“[One has the] right to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious tenet or belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or a central part or requirement of the person’s religious tenets or beliefs.”

In layman’s terms, it means I can discriminate against someone if I think how they think or act violates my freedom of religion.

If you’ve kept up with the news, you’ve probably heard about this law in Arizona which is headed to the governor’s desk. Though the governor is expected to veto the bill, the simple fact that such a law would come into existence in 2014 is simply nauseating.

But here’s the kicker: The same law, called the “Preservation of Religious Freedom Act,” is being considered in the Georgia legislature, and apparently swiftly moving through the Capitol.

“But that means my rights will be protected, and I can live without fear of discrimination,” you say. Yeah, not really. If you carry a Koran into a restaurant owned by a Christian, for instance, they have the right to kick you off their property with no further interaction.

As Anderson Cooper pointed out in a recent interview, these bills also give business owners the right to discriminate against a divorcee, whom Christ clearly spoke against (Matthew 19:9). Yet, the main purpose of these bills are to discriminate against legal homosexual relationships, as was demonstrated with a nearly identical bill in New Mexico that was passed because a photographer refused to take pictures of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony; the photographer’s decision was upheld in court.

I am lost on how any human being could consider such a bill to be a good idea. I was under the impression that Jim Crow laws and mindset died in the 1960s; why is there suddenly a rush to relive those days of horror?

“But gay people getting married is against the Bible,” you explain. While there are quite a few things wrong with that sentence, but I’ll use the parallel of slavery. The entire New Testament is filled with commands for slaves to obey their masters. Even Christ condoned beating slaves for disobedience (Luke 12:47-48). It seems running away from one’s master or allowing someone to free you from slavery would go against such a command. Yet, there is a huge push in the Church to eradicate modern-day slavery because we are in a different culture/era. If we look past the passages regarding slavery because we live in a “different culture,” why can we not do the same for other cultural issues?

To use religion as a defense against serving people you don’t like goes against Scripture. When one reads about the “Good Samaritan,” the titular character does not help out a fellow Samaritan; he comes across a beaten, dying Jew. These two groups of people hated each other; the latter would be the target of this parable. Yet Christ instructs all who listen to love their worst enemies. By denying service because you don’t like someone’s religion seems to go against this teaching.

Beyond Scripture, this idea of serving only those who we want to serve destroys any kind of notion that humans are equal. We begin to feel superior to those who are gay, or sport a bindi, or wear a cross instead of a star or simply don’t think the way we do. It’s religious supremacy at its most basic.

If this bill passes, “We don’t serve your kind here” may just re-enter our vernacular.