If You Thought Indiana’s Law Was Bad, Louisiana’s “Religious Freedom” Legislation Is Far Worse (UPDATE)

Louisiana State Capitol at night. Image via Wikipedia Commons.

Louisiana State Capitol at night. Image via Wikipedia Commons.

Here in Louisiana, anti-gay bigots are likely chomping at the bit and wetting their white robes in excitement over new pro-discrimination, “religious freedom” legislation which a Shreveport Republican will be introducing to the state legislature soon.


Louisiana’s proposed legislation is not like the law in Indiana which could be used to discriminate against LGBT persons – it will be drafted specifically to allow discrimination. While Indiana’s governor has asked for their “religious freedom” law to have its language clarified to avoid the possibility of state-sanctioned bigotry, Louisiana is going for full-blown prejudice.

Yes, Louisiana had to go and outdo Indiana, because heaven forbid other states beat us in the race back to the 19th century.

From Nola.com:

State Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier City, is drafting a bill that would prohibit the Louisiana government from denying a license, organizational papers and permits to a business based on the owners’ interpretation of marriage. The legislation may end up applying to local parish and city government as well, but Johnson hadn’t finished drafting it yet, he said.

Johnson said this measure would ensure that a business owner — a baker for example — who did not want to serve same-sex couples would not be able to get his license or incorporation approval pulled by the government for doing so. The same would apply to businesses who might anger the government by welcoming same-sex marriage.

“It is a protection for all persons regardless of their religious viewpoint,” he said. (Source)

This bill isn’t a copy of the law passed in Indiana which seems to be prefabricated for use by conservative legislatures across the United States; this is legislation that would go beyond that and sanction a very specific type of discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom.” If this sounds familiar, it is a very similar argument to one that Maurice Bessinger used unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court 50 years ago. Mr. Bessinger claimed that despite laws outlawing segregation, his religious beliefs trumped federal law under the 1st Amendment. Maurice Bessinger lost his appeal of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises to the Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision of 8-0.

Back in the 1960s, the LGBT community was still decades away from acceptance and social conservatives were still very angry over the passage of the Civil Rights Act, much like their current fury concerning the landslide of court cases legalizing gay marriage across 3/4s of the United States. Just like Maurice Bessinger wanted to deny service to African-Americans, the right-wing wants to be able to discriminate against the LGBT community while claiming their religious freedom allows them to do so.


If passed, Louisiana’s bill would also be a gift to Gov. Bobby Jindal ahead of his inevitable 2016 presidential campaign. Gov. Jindal, who has already moved staff to Iowa ahead of the 2016 caucus, desperately needs something to finally woo the hearts of the religious right, and signing a radical law allowing discrimination against the LGBT community under the pretenses of religious freedom could be the golden ticket to capturing their vote. Jindal is expected to formally announce his candidacy in June after the state legislature’s current session wraps up. Needless to say, the timing of this legislation appears to be more than just a coincidence to me. This “religious freedom” law looks more like a political favor for Bobby Jindal, even though it will cost Louisiana thousands, possibly even millions of dollars to defend in court.

As Nick Gillespie over at The Daily Beast points out, religious freedom isn’t under any kind of threat. In fact, religious freedom is alive and well in America, if you’re a conservative Christian.

If religious conservatives are truly an embattled minority—didn’t you know that being anti-Christian is “the last acceptable prejudice”?—then why the hell are all prospective candidates for the Republican presidential nomination kowtowing to such folks in Iowa, South Carolina, and basically everywhere else around the country? And why did Ted Cruz, the first Republican to officially declare his presidential aspirations, kick off his campaign at Liberty University, founded by the Moral Majority’s Jerry Falwell, which is proud of being “the largest Christian university in the world”? (Source)

State Rep. Mike Johnson’s proposed bill, much like the legislation in Arkansas or the law recently passed in Indiana, serves only to reinforce the narrative Republican politicians have been preaching to Christian conservatives for decades now. Religious freedom isn’t under attack in the United States, but our Constitution is, thanks to radical state legislatures across the country.

*Update* On April 3rd, the legislation was introduced as the “Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act.”




Comments

Facebook comments

  • Oy vey…

  • Abreka

    This is the state whose representatives wanted to backtrack on school vouchers for religious institutions when they realized (after the fact) that the vouchers could be used for non-Christians.

    • twinkie1cat

      Yes, it did. And suddenly the Muslim school disappeared from the voucher list and no media said a thing.

  • cacabum

    It’s Louisiana.

    I mean, is anyone really surprised??

  • Sydney

    Freedom of religion. And this is an issue why?

    • polliwogg

      Because you don’t get to claim YOUR rights while you are trampling on someone else’s?

