessary. But when a law like this is passed, people no longer default to their more informal ‘live and let live’ agreements. Some feel emboldened to put their new-found ‘religious freedom’ to the test just to prove they can. These disputes now become a battle of wills instead of a burden of conscience. It becomes a question of whether or not you can discriminate instead of whether or not you should discriminate.

That means lawyers and at that point we all lose. Stupid and unnecessary (or at least it has been unnecessary to this point in history).

And that brings us to this…

RFRA is hurtful to everyone.

Most Hoosiers got along just fine before this, relatively speaking. Now, we have been forced to choose sides. As proud citizens of Indiana, we are left to explain why, if we are not intolerant people, we choose representatives who pass legislation like this.

Good people who have sincere, thoughtful objections to homosexuality have been painted as uncaring, hateful bigots. Communities that have long accepted the LGBT community as their own have been forced to explicitly proclaim they are not intolerant. They feel the need to do so to avoid being caught up in the maelstrom caused by legislators who insist on fighting culture wars at the government level instead of helping our state’s economy and letting the culture address its issues privately, individually.

Our state legislators have accomplished a rare feat. They have somehow managed to piss off nearly everyone in the country (from all sides), potentially lose millions of dollars in business, divide Hoosiers against each other, and gravely damage the meaning of ‘Hoosier Hospitality.’

And for what? To reassert something that was never an issue in the first place? To remind the LGBT community that some will always see them as second-class citizens? Oh, right. None of this is about discrimination. Except it is. The legislature was warned about this poorly written law by the legal community but they pushed it through anyway.

These legislators are the second kind of dumb and now we’re forced to deal with them. I can’t wait for Election Day.