Quoting Ken777 (Reply 144): And in a privately owned business serving the public that walking away would mean closing down the business.

If I was a doctor and my patients would have to check their own beliefs and attitudes and personal practices when they want to see me, for fear of not being compatible with my ethics, I would soon have very, very few patients. Everybody makes a better job if they put their educated profession first, and their private confession second.

Being professional doesn't force you to do unethical jobs, like being a concentration camp guard, or doing senseless medical experiments. That's why there are professional ethics.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 150): Wow, BMI727 is once again the perfect example of how libertarianism is hot sauce. Dash here and there nicely livens things up, but too much in and the whole dish tastes like shit.

I wouldn't word it so harshly, but I fully agree with you. The "liberty" in "libertarian" must not only respect the (religious) freedoms of businesspeople, but also the freedom of their customers to be gay, Muslim or black without fear of being disadvantaged in a free market.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 160): so they would not be able to discriminate legally.

Yes, today. But the point still stands as certain people might argue in favour of privately operated ambulances with a freedom to "contract" with any patient, be they black or white, conscious or unconscious.


In Switzerland, there are very, very few church-led hospitals. But in Germany, the self-organization of the people has a much stronger standing. Ambulances and hospitals, even the air rescue are operated by clubs - yes, clubs you can be a member of. The Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund (Worker's Samaritan Union) is one of them. They're probably left-leaning by heritage. The Maltese Aid Service was founded by the Catholic Caritas aid agency and by members of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (that's why they're named so). There is the evangelical St. John's Assistance Service.

They all have their ambulances, and their respective (religious) ethics. Things would be hairy if they weren't legally forced to assist all kinds of people. But what is hairy: There are Catholic hospitals, and despite they're paid for by payers of health insurance premiums regardless of their religion, they still roll out their Catholic ethics on unsuspecting patients.

There have been cases of women denied the morning-after pill after a condom ruptured when they presented in such a Catholic-run hospital. And in the German countryside you easily drive for 13 miles until you find a doctor who has open for the night, or is manning the local hospital's ER.

(Just a fun fact: Because employing divorced or even re-married Catholic men and women in a Catholic-run hospital would be against their ethical code, they happily employ Evangelical, Muslim and Jewish workers, nurses and doctors.)

Now, here is the interesting problem for the proponents of business freedom - the freedom to contract with whomever you want:

If I was a gay customer of a health insurance, and you as a hospital manager willingly contract with my health insurance to have my illness treated in your hospital, and then your hospital refuses to treat me for being gay - who is in breach of contract?

He who pays the piper calls the tune, isn't it?


David

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 124):

Pray you yourself never show up in an emergency room needing life-saving treatment to find a doctor with your attitude about selective and arbitrary care--you'd be dead. Sometimes ideals sound better on paper than reality. And also bear in mind most idealogues far outlive their cause and subsequent usefulness. Look at Gloria Steinem.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 143):

Sounds great on paper. Except, private hospitals are still licensed by the federal government and subject to licensure requirements routinely-if you've never worked in a hospital, it resembles a chicken coop on fire when the Joint Comission shows up, usually unannounced. And second, there is nary a "private" hospital in this country that does not receive buckets of federal money. It can come in the form of grants, or Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, and SSI payments. Nearly all hospitals would go under should that cash flow cease. No such thing as a truly private hospital in this country.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 146):

The original RFRA, while still redundant, was initially instituted primarily to protect Native American religious practices which had been banned by several states. In particular peyote consumption. It was found unconstitutional in 1997 with relation to powers it has over states. The language of it and most of the still-redundant state RFFAs are limited to the relationship between government and citizens. Indiana's law significantly broadens that scope to include government oversight related to private transactions. Isn't it neat to watch social conservatives encouraging the increase in government involvement?? And the timing is more than a little suspicious.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 146): All these businesses that have announced they intend to boycott Indiana might be a little careful.I've been reading on some other sites that may have someone launch a reverse discrimination lawsuit against the business boycotters on the grounds of economic hardship to the state and people of Indiana.

Interestingly enough some of the companies and organizations commenting and threatening boycotts do business with countries with questionable human rights practices, or their own questionably ethical practices (looking at you NCAA).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 148): A dress code is not discrimination (usually). The fact that you can go home, dress appropriately, and then be admitted, means that you are not discriminated. But I cannot go home and change my sexual orientation and then come back.