      • Sydney

        It’s not trampling. Not participating is in no way trampling. It’s allowing them to do their thing without you

      • Arawra

        You’re aware we already tried segregation? Religion was used as an argument back then as well.

      • Sydney

        This isn’t segregation. It’s just the right to not participate in something you don’t agree with. You don’t agree with communion? Don’t make a cake for it.

      • Arawra

        How is this NOT segregation? Telling people of a different ‘group’ they’re not welcome or you won’t do business with them because of your beliefs is exactly segregation.

      • Sydney

        The right to refuse service is a basic right of business owners. Segregation is the government not allowing certain people to intermingle. This is a private business owner who wants to reserve the right to not support events that are contrary to his beliefs.

      • Arawra

        Yeah… its a *government* law that allows separation of people from doing business together.

      • Sydney

        It’s a right. We can’t force people to do business with others.

      • Arawra

        Tell that to the other minorities that were denied access in so many other ways.

      • Sydney

        This would protect them too. Their right to refuse any service that they thought impended on their beliefs.

      • Arawra

        Protection is a positive quality. Remove locations accessible to people is a negative trait. (I’m talking about the scientific, mathematic positive and negative – not moral.) Just think about that for a bit.

      • Sydney

        So all business owners should be forced to lay their beliefs at the door and serve every customer’s whim? And again, this is not about denying groups of people access to necessary things. It’s about one guy who doesn’t want to bake a cake, so you go somewhere else to get it.

      • Arawra

        What happens when everyone in a region starts declining services?

      • Sydney

        In the weird instance that that happens, someone sees it as a business opportunity to serve those people and make money.

      • Arawra

        It didn’t happen in the south until government mandates. Again, this has been tried already.

      • Sydney

        So if you owned a store that printed banners, and someone wanted a banner that said, “gays will burn” you would print it?

      • Arawra

        It would be hate speech. Most countries have laws that prevent printing that.

      • Sydney

        OK how about “abortion is murder”.

      • Arawra

        Yeah, I’d print it. They’re entitled to their opinion.

      • Sydney

        True. But you’re also entitled to the right to refuse.

      • Arawra

        The only reason I’d even argue I’d have the right to refuse is because this is belief about an action – not an inherent trait.

      • Sydney

        A gay wedding is an action.

      • Arawra

        As opposed to a normal wedding? The only difference is the sex of the participants, which is a trait of the person.

      • Sydney

        It’s a decision to be gay. And a gay wedding is against the belief of some.

      • Arawra

        Its not a decision to be gay. Have you read any of the studies on the origination…? Different brain structure, along with a 70%+ rate of both identical twins being gay whether or not raised in the same household… all signs are pointing to genetic.

      • Sydney

        That’s your belief. I believe it is a decision. I disagree with it. I do not support their marriage.

      • Arawra

        Here’s the difference – there is a fact to it. No matter what your belief is, it doesn’t change the fact.

      • Sydney

        Abortion is murder. That is a fact. Homosexuality is wrong. That is a fact.

      • Sieben Stern

        another fact. sydney makes up their own facts. sydney has no idea what the word fact means.

        also sydney is a moron.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        And when did YOU decide to be straight? What was that moment like when you said to yourself, “I think I will be a straight guy instead of gay”?

      • Sydney

        When did you decide to be sober? Or to not murder people? Or to not best you children? Or not to be lazy? Or not to be a liar? Or not to molest children?

        Certain temptations affect certain people. We all have different struggles. I didn’t choose to be straight because that’s not a struggle for me. Alcoholism was. So, I had to choose to be sober.

      • Charles Vincent

        “gays will burn” you would print it?

        This isn’t hate speech it does none of the things listed below;

        In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.

        Moreover “gays will burn” is also an opinion by the same metric that “abortion is murder” is an opinion.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        That banner that says gays will burn doesn’t have anything to do with religious beliefs.

      • Sieben Stern

        no it’s not. there are laws determining why you can refuse service. if it’s based on discrimination of a protected class you can’t do it. please learn the law.

        but hey if you want religious freedom instead of owning a business that serves the public… go right ahead.

      • Sydney

        Religious groups are protected. My beliefs are protected. They may seem ridiculous to you, but they are important to me. Feel free to disagree with me, that is your right. It makes me no less if a human being with the right to practice my religion.

        You don’t care about tolerance. You care about getting rid of religion.

      • Arawra

        Beliefs aren’t protected. Your “belief” in completely illogical fallacies are just that – a belief. Just because something is important to you doesn’t mean you can have that belief influence others. That is the purpose of the judicial branch – that the opinions and beliefs of others don’t influence the right of the minority.

        I don’t care what god you believe in. I care when that god tells you that other people are lesser for something they don’t have control over (genetics).

