FINAL UPDATE: WHO Would Jesus. . . Hate?

UPDATED 04.04.15 @ 10:15 AM EDT | I've decided to run this bit as a new post, given that it is -- for Christians -- Easter weekend, and as of this moment, according to their beliefs -- their Redeemer has died a torturous death, and remains at the Gates of Hell (for devout Roman Catholics, in particular), at this moment. It is in this moment, the Vigil of Easter, that the true believers spend time reflecting on their own sins -- their sins, which led their Redeemer to die on a cross, yesterday at 3 PM. It is at this Vigil morning moment, then that I ask those who claim this covenant to reflect upon their sins. I am no longer bound by that set of covenants, but I do still understand what Christians claim they mean.

So read on, you Indiana and Arkansas (and Georgia, and the Carolinas) "christians". END UPDATED PORTION.]

. . . .I return to this topic to note how implausible it is, to me, that people of good conscience -- truly devout religious people -- if they were in fact the animating force behind these weaponized attempts to change existing law in Indiana and Arkansas -- would come up with this particular scheme.

Most people of good conscience know that proving what lurks in one's heart is a difficult endeavor. Most people of good conscience know, or know of, a story in which someone was likely treated unfairly (denied a job, promotion, seat at an elite institution, or other right or privilege of citizenship), and in many of these cases, there was a strong sense (unprovable, of course) that the denial was based on race, gender or other immutable characteristic. But proving what was in the actor's heart -- well that is nearly impossible.

And so, it is baffling to me -- given that people of good conscience would not want anyone to be mistreated in this way -- that they would ask for and in fact draft, a series of changes to a 1998-era federal law -- to tip the balance in favor of the discriminatory actors. I do understand that it was a response to the fact that the Supremes struck Indiana's attempt to amend its state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. That is a fact now beyond reasonable dispute. So, were these people acting in good faith, they might have appreciated how hard they were likely making it for a mixed race husband and wife, and their children to be vindicated, if (for example) the proprietor of a lunch-counter said his religion prohibited race mixing. And there are those out there. Yet these drafters left out any savings clause (akin to the one now being passed into Indiana law, as an amendment) that made clear that denials at any business establishment -- on race or ethnicity or gender or LGBT status -- would be strictly prohibited by law (as they have been for several decades, as to race, gender and religion, at least).

And so, Occam's razor would suggest that there was only one goal, here -- and that goal was to shift the burden of proof away from the person engaging in what would otherwise be unlawful conduct (invidious discrimination in public accommodations), and place that burden on the person whose status (LGBT) brought the invidious discrimination to the harsh light of 21^st Century day. That is a very reasonable deduction, based on all that is now known. I would have expected better from supposedly religious people. And I would hope that Good Friday reminded them of some of this, yesterday. . . .

I don't think Jesus would have approved of the radical right's recent actions, supposedly in His name, in Indiana and Arkansas. Here endeth the sermon.