Dress code is definitely discrimination. The question of legality is that it is usually legal to discriminate that way. To pretend that establishments don't use dress code to discriminate against race though is naive. The point I was making was in response to refusal of service is only allowed in criminal/illegal behavior circumstances, which is not true.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 163): The original RFRA, while still redundant, was initially instituted primarily to protect Native American religious practices which had been banned by several states. In particular peyote consumption.

Right, and Ironically the RFRA has had a significant impact in defending practices of Native Tribes (other than the Peyote), Muslim, and Jewish practices. I believe something like 18% of the cases related to those three. It has also been applied to water reclamation cases on tribal lands.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 163): The language of it and most of the still-redundant state RFFAs are limited to the relationship between government and citizens. Indiana's law significantly broadens that scope to include government oversight related to private transactions.

What language in the law specifically gives IN more power than the other RFFAs? I see a bunch of articles on it, but I have been unable to find anything that specifically states concisely why it is different.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 164): What language in the law specifically gives IN more power than the other RFFAs? I see a bunch of articles on it, but I have been unable to find anything that specifically states concisely why it is different.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-...need-to-know-abo_20_b_6970024.html


"

Private parties are harmed. The Indiana law expressly provides that its special religious rights apply in disputes between private parties, where the government is not a part of the lawsuit. In other states -- state laws make clear that these special religious rights apply only when an agency of the government itself is the one interfering with religious exercise.

- There is no accountability. The Indiana law expressly provides that people can claim a special religious exemption to any law, regardless of whether the religious objection involves a tenet that is central to their faith, and regardless of whether their objection involves a matter that their religious actually compels. There is no accountability concerning the legitimacy of that claim so long as the person making the claim is sincere.

- Corporations are given special rights. The Indiana law expressly confers these special religious rights on corporations and other for-profit businesses, so long as there are individuals who have "control and substantial ownership" of those businesses and who assert the religious objection.

Additionally, Lambda Legal points out that Indiana's RFRA is different in that "(it) is so broadly written that someone can sue even without their religious beliefs having actually been burdened simply by claiming that is "likely" to happen.""

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 144): If a company is "open to the public" then it is their responsibility to serve the public. Discrimination should bring down a lot of misery on them, that discrimination being based on race, religion or personal preferences.

I noticed that gender is missing from your protected classes. That is big news.

How is it we can allow female-only businesses? How does that fit into this, there seems to be a direct contradiction. Will women-only gyms be required to open their doors to men, it is "discriminatory" by the arguments of the all-gay-is-all-good crowd.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 164): Dress code is definitely discrimination.

See, I don't see that as discrimination. That's just setting a criteria to be serviced and one for which you can do something about. Formal dining requires formal attire. Not in formal attire? Just change clothes. That's different to being rejected just because an owner felt like it. You can change clothes, increase your funds, even change religions...you can't change race, you can't change gender (you can but who would be desperate to undergo a transformation to join a club?), and you can't change sexual orientation.

So unless a store caters to a specific sector (and they specifically say so), they shouldn't discriminate at the time of service. Once again: own it. State your customer base.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 168):

Places use dress code to racially discriminate. Not necessarily with formal attire only or golf courses requiring proper footwear (as it would destroy the course). Bars, restaurants, and clubs use it as a tool to keep out the riff raff or the crowd they don't like. There is absolutely no good reason that any establishment would allow flip flops but not allow high tops for "safety reasons". Another example is not allowing flat billed hats. I

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 169): Places use dress code to racially discriminate.

As it has been mentioned before; you can change and come back and be admitted. Change the color of your skin or sexuality is impossible.

In other news, Gov. Pence just announced a "fix" to the steaming pile he's found himself in, some of which he helped to create. IMHO only something so political in origin could be so quickly swayed by external business and political influences. Here's a week Gov. Pence would like back. I wonder what effects this will have in other state houses? Well, at least ones that don't have a lot of large business interests.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 171): I wonder what effects this will have in other state houses?

Arkansas is moving forward and Gov. Hutchinson has vowed to sign the legislation. And North Carolina is also moving forward, though Gov. McCrory is hesitant to sign it, asking what problem does it solve?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 167): How is it we can allow female-only businesses?