      • Sydney

        Did I say they were lesser? No. That they were bad? No. That they didn’t deserve the same rights as me? No. My religion is protected. I have every right to practice it, just as you have every right to hate it.

        The rights of a minority do not overshadow mine. And my right to not support something do not infringe on their rights to do whatever I disagree with.

      • Arawra

        No religion says to not provide for others.

        And yes, you did say they were lesser when you said they were “wrong.”

      • Sydney

        And because you say I’m wrong I’m lesser?

        I didn’t say they were wrong. I said what they did was wrong. Does that mean if they need help I will then them away? Absolutely not. But I will not be forced to support a wedding I don’t agree with.

      • Arawra

        I never said you were lesser. You said “Homosexuality is wrong.” implying they were lesser. Word for word.

        These bills also aren’t aimed at weddings. They are worded in such language to turn away people they don’t like.

      • Sydney

        Yes homosexuality is wrong. Just like underage drinking is wrong. Are the kids who do it lesser than those who don’t? No. And I won’t deny any form of help they may need. But I draw the line at buying alcohol to support it.

        These laws are assumes at preventing fluff lawsuits made to give Christian businesses a bad name. Unless a business is in direct conflict with the state. There is nothing wrong with that.

      • Arawra

        And what evidence do you have to say homosexuality is wrong? Scientific research also shows a correlation between social interaction and homosexuality, which may have lead to developments of civilization.

        Again, no one gives a fuck about what god you worship as long as you’re not discriminating. Your beliefs have no valid logical basis – something that laws are based on.

        Also, whether or not something is in conflict with the state does not determine validity of an act.

      • Sydney

        I’m not discriminating! I’m not refusing to hire someone because they’re gay. I’m not refusing to serve someone because they’re a anti-life. I’m not refusing to help someone because they’re atheist. In refusing to partake in actions I don’t agree with.

        Nobody has to care why I believe what I believe. In not going to make you care. But I don’t have to sacrifice my beliefs because someone else thinks their beliefs are better.

      • Arawra

        See, here’s the thing. You are discriminating. Choosing not to perform services for an exclusive minority of people is discrimination. I don’t care WHAT reasoning you have to validate that. Religion was also used to validate slavery.

        A big reason why legislation is passed is WHY things are the way they are. If you can’t accept that, then don’t spread your beliefs because you have no place in promoting SHITTY legislature.

      • Sydney

        In other words… My beliefs/thoughts/morals/convictions don’t matter because you don’t like them. Therefore, I don’t get to practice them.

        I have had quite a few gay friends. They know where I stand. They respected my religion and didn’t invite me to anything that made me uncomfortable. I didn’t jam religion down their throat. We both respected each other and our right to our beliefs.

        This law does not force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do. It just lets you not get sued for having different beliefs than others.

        Everyone has the right to pursue happiness. Nobody has the right not to get their feelings hurt. If you don’t like the way one person does business go somewhere else.

        I believe in organic food. In not trying to force Monsanto to stop producing GMOs. I can’t control them. I will take my business elsewhere. That’s just the way the world works.

      • Arawra

        I don’t like your beliefs because they’re discriminatory.

        I don’t care how many gay friends you have. The fact you wouldn’t do business with them because they’re gay is discriminatory.

        The law isn’t about having different beliefs – its state sponsored discrimination.

        I shouldn’t be held liable for being born into a minority and being discriminated against. Often times, there’s NOT another place to go to.

        A belief in organic food has no similarity to discrimination against gay people. Apples and oranges, whether organic or GMO.

      • Sydney

        I would do any business with them except endorse their relationship. My husband is a minority. He’s also the son of a pastor. When a gay man came to them looking for help, they did everything in their power to help him. When he was judged, they offered counseling. They stood up for him. They offered everything except condoning his lifestyle. That’s not discrimination.

        The law specifically states any belief will be honored even if it’s not a commonplace religious belief. So, yeah, belief in organic food counts. Further demonstrating that the law isn’t about gays and Christians. It’s about protecting businesses period.

      • Arawra

        Going to a church isn’t the same as conducting a public business. Irrelevant.

        Again, your GMO argument is irrelevant because the belief is not about inherent traits in people. You’re also wrong about which beliefs in particular are focused on. The bill in question specifically states “exercise of religion.”

        https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568

      • Sydney

        Homosexuality is a choice. You can’t claim genetics make homosexuals, but genetics made mistakes with trannies.

        My point is that not only did they do business with the man, they gave him shelter, clothing, and support. That’s not discrimination.

        Either way, it’s obvious you’re intolerant of religion or any belief other than yours. Weird, since the left claims to want everyone to feel tolerated be absolutely everybody.

