@dietz199
I think this thread started with concerns how these state laws and hostility could affect students while they were working or were off campus. There is only so much a school can do to protect students in a state that legalizes discrimination.
The whole biblical anti-gay thing is based on a bad translation gone viral (in the old-fashioned way via publishing and word of mouth before the days of computers) anyway. Except that misinterpretation aligns with people’s existing bias so they refuse to listen to anything that contradicts their worldview.
Anyway, there’s plenty of scholarly articles talking about the mistranslation for anyone interested. Google something along the lines of “bible homosexual abomination mistranslation” for more info.
The word (to’ba or ta’ab) mistranslated to mean “abomination” probably means more “unusual”, “foreign”, possibly “taboo”. It’s been a while since I read up on it, but I seem recall cows, Egyptians eating with Jews, and many other innocuous things also called “abominations” in the bible. Which of course makes no sense until you apply the correct translation.
This is just my personal thoughts, but I believe it’s human nature to try and elevate our status and think we are better than someone else.
We all ‘sin’ everyday but a straight person will never become gay. Because of this I believe it is so much easier to demonize and feel superior to this group because this is a ‘sin’ we will never do.
We all lie, cheat, work on the sabbath and have bad thoughts ect.
Group think, 2000 years of mistranslation and our own prejudice have caused great harm to this community.
We can agree that beliefs have certainly evolved. But most faith tenets are pretty well-established.
As far as the Bible verses, I am fairly conversant. Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman, so that (unrelated) supposed race proscription is just inaccurate.
Exactly, @sly123 . It points to the hypocrisy of the cake bakers. They’re perfectly willing to bake cakes for straight couples who’ve slept together before marriage, which is forbidden, because they can understand that sin, or the impulse toward it. They can’t relate to gay, so they place that in a special category. The bible most emphatically does not.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
tranquilmind: I am glad you don’t agree with this sort of prejudice. Some churches still seem to have prohibitions.
In comment #450, @albert69 wrote:
“It’s the same for both sides. …”
No, it isn’t the same for both sides. That kind of thinking comes from thinking like the anti-same-sex marriage people to begin with. Rather, on the one hand, it’s basically believing in freedom and equality for all (one of the founding principles of the USA). On the other hand, you have others wanting to limit freedom based on certain characteristics of certain people.
And, “People who support homosexuality” – what a bizarre phrase.
BTW, I’m uncomfortable using the term “Christians” here, because, as many have pointed out, many Christians do not hold such beliefs and attitudes. I don’t know what succinct term/phrase to use instead.
I don’t know either, @csdad2 ,but it’s frustrating to me to be lumped in with people who believe in irrational and unbiblical discrimination.
In comment #455:
Good point. And it actually goes beyond that – at the same time they want their religious laws/beliefs used, they want to specifically restrict the use of other religious laws (sharia).
In comment #459:
That is belied by the fact that people used the exact same kinds of arguments (i.e., religious-based) in response to the abolition of slavery, integration, interracial marriage, and …
In comment #475:
I’m reluctant to respond to this point, because it sounds like something those in favor of this state law would push to make it sound like they were being reasonable. The state law goes far, far, far beyond this, and it’s mostly that that people are arguing against.
That said, I think if you were seriously worried about this one issue, you could craft a law that would restrict it, without being so problematic. Many people have responded here with suggestions (including not doing anything, because it’s really a non-issue).
In comment #504:
“Oh, when we argued against the abolition of slavery, and integration, and blacks marrying whites, saying those things were against our religion, we were just kidding! Now, we’re serious!!”
As a historian, I cannot refute this strongly enough 
Do we want to start discussing all the early church councils? Start with Luther?
I agree that some individual churches teach there are well established faith tenets. This worked a whole lot better for them before the internet existed. Young people in those churches have access to the wider world in a way they never did before. Sometimes they read a very different version of church history than they have been taught in Sunday school.
Even marriage as a religious sacrament has seriously evolved. 
I personally also think the law should be repealed and I think it will be due to the corporate pushback. Although it is quite interesting that most of the corporations are pushing back on NC but happily doing business in many places more restrictive. I also do not think anyone should be able to discriminate as discussed with the cake bakers.
I do think there is a much higher likelihood that some folks may now push the issue and it will be quite interesting to see how the media reacts when/if this happens.
romanigypsies - perhaps I misrepresented my thoughts on this but can you help me understand what I wrote that had you indicate I was blinded by hate?? My intentions all along were to understand everyone’s positions on the issue which ultimately seems to be, no man will wake up and say he is feeling like a woman and enter the women’s locker room - you clearly have more faith in society than I do but once again, not sure why you said I am blinded by hate??
I said those who support the law. You support repealing it so you don’t fall under that category.
ah I see, those who agree with you are not blinded, only those who disagree…