For one, women were often barred from places. I see no qualms about having men-only places so why shouldn't there be women-only places? Or should we now require Lane Bryant to sell men's underwear too? This is beside the point to this law, however. Unless your business is religious in nature, either state that you serve only the faithful or be open for business for everyone.

Those women-only clubs? They already state who they serve and society is OK with it because just like men have their own places, women should too. How are LGBT folks in Indiana supposed to know which businesses will cater to them if they don't openly state it?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 167): Will women-only gyms be required to open their doors to men, it is "discriminatory" by the arguments of the all-gay-is-all-good crowd.

I think this may be different because it is a membership based organization. I think that, because they charge for a membership, they can include or deny entry. In the same vein, Costco *could* deny people entry because they are "members only" but, I think they understand free market and capitalism.

Also, many civilized and educated men understand that women want to work out without the possibility of being leered at.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 162): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 160): so they would not be able to discriminate legally. Yes, today. But the point still stands as certain people might argue in favour of privately operated ambulances with a freedom to "contract" with any patient, be they black or white, conscious or unconscious.

A lot of them are already privately-owned, they still however need to contract with the local municipalities where it would be absolutely acceptable to include anti-discrimination language in the contract.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 162): But what is hairy: There are Catholic hospitals, and despite they're paid for by payers of health insurance premiums regardless of their religion, they still roll out their Catholic ethics on unsuspecting patients.

Well it's a good thing you would go to a Catholic charitable institution then if you don't want to hear about Catholic ethics.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 162): There have been cases of women denied the morning-after pill after a condom ruptured when they presented in such a Catholic-run hospital.

I can't really speak to the complexities of the German healthcare system, but what moron goes to an institution run by the largest, most vocal pro-life anti-abortion organization in the world and expects them to provide the morning-after pill?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 162): And in the German countryside you easily drive for 13 miles until you find a doctor who has open for the night, or is manning the local hospital's ER.

You probably should avoid living in sparsely populated rural areas if this is a concern for you.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 162): If I was a gay customer of a health insurance, and you as a hospital manager willingly contract with my health insurance to have my illness treated in your hospital, and then your hospital refuses to treat me for being gay

If you’re a non-discriminating health insurance provider, why on earth would you contract with a discriminating hospital to be part of your network? If the hospital has it written into their signed contract that they will treat the insurer’s customers without discrimination, then yes, the hospital would be in breach of their contract with your insurance provider.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 163): Sounds great on paper. Except, private hospitals are still licensed by the federal government and subject to licensure requirements routinely-if you've never worked in a hospital, it resembles a chicken coop on fire when the Joint Comission shows up, usually unannounced. And second, there is nary a "private" hospital in this country that does not receive buckets of federal money.

Practically speaking, yes, most hospitals do accept government monies, and on that basis the government is completely within its rights to demand they not discriminate. Doc’s example seemed to more be a foray into reducto ad absurdum however.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 174): but what moron goes to an institution run by the largest, most vocal pro-life anti-abortion organization in the world and expects them to provide the morning-after pill?

Because the next hospital is 13 miles away, and the next state-run hospital 40?

Imagine that with a 16 year old girl which had sex and her parents frown upon her relationship, and so she has to travel these 40 miles by herself... somehow. I don't know many people that use their bicycles for 40 miles in the dead of the night.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 174): You probably should avoid living in sparsely populated rural areas if this is a concern for you.

Why? Some people can't live in a city because of the higher rents. Some people have family where they already live, and depend on their families. Some people are 70, can't even drive anymore, and and in your opinion they should leave their family behind and move to a big town where state-run hospitals are close by?

Err.... nope.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 174): If you’re a non-discriminating health insurance provider, why on earth would you contract with a discriminating hospital to be part of your network?

Due to the RFRA of Indiana even a contract which forbids discrimination would be worthless. There would be no guarantee whatsoever when an insurer contracts with any hospital. The government and its courts are not allowed to enforce these contracts, because that would place an undue burden on the hospital's exercise of religion.