        Anyways, one day everyone will see the light. This may seem sarcastic, but I genuinely hope you don’t harden your heart too much against God. There is much peace and live to be found with Him.

        I still disagree, but to each their own.

      • Arawra

        Yes, I can claim genetics and I provided evidence for it. All you’re doing is saying “muh beliefz.” Also, there are no mistakes with genetics, only variations.

        You’re saying business shouldn’t do business if they choose not to because of “muh beliefz.” People used to think they shouldn’t have to do business with someone of different races because of “muh beliefz.” There is no difference.

        Again, I don’t care about what your religion is, as long as its not slandering and discriminating against – something you are supportive of doing.

        I support those who are religious because faith is a strong, powerful, and IMO a usually good thing. Unfortunately, the willingly ignorant like yourself have equal access and use the same messages to spread intolerance.

        I must ask – do you follow all of your Christian principles, because there is no issue with slavery in the Bible. There are also no decrees against raping women as long as you pay their father or owner and marry them. Do you still hold true to your beliefs after reading this?

      • Sydney

        It’s obvious you haven’t read the Bible. It’s a common attack to say it condones rape, but it doesn’t. Raping women was actually punishable by death until the death of Jesus.

        Slavery was a voluntary way of paying for land. Its actually how it started in America. It was pretty commonplace to indenture yourself to pay for land. Sidenote- the first slave here was white, and the first slave owner was black. Also, it was Republicans who fought it.

        And I’m spreading intolerance how? I believe something is wrong. Not that someone is bad.

        You believe I’m wrong. You’re intolerant of me. You think it’s OK because “god’s dumb” but that’s not really consistent of being accepting of differing lifestyles.

        Just because I believe something is wrong doesn’t mean I won’t do all I can to help someone. I just won’t support what I don’t agree with.

      • Arawra

        I lol’d. Raping was only further *endorsed* before Jesus.

        Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

        Slaves could not be land owners. That is a lie if I ever heard one. Also, the names of the parties had changed circa 1930. Democrats became Republicans, and vice-versa. http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

        I have no problem with believing in a god. I have a problem with believing in a god that punishes pacifists, condones rape, and is neither benevolent or loving.

      • Sydney

        Literally none of that was in context.

        The first passage relates to what could happen to Jerusalem in the future, and how God would protect them. The second is not about rape, it is about sex before marriage.

        As per slavery-

        Hidden Facts about Slavery in America – newobserveronline.com/hidden-facts-about-slavery-in-america/

        A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism – russp.us/racism.htm

        Matthew 5:43-48
        [ Love for Enemies ] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. …

        James 1:27
        Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

      • Arawra

        Actually, I think its rather in context. God is allowing the rape of women. That is EXACTLY the type of behavior I do not condone.

        Sex before marriage is only partly the case. Notice the word “seize.” This is not voluntary on the woman’s part.

        You might be talking about slavery in America, I’m talking about slavery as a whole.

        E: You’re citing a blog for a history lesson.

      • Sydney

        The first passage is a prophesy of the horrible things that could happen to Jerusalem in the future. The second in the original language is the same word used for for voluntary intercourse, not rape.

        And the Bible is full of examples of voluntary slavery and forced slavery. Usually slavery forced on the Jews. It’s also a history book. Not everything they do in there is right (polygamy, unlawful killing etc.) it’s just a record of what happened.

        You’re absolutely 100% wrong about God. He can and will judge the earth when that day comes, but He is a loving, forgiving God. Bad things happen because bad things happen. Sin exists. You can either admit to it, work through it, and make positive change, or stay sinning and watch your life suffer.

      • Arawra

        Yet “God” has the power to prevent these bad things from happening.

        Does he have the power to stop it, or is he not omnipotent? If he has the power, is he apathetic or cruel?

        The bible was written by man, yet you take it as the word of god. I don’t need the bible to realize what is wrong and what is right. I do good in the world because it is the only life we have – not to earn an imaginary figures love or be burned for eternity.

        To claim that two people who love each other and partake in intimate relations and marriage is immoral is to be devoid of the knowledge of what morality is. It is a victimless “crime” that promotes a bond between two people. You know what the difference between this relationship is and having one with god? You won’t burn in hell if you choose not to believe in this one.

        Thats called coercion – something that any benign entity is capable of understanding.

      • Sydney

        God absolutely has to the power to make everyone loving and moral, and know He exists. But if you take the choice out of the equation, and faith, then it’s pointless. If people followed His word, crimes like that would not happen. People have free will, He doesn’t interfere with that.

        The Bible was written down by man, but inspired by God. You do need His guidance to know right from wrong. Where do you think our natural sense of morality comes from? Morality is not an “evolutionary” sense.

        You don’t have to earn His love, just accept it.

