That's the exact same attitude as saying "Well, if the grocery store refused to serve black people, that'd be an inconvenience, but the grocery store would lose business"

OK, I don't know then. I'll freely admit that. I don't like all the parts of this law. But how far should people be able to demand? Can I force a black t-shirt maker to print something saying, "Black Lives Don't Matter"? I am sure everyone can think of scenario's where they face a morally repugnant, whatever that means to you, situation involving this. Some people said they would refuse to serve the KKK. Where is the line then?

Isn't the law just a loophole to counter anti-discrimination laws? I'm pretty happy that anyone can be denied access where I live based on religious grounds: in the sense of
(1) wearing crosses visibly
(2) wearing a burka
(3) trying oneself as a missionary (including talks about god)
(4) many other instances of harassing people on religious grounds…

and on the contrary, you are not allowed to throw out people based on them having a certain sexual orientation, only, as with religion, based on actual harassment such as:

(1) trying to hit on people (which is equivalent to (3))
(2) obscene behaviour (such pleasuring, etc. …)
(3) and anything related to this…

and where it is also considered harassment with criminal intent to shout at women in front of a doctor's office or do other things of public shaming the way it apparently is legal in many US states. Why should they make a fuss out of these small issues? To bring some actual cases where the law will matter:

schools, kindergarten, any similar educational institutions, sport clubs, bars, restaurants, hotels, cabs, etc. (and yes, doctor's offices and pharmacies)

Holy Shit. I leave for a few hours and this thread turns into Ferguson.

Or Israel-Palestine :P

Ok, so this is the first time i've seen the difference between the Federal law protecting religious freedoms and these state laws/bills actually explained:

"these new bills say that companies can have the same religious rights as individuals, which opponents say could be used to let businesses discriminate against gay couples."

Is that it? Companies now have religious beliefs?? Odd.

From: www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/01/arkansas-governor-to-discuss-religious-liberty-bill

As a Canadian, honestly, my Facebook feed is FULL off comments on how backwards America is proving itself to be

A store, a market, they might be private property but at the same time they are in that unique situation of being public ground as well. That's one thing to consider

Another thing to consider is that what consulting adults do in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom and refusing to service someone on the grounds that they, in their private time and space, engage in sexual activity one does not agree with implies that such sexual activity is public business. So, if I think sexual roleplay is sinful should I ask people whether they do so in the bedroom, and refuse to serve them if they do?

The third thing to consider is that refusing to service someone on the grounds that it is wrong to do so according to one's religion is far from religious freedom, rather, it is imposing one's religious values on another. Serving someone in the KKK is serving someone that is actively hurting another group, refusing to serve someone for their sexual orientation is refusing to serve someone because your religion tells you that what they do is sinful - so, does that mean that grocery stores should be allowed to not serve liars, adulterers, atheists etc? Not to mention that refusing to serve a discriminated group might actually end up be harmful - all the gay teens considering suicide, you think telling them they're not allowed somewhere is going to help?

(That being said when I worked in a gelato shop my job was to scoop gelato, so I had little time to make moral judgments and decide whether I'd serve someone because they're racist/homophobic/whatever)

On a side note I also heavily disagree with kicking someone out of somewhere due to them wearing a cross, burqa, etc. Again, doing so suggests that the body is a public space, and that certain forms of devotion are not acceptable. Again, we have no business making value judgments regarding other people

That's my two cents

No one has a right not to have their feelings hurt. People do have a right to free association though. Anyone saying they have a right to make another private citizen do something for them is wrong. There is no right to compel another person to do as you please.

People have the right to hurt your feelings, gay peoples feelings, suicidal gay teens feelings, my feelings, that guy with the beard on CNN's feelings, that guy who I saw peeing by the post office's feelings, my preschool teachers feelings, your dogs feelings. You get the idea. There is no right not to have others not want to have anything to do with you in the constitution. There is a right to say what you want, association with who you want and believe what you want though. I imagine business contractions are covered somewhere under the word associate.

You should be able to not serve gays or black people or white people or the KKK or people with left dominate eyes or people who like cats or people who pee sitting or people who wear crocs. Saying you don't have the right to talk and do business with who you personally choose makes you an asinine jerk. To put it as politely as I possibly can.

Holen, you ARE free to limit your business to selected populations. People who aren't wearing a shirt or shoes, for instances. Smokers are another population. Those without money as well. You can limit business to anyone based on *behaviors*. You CAN'T deny service based on who the person is. That's the difference between choice and discrimination.