David

Wow. just wow

"We will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance," said NASCAR, which is based in Florida and North Carolina. "We are committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/news/indiana-religious-freedom-law/

I now thank Gov Pence. This massive fail has brought out the best in all kinds of business who have demonstrated that they believe that ALL employees and ALL customers have something good to give to their businesses and to society, regardless of their beliefs, race or sexuality,

Positive change can come from your good actions - or you can come as a backlash to your bad ones.

Unfortunately Pence choose to be the villain of the story. With any luck it has a happy ending for people in Indiana and all other states that are considering similar laws.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 175): The government and its courts are not allowed to enforce these contracts, because that would place an undue burden on the hospital's exercise of religion.

Wouldn't this already apply under the current RFRA on the federal level? In this particular example how does Indiana's law differ? Additionally, how would optionally entering a contract with another party exercise undue burden?

[Edited 2015-03-31 12:13:49]

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 175): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 174): but what moron goes to an institution run by the largest, most vocal pro-life anti-abortion organization in the world and expects them to provide the morning-after pill? Because the next hospital is 13 miles away, and the next state-run hospital 40?

The HORROR.

You still don’t have the right to force them to provide those types of services.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 175): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 174): You probably should avoid living in sparsely populated rural areas if this is a concern for you. Why? Some people can't live in a city because of the higher rents.

You don’t have to live in a city to live in more densely populated areas.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 175): Some people have family where they already live, and depend on their families. Some people are 70, can't even drive anymore, and and in your opinion they should leave their family behind and move to a big town where state-run hospitals are close by?

Wholly irrelevant. Cellular service also sucks in a lot of rural areas, but you have no right to a minimum of three bars of service. Winters also suck in North Dakota, but it’s none of my business or concern if you choose to accept those particular risks to remain near family or stay on the ancestral homestead.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 175): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 174): If you’re a non-discriminating health insurance provider, why on earth would you contract with a discriminating hospital to be part of your network? Due to the RFRA of Indiana even a contract which forbids discrimination would be worthless. There would be no guarantee whatsoever when an insurer contracts with any hospital. The government and its courts are not allowed to enforce these contracts, because that would place an undue burden on the hospital's exercise of religion.

And? You seem to be under the impression I’m defending or in favor of the law.

Heck, the legal nerds are full of joy now.

To anybody who lives in Indiana: Can you please found a religion that views everything as a gift, and that any financial obligation is contrary to its teachings?   

No, I won't pay taxes. It's against my religion. No, I won't pay any rent, any fees, any fines, no, nothing. Anything that is given me is a gift, and anything I give you is a gift. There shall be nothing else. Amen.

If I want to do my shopping, I'll just steal everything. Good luck with compelling me to give the goods back, because that would constitute an obligation. And I'll buy get every a.nutter a Gulfstream 650 on credit. Promised! 


David

Quoting mt99 (Reply 176): Unfortunately Pence choose to be the villain of the story. With any luck it has a happy ending for people in Indiana and all other states that are considering similar laws.

The same law was enacted at a Federal level as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by Bill Clinton in 1993 (and passed by a Democratic-controlled House and Senate), and after the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997 which decided that the RFRA did not apply to the states, 20 other states apart from Indiana passed state versions of the same since then.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...l-justice/state-rfra-statutes.aspx



So the big question is, why the sudden outrage?

I find the hypocrisy particularly outrageous. If you do not have the right to chose who you want to do business with, are we really a free country anymore? A restaurant that has a sign saying "proper attire required" is now illegal? By this standard, it soon will be.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 177): Wouldn't this already apply under the current RFRA on the federal level? In this particular example how does Indiana's law differ? Additionally, how would optionally entering a contract with another party exercise undue burden?

I don't know about the federal RFRA...  

The RFRA does not affect entering contracts. It affects enforcing contracts, as enforcing it may encroach on anybody's religious freedom. As a devout non-abortionist doctor I would contract with a insurance and I'll promise to not discriminate based on religion, and then I'll happily receive any insurance money but refuse to perform the abortion.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 178): You still don’t have the right to force them to provide those types of services.

Of course one can force professionals to do their professional service, and keep back their personal issues. That's how it's done in the civilized world. There are laws that ensure that. In Europe, any railway must contract with any fare-paying customer. Any taxi driver must contract with the customers. Any hospital........