        It absolutely is immoral. If not, where does it end? It’s OK to cheat on your wife because it’s love? Molest a child? Have sex with a goat? No. There should be only one marriage bond-between one man and one woman. The feeling of love is not an excuse to do wrong.

        And it’s not like it’s hard to choose God. You just decide you want to believe in Him. You can physically do anything after that to lose salvation. There is literally zero harm in making that decision. Yet, everyone sees it as some giant burden.

        Atheism is both illogical and a belief system. It takes more faith to believe there is no god than to believe in one.

      • Arawra

        Yet he would let others suffer so that some can have free will? If you look at the numbers game, more suffer than have a good life. That is cruel and unusual punishment.

        If you need “God” to have a moral conscience, you do not have a moral conscience.

        The burden in believing in “God” is that people will not choose to make this life better. It creates an opposition for those looking for the real truth through science – such that homosexuality is an evolutionary trait. As such, those that believe in this version of “God” create more harm and prejudice for this minority than should exist. You claim its immoral to live this lifestyle, but I must ask whats more immoral – creating a prejudice and hate for these people, or living and let live?

        Atheism is more logical as it would require a burden of proof for “God” than simply having blind faith. I think it was Peter who agreed and supported this idea as well.

      • Sydney

        Your idea of morality is based on feelings. If someone feels live, how can it be wrong? That is not morality. That is just having no control or self-discipline. According to your theory, if I believe something is right, it is. Everyone should just “follow their hearts” and it will lead them in the right direction.

        And there is a burden of proof for God. But there is no way to disprove Him, so you can’t deny that He might exist.

        Homosexuality can be genetic, as can alcoholism and a serial killer mindset. Are those acts right for those people? Would you agree those people, although inclined to do wrong, have the ability to choose to do right?

        Should there be a base of right and wrong for everybody? We all have a conscience. Where does that come from? If we all evolved from animals, why do we have a completely different, much more complex system of keeping our species in line?

        There is nothing that condones hate towards those who do wrong. We have all done things wrong. However, we all have the ability to do right. We can’t just live and let live and never let anything be considered wrong. Just because someone feels something is right for them doesn’t make it right.

        Atheism says there is nothing that is 100% true. If so, you can’t deny God because He can’t be 100% false. You can’t have some things right for some and wrong for others. If I think it’s right to kill someone and you think it’s wrong, according to atheism, we’re both right. How do you have direction in a system like that?

        More and more scientists are agreeing evolution and atheism are improbable and illogical. They give no standard.

      • Arawra

        No. I didn’t give any basis for my morality, other than it doesn’t hinge on the belief in a god.

        I never said he doesn’t. Its just not logical for god to exist.

        The point was is that its not unnatural. You still haven’t given any argument to why homosexuality is wrong or immoral, other than “muh beliefs.”

        We’re not the only species of keeping ourselves “in line.” Dolphins have a system of capital punishment for members that murder.

        Don’t tell me a bullshit definition of atheism. Etymology of atheism – a + theism – a lack of a belief in a god. Don’t speak about something you don’t have knowledge of.

        Just because you’re unable to make a system of morality work without a god doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to do so. In fact, that is the way our country is run – without adherence to any one religion. Its worked more or less well over the years.

        Don’t spout that bullshit without any evidence to back it up. I can give direct evidence of evolution. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mrsa/basics/definition/con-20024479
        Due to overuse of antibiotics in certain environments, these bacteria through the process of natural selection have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics.

      • Sydney

        Atheism is a lack of, denial of, or ignorance of God.

        Atheism states what is wrong for you may be right for someone else. It is a disbelief in absolute truth.

        Homosexuality is wrong. It leads to higher rates of depression and suicide. Religion leads to feelings of fulfillment and peace.

        And our country is a joke. We are being run into the ground. The more we take God out of our everyday lives, the more screwed up it gets. Morality is gone. Girls see nothing wrong with throwing themselves at men. Men see nothing wrong with abandoning their children. Most problems we have today were non-issues when God was an integral part of our legal/education system.

        Natural selection is not evolution.

        And you did not address my question. If you consider something OK as long as you’re born that way, what about those born with the serial killer gene?

      • Arawra

        Your definition is again, wrong. Theism is the belief in the god. Attach the prefix “a” and it is the lack of belief in a god. You do not understand etymology. This is what atheism it – it is not a “belief system” as there is no theory attached to it.

        You again claim homosexuality is wrong, but provide no proof of it. There is no causation, and the correlation implicates that the reason for suicide and depression among this minority is the constant cultural stigma. Many LGBT youth are homeless because their families are unaccepting of them. You don’t think that has anything to do with suicide rates?