Therein lies the main driver of this conflict, that there's still much debate concerning whether being openly straight vs. openly gay is rooted in who you are, or an exhibited behavior we choose. Who we are attracted to isn't really a behavior since once matured an adult doesn't ultimately actively choose who they are attracted to. But we all choose whether to act on it or not.

I encourage all of you with a strong opinion either way on this bill to go read the actual bill instead of just assuming you know what it is about. For example this bill does NOT actually allow businesses to refuse to sell to gay customers in general/across the board. It does afford businesses more protection against being sued for refusing to participate in activities they find morally objectionable. This is where strict scrutiny comes into play as mentioned by Maher Shalal way back on page 1. So for example the baker that routinely bakes and sells cakes to gays but does not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding is LESS LIKELY (not even guaranteed) to lose a lawsuit for refusing to do so. Similarly for a photographer that is willing to photograph gays but is not willing to photograph a gay wedding.

I think it is interesting that the gay marriage debate in this country has quickly progressed from "Against gay marriage, then don't have one" to "Against gay marriage, you must participate in our ceremony or we will sue you and attempt to force you out of business even though you have done business with us many times in the past".

I'm also curious what is next, will people attempt to force vegan restaurants to cook them a steak (of course wanting a steak from a vegan restaurant makes about as much sense as wanting a gay wedding cake from a baker that is opposed to gay marriage, a savvy consumer takes their business to like-minded or at least neutral companies instead). Sad times for freedom and the Bill of Rights in this country right now.

A good article:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/meet-10-americans-helped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/

Indiana's bill is different. It's the next iteration of legalizing discrimination in America. There's a reason that the ACLU changed its stance once it realized how ALEC used the original RFRAs to get their foot in the door and then went even further now. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile.

While these bills don't explicitly allow discrimination, they invite people to discriminate to their heart's content and then provide legal cover for them. They are designed with this in mind with the intention of having a Supreme Court showdown. At least the free marketplace of ideas is quickly calling out these abhorrent laws for the bigot-enablers they are. Now to let the wheels of justice turn...

Whether this law says it or not. I am saying discrimination is part of freedom of association. If someone wants to be racist and not serve people who are white or black or Jewish they should be able to. That's their decision and their business. Their right to decide. The same goes with gays. It's wrong to force people to do have to do something they don't want in most cases. You're compelling someone's do something they don't want for no good reason. No physical harm or property damage being committed against anyone and you wish to force them into an action. That's wrong.

People don't have the right not to be discriminated against to be served or to have anyone do much of anything for them. Generally speaking.

Indiana's bill will give plenty of exemptions that many people would agree with. Do you think the boy in the article should have to cut his hair? There are so many examples. That article listed 10.

@Holen: in your mind is there a difference between someone and some corporation?

"I am saying discrimination is part of freedom of association. If someone wants to be racist and not serve people who are white or black or Jewish they should be able to."

As I pointed out earlier in the thread. Religious based discrimination is already illegal, as it should be, as is racial discrimination.

So based on your logic you wouldn't mind if Kestas or Zultar banned you right now because of your religion? That should be their right as an owner of this site?

If the best defense you have is that you have the right to be a jerk, then you should probably really reconsider your opinion.

First off, fighting discrimination is not about making sure no one's feelings get hurt. In the case of gay individuals, a lot of them are actively assaulted or murdered or commit suicide - by encouraging further discrimination against them you are actively encouraging violence against them. If someone kills themselves because they are not accepted in the world - then that's not hurting their feeling, that's causing them to die.

I can't believe how, in a country where people fought for the right to be able to enter any restaurant they wish, to not have to sit at the back of the bus but be allowed to sit in the front, there are people now that are arguing that NO we should be able to say "sorry, you're not allowed here because I don't like your kind." Are things really that backward just across our border?

OKAY, try to put yourself in their shoes. If you walked into a store, just to order some cake, and the owner said "sorry we don't serve you white trash here" how would you react? If you signed up for a university class, and paid, and then the faculty said "we're going to kick you out of this class because we don't approve of white people taking classes." If you walked into a market owned by a super hardcore religious person, and they said "sorry, you have a girlfriend, she's clearly a sinner by being so promiscuous and is going to burn in hell so we refuse to serve you" would you just go "okay you have your freedom, I'm just going to walk out now." If you extend this argument even further, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, therefore the entire country belongs to the king, yeah? So when the king goes "yeah, women, not driving, they don't deserve it" would you go "yeah, seems fair, it's his country." Why do we make such a fuss about women not having rights in Saudi Arabia then, it's their property.