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 178): You don’t have to live in a city to live in more densely populated areas.

Of course. But it places a bigger burden on the old people to move nearer to a hospital, while the burden of a doctor treating a gay person is smaller. Because his customer is a patient first, and a homosexual later.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 178): Wholly irrelevant.

Why irrelevant? Through the Selective Service system, any able-bodied US citizen can be forcibly recruited into the US Armed Forces. Everybody has to pay taxes, wherever he or she lives. And so the government must have the decency to treat people equal in some regards. And I think access to education and healthcare must be two of these things to which anybody in the US should have a reasonable access to, no matter where one lives.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 178): And? You seem to be under the impression I’m defending or in favor of the law.

This might be the case, at least I understand your lines in that way. But the truth is that the Indianese RFRA is a vehicle to make some people (gay, blacks, muslims...) really pay, under the pretense of religious freedom.


David

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 180): The same law was enacted at a Federal level as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) b

Served on a platter for you: (you are welcome)

"If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 180): So the big question is, why the sudden outrage?

Because times and society has changed. # years ago the outrage would have been significantly less.But here we are in March of 2015 - a time where NASCAR came out and opposed the law and tone deaf Republicans are realizing that they are stuck in the past

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 180): So the big question is, why the sudden outrage?

Just in.. an 11 pager advance warning to Pence about the law . explain WHY the Indiana law is different

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/de...fessors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf

Quoting mt99 (Reply 182):

I've read the actual Indian bill, and found these provisions hair-rising and both hilarious. I understand why there is such a fuss about this Indianese bill. I just hope anybody founds his own religion right now. Right now.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 183):

Thanks, I'll read that soon!


David

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 93): In this scenario, the swing is not breaking anyone's nose so you don't have the right to block the fist.

Using this logic, if someone fires a gun at me and misses, you're saying I don't have the right to return fire and kill them because it's the bullet not the firing of the gun that can kill me. I would first have to allow the bullet to strike me before I could defend myself?

But, back on topic and a hypothetical scenario that could easily be played out: Let's say I reside in a state that has a law that sees sexual orientation as a protected class. And let's say I'm a 30 year old male and I walk into a local restaurant here that has a sign prominently displayed that says the restaurant reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. The hostess, who doubles as the manager greets me and, pointing to the sign informs me the restaurant is exercising its right to refuse service and she asks me to leave. I do as I am asked and I go to my car and get my 30 year old male boyfriend and we walk back into the restaurant, hand in hand. We're greeted by the same manager and I inform her my boyfriend and I would like a booth for two. Now what? Is she obligated to seat us?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 181): Of course one can force professionals to do their professional service

That’s called slavery and is the opposite of a free and civilized society. I don’t believe in government prohibition of abortions, but I shiver at the thought of living in a society where the government would point a gun to a Catholic’s head and force him/her to perform one.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 181): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 178): You don’t have to live in a city to live in more densely populated areas. Of course. But it places a bigger burden on the old people to move nearer to a hospital, while the burden of a doctor treating a gay person is smaller. Because his customer is a patient first, and a homosexual later.

There’s a burden either way, it’s all about what you value. But don’t expect me subsidize your choices so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 181): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 178): Wholly irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Through the Selective Service system, any able-bodied US citizen can be forcibly recruited into the US Armed Forces. Everybody has to pay taxes, wherever he or she lives. And so the government must have the decency to treat people equal in some regards.

The reasons you’re living there are irrelevant. These other examples are indeed completely within the purview of government as they have a clearly defined constitutional obligation in the US to ensure citizens are provided equal protection before the law.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 186): But don’t expect me subsidize your choices so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Wait - and religion is not a choice?

Churches do not pay taxes.. My gay tax dollars are subsidizing it!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 186): But don’t expect me subsidize your choices so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Religion, in particular the protestant Christian one that dominates the special interests groups in this country, is nothing but a choice. In particular, according to the Baptist doctrine I was brought up with, one must ask for it.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 186): That’s called slavery and is the opposite of a free and civilized society.

What the hell did I just read?

As a public health scientist, we often have medical research running in Muslim countries. Some of us learn basic Arabic just to gain the respect of local tribal leaders in Northern Africa. If you can read the Quran and pronounce the words more or less right, you're accepted into the village community - even a Christian woman. In the midst of a savannah.