        God was never a part of our legal system. You do know that was the purpose of the first amendment? To prevent a national religion? Many of the founding fathers directly opposed a state religion, such as Thomas Jefferson. Before we became a country, people were burned alive at the stake on the east coast due to religious zealots. The only reason we even have “under god” in the pledge of allegiance was an attempt at propaganda against “godless communism.”

        I never said natural selection WAS evolution, I was it was the mechanism in which evolution occurs.

        If there is a disposition to sociopathy, no, there is nothing wrong with having the gene. It is the acts that are wrong. Again, you have stated no proof that any act of homosexuality is wrong.

      • Sydney

        There is no way to scientifically prove anything is right or wrong. Can we scientifically prove murder is wrong? No, we just know it is.

        Our country was based on Christian principles. The catholic church had been persecuting Christians, so they left. They wanted to make sure nobody had to deal with religious persecution by the government. Therefore, they didn’t combine the church and the legal system. That didn’t mean they weren’t symbiotic. It just meant the government couldn’t punish you for not being Christian.

        Natural selection is independent of evolution. Evolution is based on mutation. Nowhere has natural selection turned a jellyfish into a goat.

        So you do admit that a gene doesn’t give an excuse for an action to be right. You can’t prove homosexuality is right, and I can’t prove its wrong. Therefore, it’s up to our beliefs. I don’t think they’re bad people. I just think their acts are immoral.

      • Arawra

        So why would a belief in god change the “inherent” knowledge that murder is wrong? If you know it to be wrong, I know it to be wrong, yet only one of us believes in god, that kind of makes morality and theism mutually exclusive.

        Our country was NOT based on Christian principles, it was based on a system of checks and balances and a democratic republic as formed in Rome. John Adams – “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

        You really don’t understand how natural selection spurs evolution.

        Say there are two organisms in an environment. As the environment changes, say it becomes more arid, the organism which requires less water to survive is more likely to. Now, as mutations occur from that same organism, the offspring that further require less water to survive will be more likely to further propagate as they are better suited for the environment. As such, the natural selection for the organism with the genetics that allow it to thrive with less oxygen is pushing for evolution in that direction. Pretty simple stuff.

        Its not about whether or not I think its wrong or not – it is not because there is no harm coming from it. Until someone can prove otherwise, your idea is simply just that – a belief in conjecture in opposition to the truth.

      • Sydney

        Your inherent knowledge comes from God. The fact that I believe and you don’t has nothing to do with whether He exists or not. Evolution does not account for morality.

        Natural selection may produce a species more adapted to an environment, but it does not account for sludge turning into birds. And where did the spirit of life come from? Where did life suddenly appear? Evolution has so many unanswered questions, it’s actually laughed at by many scientists.

        There is harm in homosexuality.

        My belief is in truth. You’re asking for scientific proof of something we cannot understand. You say the lack of evidence proves God is not real. Unless we knew everything about everything and were in all places at all times, then a lack of evidence really means nothing

        And if we really want to split hairs, there is no scientific reason to believe evolution. It’s not observable, repeatable, or predictable. Natural selection is, but just because a species adapts to a climate doesn’t mean a fish became a bird. Mutations do not add genetic information. They do not spawn new kingdoms.
        http://realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

        In countries where being homosexual is perfectly normal, it is reported they are 90%more likely to cheat. They have 20 on average shorter life spans. They have a higher suicide rate. They contract substantially more STDs, some of which are only passed through homosexual contact. The levels of promiscuity are fine times higher. They are at risk for long-term physical injuries from being intimate. They are also more likely to divorce within a year. Children feel deprived of a natural family structure.
        http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

        Do you realize that atheists are less likely to volunteer their time, donate to charity, be involved with their community, or in general be happy with their life. They are also more likely to have broken homes.

        Historically speaking, atheists have caused substantially more harm than Christians. Also, most villainous leaders of things like world wars, holocausts, that sort of thing, usually profess atheism.

      • Arawra

        No, my knowledge comes from synaptic connections in my nervous tissue.

      • Sydney

        Which He created.

