"Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ. "
“You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, … that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance.”
People unwilling to pay lip service by behaving certain way to some state mandated ideals get punished, although the actual target is the underlying worldview of the person in question. (Lip service here being paid by saying and doing something in front of statues.)
“Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake last year, but when one of the shop owners, Jack Phillips, found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple of away and cited his religious faith.”
Again the actual target is the worldview of the culprit, which the state wants to eliminate at best. And again he could or could have avoided punishment by paying lip service to some state set ideals. Here by either delivering the cake (which would be lying for him) or object delivering but instead of giving the true reason lie about why no contract is possible.
So in both cases punishment is merited by unwillingness to perform either honestly or dishonestly certain actions, which amount to outwardly honouring certain state set ideals. And in both cases some unenlightened christians are the culprits.
Which in my eyes means there isn’t much difference. Either lie or get punished you miserable Xtians.
The minor differences i notice is first, that the for the one situation lip services could be formally required by all citizens, while in the other its only required by those working in certain jobs or offering certain goods. But considering how many jobs and goods that might be, the overlap between all citizens and certain jobs and goods could be rather high.
The second being, that Rome was worried about people claiming there is a fundamental difference between a Roman Emporer and a god, while modern US is worried about people claiming there is a fundamental difference between man and women having sex and man and man having sex.
The third of course is regarding the punishment, the one is modern liberal USA which is cushy with such “criminals” and only threatens them with 1 year imprisonement and permanent ban to work in their respective job, while the other was ancient Rome with a non-cushy approach to such “criminals”: “those who persisted I ordered executed.”
“According to attorney Nicolle Martin, the owners of a Colorado bakery could face a year in prison for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding, Jim Hoft reported at the Gateway Pundit Monday.”
““We would close down the bakery before we compromised our beliefs,” he told KCNC, adding that protests and petitions will not make him change his mind.”
I have the feeling i miss some important differences of the situations. The differences i notice are in my eyes not that great, although of course the last isn’t small either. But that has little to do with the situation and much with ancient Rome handing out anyway more severe punishments than modern US, so this is just a difference of general severity of punishments. Anyone noticing some important differences between the two situations?