Now, what if I refuse to analyze that dataset, because I might thus help Muslims lead a better life? My boss will just laugh all day and probably never give me a task again. When I do work, I have to carry out professional duties, and have to put back my personal opinions, or my religious affections.

You might want to check the meaning of the word "professional".


David

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 180): So the big question is, why the sudden outrage? I find the hypocrisy particularly outrageous. If you do not have the right to chose who you want to do business with, are we really a free country anymore? A restaurant that has a sign saying "proper attire required" is now illegal? By this standard, it soon will be.

You have some good points but I think it's dishonest to deny the fact that a lot of these laws are starting to pop up in response to (or in some states, anticipation of) gay marriage.

I think the debate is best fought over the issue of "should photographers/bakeries be forced to provide services to gay marriages?" We can compare to the civil rights era, say how Christians can be shooed away from Muslim stores, etc or on the other side, pretend that Christianity (the overwhelming majority religion) is being persecuted like early Roman times, but these are all just distractions IMO vs the heart of the issue.

Personally, I see it as discrimination, yet I can not see forcing black bakeries to put racist language on their cakes or something. I cautiously want to say it's not a double standard since the first is bigotry against people that can't help that they're gay vs hateful choices.

As a side note, I see the opposition to catering gay marriages as completely hypocritical. Gay marriage is as unbiblical as 2 Muslims marrying, 2 atheists marrying, etc yet no one raises a peep. It's all about homophobia, not strictly adhering to a religion

At the end of the day, however, I might think this discrimination is constitutional if the businesses are closely held thanks to the Hobby Lobby case. Thoughts on that, anyone?

The mayor of Indianapolis has said he will not enforce this law and has spoken out against this law. In fact, he wants LGBT equality written into city/state law.

http://www.newsweek.com/indianapolis...ligious-freedom-restoration-318068

So, hypothetical, what happens if cities, counties, higher education refuse to enforce the Indiana RFRA law and, instead, go the other way and write protections for LGBT into their own local ordinances?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 191): So, hypothetical, what happens if cities, counties, higher education refuse to enforce the Indiana RFRA law and, instead, go the other way and write protections for LGBT into their own local ordinances?

It goes to court.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 190): As a side note, I see the opposition to catering gay marriages as completely hypocritical. Gay marriage is as unbiblical as 2 Muslims marrying, 2 atheists marrying, etc yet no one raises a peep. It's all about homophobia, not strictly adhering to a religion

I don't think you would see a Muslim couple go to a catholic/christian baking service, and definitely don't think you would see athiests do that on behalf of their beliefs, but I could be wrong. I would ask a similar question though. How would a gay photographer/baker feel about performing said services for Muslims, Westboro Baptist etc...? My guess is that it may not go over so well, but again I could be wrong.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 187): Churches do not pay taxes.. My gay tax dollars are subsidizing it!

Churches not paying taxes =/= tax dollars subsidizing them.

Once again, walking past and not picking up a stray penny on the street does not mean you just spent $0.01.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 188): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 186): But don’t expect me subsidize your choices so you can have your cake and eat it too. Religion, in particular the protestant Christian one that dominates the special interests groups in this country, is nothing but a choice. In particular, according to the Baptist doctrine I was brought up with, one must ask for it.

And what rights are you deprived of by their choice?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 189): Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 186): That’s called slavery and is the opposite of a free and civilized society. What the hell did I just read? As a public health scientist, we often have medical research running in Muslim countries. Some of us learn basic Arabic just to gain the respect of local tribal leaders in Northern Africa. If you can read the Quran and pronounce the words more or less right, you're accepted into the village community - even a Christian woman. In the midst of a savannah. Now, what if I refuse to analyze that dataset, because I might thus help Muslims lead a better life? My boss will just laugh all day and probably never give me a task again. When I do work, I have to carry out professional duties, and have to put back my personal opinions, or my religious affections. You might want to check the meaning of the word "professional".

I think we're going over each others' heads here. You're employer has every right to make those demands of you (and you also have the right to quit), the government does not.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 193):

Well if some would have their way...the right to marry. There's not much point in arguing that one.
The bigger issue is your comment regarding subsidizing a choice. Why should the government defend your choices if you don't want to reciprocate that respect?