      • Sydney

        Other scientists who believe in creation:
        Agard, E. Theo
        Allan, James
        Anderson, Kevin
        Armstrong, Harold
        Arndt, Alexander
        Austin, Steven
        Barnes, Thomas
        Batten, Don
        Baumgardner, John
        Bergman, Jerry
        Boudreaux, Edward
        Byl, John
        Catchpoole, David
        Chadwick, Arthur
        Chaffin, Eugene
        Chittick, Donald
        Cimbala, John
        Clausen, Ben
        Cole, Sid
        Cook, Melvin
        Cumming, Ken
        Cuozzo, Jack
        Darrall, Nancy
        Dewitt, David
        DeYoung, Donald
        Downes, Geoff
        Eckel, Robert
        Faulkner, Danny
        Ford, Dwain
        Frair, Wayne
        Gentry, Robert
        Giem, Paul
        Gillen, Alan
        Gish, Duane
        Gitt, Werner
        Gower, D.B.
        Grebe, John
        Grocott, Stephen
        Harrub, Brad
        Hawke, George
        Hollowell, Kelly
        Holroyd, Edmond
        Hosken, Bob
        Howe, George
        Humphreys, D. Russell
        Javor, George
        Jones, Arthur
        Kaufmann, David
        Kennedy, Elaine
        Klotz, John
        Koop, C. Everett
        Korochkin, Leonid
        Kramer, John
        Lammerts, Walter
        Lester, Lane
        Livingston, David
        Lopez, Raul
        Marcus, John
        Marsh, Frank
        Mastropaolo, Joseph
        McCombs, Charles
        McIntosh, Andrew
        McMullen, Tom
        Meyer, Angela
        Meyer, John
        Mitchell, Colin
        Morris, Henry
        Morris, John
        Mumma, Stanley
        Parker, Gary
        Peet, J. H. John
        Rankin, John
        Rosevear, David
        Roth, Ariel
        Rusch, Wilbert
        Sarfati, Jonathan
        Snelling, Andrew
        Standish, Timothy
        Taylor, Stephen
        Thaxton, Charles
        Thompson, Bert
        Thomson, Ker
        Vardiman, Larry
        Veith, Walter
        Walter, Jeremy
        Wanser, Keith
        Whitcomb, John
        White, A.J.(Monty)
        Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
        Wile, Jay
        Williams, Emmett
        Wise, Kurt
        Wolfrom, Glen
        Zuill, Henry
        http://www.icr.org/article/vanishing-case-for-evolution/
        http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/48-the-fossil-record.html
        https://www.probe.org/darwin-on-trial/

        http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/
        http://www.prevailmagazine.org/how-archaeology-proves-the-bihtml
        http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/december-web-only/biblical-archaeologys-top-ten-discoveries-of-2013.html

        http://www.str.org/articles/the-real-murderers-atheism-or-christianity#.VSNJ0ZDD9DsDs

      • Arawra

        The number of people that believe in something does not change whether it is true or not – bandwagon fallacy.

      • Sydney

        I know what science is. I also know evolution is not science. It’s a guess. We see things that look related, and we try to draw conclusions based on our beliefs that God didn’t create it. That’s just a biased guess. And yes, I know a theory is not just a bunch of people who think something might have happened. However, we cannot produce evolution for observation. There are no in-between fossils to study. There is a major lack of supporting evidence considering it was supposed to have taken billions of years.

        And the bandwagon fallacy also applies to atheism. You may believe God doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean He doesn’t. Every scientist in the world could be atheist, and God would still exist.

        Sludge turns into sludge turns into sludge… Why? What compelled sludge to flu? Or swim? Or walk? Why not stay sludge? Why can’t science create life? Where does life come from? Why is life only on earth? Other planets should not be uninhabitable. Evolution should produce organisms that have adapted. There should be no laws of nature, because evolution changes them. Global warming shouldn’t be a big deal, everything will adapt. Why don’t we have new kingdoms evolving? How come we don’t have birds that have gills? Wouldn’t it be beneficial for birds to swim? Or fish to walk? Evolution answers none of these questions.

        Just because an institution condones therapy doesn’t mean their statistics are wrong. Homosexual behavior is dangerous and had lasting harmful consequences.

        There are some hypocritical Christians. If you don’t want atheism defined by Hitler, Christianity can’t be defined by a few rich pastors. Although money is not evil. Having a jet is not wrong. It is estimated that atheism is responsible for over 250 million deaths in the past century. If atheism and the belief that morals are separate from God are true, why does it cause so much destruction?

        It is no more illogical to believe in God than to believe in love. God created it. You can’t measure it, you can’t see it. You can find it in an archaeological dig. You can’t create it in a lab. We know it’s there because we feel it and see how it affects people.

      • Arawra

        I already gave a clear cut example of evolution – antibiotic resistant microbes such as staph infections that people do procure from hospitals.

        My reason for not believing in god had nothing to do with other people believing in it. It had to do with that its illogical – there is no supporting evidence.

        Some sludge did stay sludge. Sometimes, it was more beneficial for it to mutate, as in my previous example where it was more beneficial for an organism to consume less water.

        It has a LOT to do with their statistics being wrong. In congress, there was this study that was supposedly used to draw conclusions about homosexual families. Well, it turned out their ‘science’ was completely wrong. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/
        This is why its important not to take junk science from biased sources.

