On #1, so what? SCOTUS already ruled on this in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
On #2, I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The law has nothing to dow ith gay marriage as far as I can tell.
On #3, discrimination would already be covered by public accommodation laws so it's moot.
But let us take a look at this sort of law and apply it to, for example, a sculptor. Let's posit for a moment that this sculptor is a deeply-convicted Christian who believes that he is not to make any sort of graven image and if he does, he will go to Hell when he dies.
Now let's further posit that you come to him as an adherent of the Church of Satan and wish to commission him to create for you a statute of Baal.
These laws those lunatics on the left champion would force him to create said work of art despite the fact that he fundamentally believes doing so would cause him to be irretrievably damned to Hell -- or go to prison now.
This sort of crap is why the RFRA was necessary and why these state laws are necessary.
And the big one. Hobby Lobby was about "family owned" business only.It did not rule that. It ruled that Hobby Lobby's decision to deny contraceptive coverage was protected under the federal RFRA, which exclusively deals with dealings between private entities and the government.
This law also covers dealings exclusively between two private entities.
That makes it quite a bit different, don't you agree?
He probably came to that conclusion when the people drafting the law explicitly rejected proposed amendments that said it couldn't be used to discriminate against gay people.
As Hobby Lobby showed, this is not necessarily true.
Burwell v Hobby Lobby has changed everything by making businesses "persons" with religions. So pointing to 1993 federal law is no longer an excuse for bigot states after Hobby Lobby. This is now not just about people's individual freedom to practice their religion, it's about businesses using religion as a cover for discrimination. Americans won't stand for it.
It has little to do with gay rights. It is more basic than that. Take this analysis from KD:
But let us take a look at this sort of law and apply it to, for example, a sculptor. Let's posit for a moment that this sculptor is a deeply-convicted Christian who believes that he is not to make any sort of graven image and if he does, he will go to Hell when he dies.
Now let's further posit that you come to him as an adherent of the Church of Satan and wish to commission him to create for you a statute of Baal.
These laws those lunatics on the left champion would force him to create said work of art despite the fact that he fundamentally believes doing so would cause him to be irretrievably damned to Hell -- or go to prison now.
This sort of crap is why the RFRA was necessary and why these state laws are necessary.
Well, the left argued in this thread that businesses should be able to turn away persons for speech they disagree with - the case in question was whether a gay baker should be forced to write on a cake "gay marriage is wrong." Eskimospy and his merry band of progressives said the gay baker shouldn't be forced to do so. But it's obvious then and now if a baker tried to refuse service to someone wanting a cake saying "support gay marriage" or "Congratulations Gary and Steve on your wedding" they would force the second baker to make that cake.
So basically it comes down to situational ethics for the left.
Either it's an economic activity covered by public accommodation laws or it's not, either way this ruling should have no new impact on discrimination. Whether it's a business or individual makes no difference. Your options would be either (A) fix whatever you see as the deficiencies of public accommodation laws, or (B) admit that you're no longer satisfied with only public accommodation laws and want anti-discrimination laws applicable to every sphere of economic transactions. The second is a reasonable position to take, although ultimately futile due to right-of-association protections in the Constitution.
Anti-discrimination laws already apply to far more than public accommodation.
And examples given by supporters of these "religious freedom" laws are about allowing bakeries and florist shops to discriminate against gay customers.
I agree that it makes no difference whether it is a business or an individual in the private sector or an individual in government (say, an evangelical Christian not wanting to issue marriage licenses to gay people, or a Muslim not wanting to issue marriage licenses to Jews) in public accommodation laws. The problem in a nutshell is that while the former laws were concerned with limiting government's power of the individual, the Indiana law expands that into public accommodation, whether by individuals within government or by individuals in the private sector. And while I'm sympathetic to those with that conflict, that's a very bad thing to enshrine into law.Either it's an economic activity covered by public accommodation laws or it's not, either way this ruling should have no new impact on discrimination. Whether it's a business or individual makes no difference. Your options would be either (A) fix whatever you see as the deficiencies of public accommodation laws, or (B) admit that you're no longer satisfied with only public accommodation laws and want anti-discrimination laws applicable to every sphere of economic transactions. The second is a reasonable position to take, although ultimately futile due to right-of-association protections in the Constitution.
Anti-discrimination laws already apply to far more than public accommodation.
And examples given by supporters of these "religious freedom" laws are about allowing bakeries and florist shops to discriminate against gay customers.
Only Indiana evidently doesn't have public accommodation laws which include gays. As I stated earlier, fix that problem and this law is a non-issue.
https://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/02/indiana-rfra-fix-a-de-facto-public-accommodation-law/
Only Indiana evidently doesn't have public accommodation laws which include gays. As I stated earlier, fix that problem and this law is a non-issue.
https://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/02/indiana-rfra-fix-a-de-facto-public-accommodation-law/
I agree that it makes no difference whether it is a business or an individual in the private sector or an individual in government (say, an evangelical Christian not wanting to issue marriage licenses to gay people, or a Muslim not wanting to issue marriage licenses to Jews) in public accommodation laws. The problem in a nutshell is that while the former laws were concerned with limiting government's power of the individual, the Indiana law expands that into public accommodation, whether by individuals within government or by individuals in the private sector. And while I'm sympathetic to those with that conflict, that's a very bad thing to enshrine into law.
Just as Islam needs a very major reformation, Christianity needs a reformation regarding gay people.
I propose that all the opponents of gays should be required to perform gay sex and the more vehement they are the more frequent the gay sex.
Checks for Fern reply.
Returns to waiting, reading Samuel Beckett.
Ferns reply:
Obama secret muslim took over Indiana governor's brain and forced him to sign this law so that he can enact martial law on white people in Indiana. He will slowly do this to every state except South Carolina which he plans on nuking.
it seems the gay community has become exactly what they have claimed to have fought all these years....bigoted bullies.they do not want equal rights,they want special rights.remember that in this country you are no one unless you are a victim.and they have scores to settle.
it seems the gay community has become exactly what they have claimed to have fought all these years....bigoted bullies.they do not want equal rights,they want special rights.remember that in this country you are no one unless you are a victim.and they have scores to settle.