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 192): I don't think you would see a Muslim couple go to a catholic/christian baking service, and definitely don't think you would see athiests do that on behalf of their beliefs, but I could be wrong.

Huh? You don't see 0.6%* of Americans (Muslims) or 2.4%* of Americans (atheists) going to a bakery that is owned by a Christian (one of 83%* of the over 300,000,000 Americans?)

*quick googled numbers, YMMV but the number is small

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 192): I would ask a similar question though. How would a gay photographer/baker feel about performing said services for Muslims, Westboro Baptist etc...?

I thought I touched on this exact thing in my reply. I'll admit, it's a fuzzy area, something I think about a lot. I don't want to lie to you and pretend it's clear as day to me because it's not, just something I feel is right but can't 100% get behind rationally (not saying I am anywhere close to accepting the other position's logic though.)

I see these bills as 1000 times more legitimate than anti-gay marriage bills, though the dishonestly and beating around the bush accompanying these laws is nauseating. But to answer you, a gay person not doing whatever for a Muslim wedding? Yeah, guilty. A gay not doing it for a WBC wedding? Now that depends... are we talking simply because they're Christian / WBC or because of hateful actions? Who you are vs actions... but even that can get complicated.

Muddy water for sure, I will not lie, and I don't want to be hypocritical. I am pretty firm on people not being able to kick black people out of their shop for being black, nor am I for forcing black people to cater at a KKK hate rally (not that the KKK would want them to but you know what I'm saying.) Where is the line?

That is what I'm personally struggling with. I just find it curious how atheist weddings are good and all, Muslim ones too, but oh no, 2 guys or 2 girls (who may be Christians themselves!) is too much. Whether they should have the right to refuse gay couples or not, I proudly fly the BS flag against the double standard. I would think gay Christian marriages are way more biblical than straight atheist ones

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 192): How would a gay photographer/baker feel about performing said services for Muslims, Westboro Baptist etc...?

With more class than passing a bill into law or saying "I will not perform that service for you because of my beliefs." The LGBT community has realized we want to be taken seriously and not just the wierdos prancing in jock straps on a rainbow float one weekend in June. So, we fight hate with class, for the most part. Treat us with respect and we will treat you the same. There was probably a minor backlash against states with RFRA laws but, when we realized we were not in any way harmed by those laws, we didn't care so much.

As for a pointed answer to your pointed question: if I were a baker and a Muslim couple wanted a cake from me, I would bake the cake halal. If WBC asked me to bake a cake, I would ask when they want it and, then simply say "I'm sorry, I am really busy that week. There is another bakery up the street" and hand them the information.

Open question to anyone: is Christianity really under that much of an attack that laws like this need to be on the books? Arkansas is coming close to passing one, Georgia just killed their attempt. How many Christian churches have gone under from attacks in this country?

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 192): I don't think you would see a Muslim couple go to a catholic/christian baking service, and definitely don't think you would see athiests do that on behalf of their beliefs, but I could be wrong.

Considering that Western Muslims are more open-minded than their Middle Eastern counterparts, why wouldn't a Muslim couple decide to buy a cake?

What's stopping the store owner from asking them if they're Christians so that the owner's response is to deny service because he doesn't believe in the Koran and as such it would be unchristian of him/her to bake a cake for a couple not marrying under Christian tradition? The same goes for the atheist couple. "Oh I'm sorry but you're a non-believer and I cannot service someone who doesn't believe".

But I digress. We can pose the different scenarios which will bring down the law should it remain intact (Muslim turning away a Christian, a Christian turning away an atheist)...and these are all straight to boot.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 194): Well if some would have their way...the right to marry. There's not much point in arguing that one.

Obviously that's getting taken care of.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 194): Why should the government defend your choices if you don't want to reciprocate that respect?

We're getting very vague here, what types of choices are you describing?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 197): We can pose the different scenarios which will bring down the law should it remain intact

And, as some of us have pointed out before, the free market is deciding whether this law is a good thing or not. Indiana is set to lose billions of dollars. The free market and equality are speaking. If the evangelical right wing Christians don't like how the free market responds, maybe they should not pass laws like this instead of screaming they are the victims.