        If you’re claiming atheism is responsible for deaths just because an athesit may have been the one calling the shots, you do not understand correlation and causation. Atheism didn’t start the wars. Hitler may have been an atheist, but it wasn’t his lack of belief in a god that start the holocaust. Christianity on the other hand… P.S. There have been many more wars started by religious people than atheists. I also don’t remember the last time an atheist tortured or killed anyone for their beliefs. If we want to take a look at modern Christianity, look at the bombings at abortion clinics that have taken place. Those WERE based on their religious beliefs.

        Love is a feeling produced by bioelectrical synaptic responses in the head. It was a feeling evolved to help spur social interaction between individuals in a species, as we’re much more likely to survive in groups than as individuals. Just because we can’t measure it at the moment doesn’t mean we will always be incapable. That is why I choose to believe in science – just because it can’t do something right now does not mean it will be forever unable to do so.

      • Sydney

        You gave an example of microbes evolving into different microbes. That’s natural selection.

        Harmful affects of homosexuality:
        http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › NCBI › Literature › PubMed Central (PMC)

        Homosexuals are at a substantially higher risk of cancer, STDs, and depression. The average life expectancy is mid-40s. Children of gay parents are ten times more likely to be molested. Over ten percent of homosexuals have had one thousand partners. They are more likely to cheat, and “committed” relationships are less than two years.

        In the immediate 15 years after we took prayer out of schools, ten pregnancy increased almost 200%.

        Girls under 14 have had an increased pregnancy rate of 550%
        STDs are up 223%
        Divorce rates are up 300% PER YEAR

        SAT scores dropped dramatically
        Violent crime increased 544%

        Lack of God causes all sorts of violent repercussions. The Holocaust was a war on Jews. A lack of God absolutely drove Hitler to that.

        Like is a feeling. Love is a choice. The ability to love is biological. The choice to love is unable to be quantified.

        That’s why I believe in science. It shows just how amazing God designed us. It’s not like God is apart from science. He created it. Obviously we will find scientific evidence of feelings. And biological reasons our bodies do things. That’s how He created us. There is order. There are laws of nature. There are predictions about how societies respond to sin and morality.

        There is also undeniable evidence supporting the Bible.

        Science supports God. If you’re waiting for the Law of Diety, you will be waiting a long time. He doesn’t need science to recognize Him. Salvation is based on a choice to have faith, not waiting for absolute proof.

      • Arawra

        You’re using false studies by a biased organisation. The SPECIFIC study they mention by Regnerus is THE SPECIFIC STUDY that didn’t even study gay parents, and Al Franken specifically mentioned in congress from that previous link I posted. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/20/u-s-senator-catches-anti-gay-testifier-misrepresenting-study/

        The ‘science’ you posted is bullshit, illegitimate studies. Until you can provide REAL science, I don’t want to hear from your slanderous mouth.

      • Sydney

        The study specifically addressed the fact that studies in the past made assumptions on homosexual family life based on studies on non-traditional families. That’s why they specifically studied gay, lesbian, and traditional families and asked very pointed questions.

        The health risk link is actually pro-homosexual. It just outlines that it’s much riskier to be gay than to have a natural relationship.

        You will consider anything done by any organization that allows for the existence of God as biased and non-scientific. Everyone is biased. Atheists are biased. You can’t interpret data without bias.

        Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
        http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

      • Charles Vincent

        Query are you for or against open carry of firearms for self defense?

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        That last statement sounds as if you know to whom you are speaking. Rather a broad statement about strangers who are writing on here. If we don’t care about tolerance then why are we tolerant enough to not criticize or put down people who are different that we are?

  • twinkie1cat

    Jindal will do anything to ensure voters, except, of course, accept gay people as equals. After all he describes himself as an “evangelical catholic” a total oxymoron. The presidential run is a pipe dream and Gov. Whiny Voice knows it.

  • twinkie1cat

    Just wait until the tourism business goes under. Of course New Orleans will suffer the most, but they are pro-gay. The god of conservatives is money. That is why Pence is scrambling. He sees the tourism loss looming. But these nuts in Louisiana might just let it happen. I mean, they ran the head of the KKK for Governor a while back.

  • gmartini

    The Party of Stupid strikes again!

  • Charles Vincent

    A dose of reality for those who turn a blind eye.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

  • Cemetery Girl

    Freedom to be Christian is alive and well. While dining out last night I could pray before the meal without interruption or negative repercussions. During my drive today I passed probably a dozen Christian churches operating openly without persecution. While my father was hospitalized a Christian pastor working within the church came to his room to offer prayer and religious guidance. The confusion over the freedom to practice the faith of your choice with freedom to control others needs to end.

  • Sagar Kumar

    From an Indian who converted to christianity for political reasons just like Obama