No one here is making that argument Kuta.

Anyone trying to say that they can act on their religious faith in contradiction of established legal precedent is.

*except for what the new law would allow. Along with 19 similar ones. And 15 proposed ones.

Also, this isn't about religious faith exclusively. It is about personal conviction, however they might arise.

I just can't wait for the reactionary (and WRONG) religious right wingnuts who enact this garbage get their asses handed to them by the SCOTUS.

Too bad it's scorched earth from the right until then. Apocalypse and Kingdom Come!

It is about religious faith exclusively. If you truly think personal convictions had anything to do with this wolf-in-sheep's-clothing-law, you're deluding yourself.

Except for the fact that they would be covered...

And just to be clear Kuta, you are in favor of black bakers being forced to bake cakes for the KKK, and Jewish bakers to bake cakes for Nazi's, right? Just want to clear that up.

I love how you ignored goldfinger0303's argument, which effectively wrecks any defense of the law in a way I hadn't even considered.

Just want to clear this up:

"what about the muslim faith? If a muslim's religious beliefs forbid pork and his kids are starving, should he be forced to feed them pork chops if that is all that is available?"

According to Islam itself, yes, you must feed them pork chops if that is all that is available. It is the Muslim's duty to keep himself strong. If there's a choice of food, don't choose pork. If it's eating pork or starving, eat pork.

Right. And in a lot of ways that is worse.

My personal conviction as a member of the Monster Raving Loony Party (reformed) means that I have to deny services to people based on any number of monster raving loony party (reformed) beliefs.

It's ludicrous and goes as far down the rabbit hole as you can go.

I hope they get their asses handed to them. Loudly and publicly. This is what happens in the Republican echo chamber.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

"Would material harm be covered by this though? I am all for making sure this law can in no way cause personal harm. But material? Is finding another baker really that big of a deal?"

Learn to read jmo.

Glad to hear you support that Kuta. At least you are consistent, unlike most here.

That does not answer goldfinger's question. And the answer is yes, it easily could be. You have no idea where the next one is, what size the town is, the extra cost. Endless factors. What if all the bakers refuse them?

So now you are not only entitled to *have* a cake, but it has to be the cheapest one too? Good Lord jmo. Since when do you *deserve* to have a cake baked for you? What is it with people and their entitlement? If people refused to bake me a cake, I'd suck it up. They would lose my business. Why on earth do you feel the need to subjugate everyone around you in order to fit your own needs?

bake it yourself.....dont have cake

By the way, my answer to goldie was that I wasn't sure if material "danger" would be covered, and wasn't sure how that would impact it. Unless you are a trained lawyer who has studied this law, can you give me anything better?

Our constitution does not say you have to serve every person who walks through the door. Interestingly, the Bible does say it.

Our government has so many laws telling you (a so called free person in a so called free country) what you can and cant do. You cant have too big of a soda in NYC. In CT you have to wear a seat belt, but you dont have to wear a motorcycle helmet. It is silly to think any of this is good for any of us.

Not just about a cake. It's about any type of service. Not all things are as easy to go without as cake.

Heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer. The best lawyer to get you off a false murder charge that the 2nd best lawyer cannot win.

So, you are entitled to have the cheapest of everything? Why? If I only have $5, do I still deserve a cake, and you have to sell it to me for that much? Also, I don't have a car. You have to deliver it. But I don't have enough money to pay for that.

What is wrong with this world?

*I hereby declare that I deserve a thousand webDip points. I demand that the moderators give them to me.*

Supporters of these laws:

I DO WHAT I WANT!

Naysayers of these laws:

DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO!

The Indiana legislature is already writing up new language for the bill in order to clarify that it does not create grounds for discrimination against gay individuals. They fucked up and they know it. They tried to sneak it by and thanks in large part to the NCAA, they failed.

KC, cake is not a right, nor is a thousand points. Having a livable space with livable temperatures in the winter is a right. Having the ability to eat is a right. Having the ability to vote and speak your mind, dumb as that mind may be, is a right. You're talking about two different things.

But that's *not* what it is.

If you want to run a business--a legal construct--there are certain things you need to do to be legitimate. That's the deal.

You can't pick and choose.

They didn't "fuck up." They did it full well expecting this to be the outcome. They just hoped that other people didn't make a shitstorm out of it.

When the court appoints a lawyer for those who cannot afford one, they get the best lawyer every time right?

When the constitution was written there was no air conditioning in the summer and no heat in the winter. So I am sure that is not in there.

The fact remains this. if you are counting on your government to control every activity known to man, you want a dictatorship. And if you allow your government to grow as it is, you will get one.

"Render unto Caesar" applies.

Religious liberty should be nearly unfettered in this country. It should be as close to "I can do whatever I like" as possible.