It's not like gay individuals are asking cake makers to write slogans like "SCREW STRAIGHT PEOPLE" on their cakes, or asking them to take a stance. They're just paying money because they want a damn cake. It's not your business what their private life is like, all your concern is that you get your money in exchange for a cake.

But what can I say to 'MURICA Land of the Free*

*restrictions may apply. Freedom™ not applicable to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender individuals. Muslims, Latinos, immigrants, black people, brown people need not apply. In case of women, Freedom™ may be restricted, equal pay not ensured. If a country possesses oil, Freedom™ will be taken to them. To take full advantage of Freedom™ it is advised to be born white, straight, male, and Christian, and remain so for the duration of taking advantage of Freedom™

As an attorney, I'm disappointed -- but not at all surprised -- how utterly misinformed all of this conversation is. Not surprised becasue the press's coverage of this law has been as bad as any story I've ever seen, so I don't really consider you all responsible at all for your extreme misconception of what the Indiana law says and does.

The Indiana law does not legalize violations of civil rights legislation or discrimination by businesses against anybody. If you think it should, then I'm sorry, this isn't your law. If you think it shouldn't, then congratulations, it doesn't.

Here are a couple of good posts explaining what the law actually says.

http://sethdavidmiller.com/2015/03/27/explaining-indianas-religious-freedom-law/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/30/what-will-the-indiana-religious-freedom-law-really-do/

Have fun.

I just noticed yaleunc already made these points -- sorry for the duplication. By the time I reached page 5, I was skimming and shouldn't have been, looking for (but missing!) somebody to inject actual facts about the law.

Thank you for the info anyhow semck83, I think at this point the debate has moved past the actual law and into the abstract but having that info definitely helps keep a clear mind :)

Thanks Waffle.

With the proviso that we're talking in the abstract and not about Indiana's law, then, looking at your most recent post:

"I can't believe how, in a country where people fought for the right to be able to enter any restaurant they wish, to not have to sit at the back of the bus but be allowed to sit in the front, there are people now that are arguing that NO we should be able to say "sorry, you're not allowed here because I don't like your kind.""

Nobody is saying this, I'm pretty sure. A religious belief is not "I don't like your kind." It's "I think it is morally wrong for me to do what you're asking to." One may go different ways on how we should respond to that, but don't start off the conversation by diminishing the often extremely agonizing decisions people are going through, which led to religious freedom law in the first place. Somebody probably isn't choosing to close down their business and change careers because they aren't really into gay people.

You talk much of freedom, but you don't seem to take people's ability to use their own property in ways that they dont' consider morally wrong as very important at all, compared to the right of others to force them to.

Notice, incidentally, that I'm also not saying the opposite problem is trivial, or that refusing people service is something we want to encourage. I'm suggesting that, in discussing balancing of rights, we not start out by trivializing either side's concerns.

Actually, semck - thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/237686-indiana-pizzeria-closes-after-threats

This company has obviously taken a lot of shit for publicly saying they would refuse to cater to gay weddings. This isn't exactly your point, but if you make the assumption that the lawmakers behind this - Governor Pence specifically, because he signed the law well after it became a public spectacle - were aware of how this legislation might be misconstrued as Jeff has said, then, in light of this business's decision to close, maybe temporarily but I suspect otherwise, you actually do have an example of someone closing down because they are open in their bigotry toward the LGBTQ community, and while it may not be by choice, these people and the few workers they have are actually forced to change their careers because they openly discriminate. That's what the law, rightly or not, has done to the poor, poor businessman who thinks his religion is an excuse to refuse service.

bo, I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear on which of my statements you're actually disagreeing with. Could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks. (I also pretty completely fail to get what your point at the end of your post is).

You said that people aren't closing down businesses and changing careers due to bigotry towards LGBTQ individuals. I am saying that that's the first example I am aware of of a business that actually shut its doors because of their views. Now, would they have done so if they hadn't received threats and been rightly shamed? Of course not. But the fact of the matter is that this law and the fanfare behind it, right or not, will in fact force businesses to close and draw business opportunities and investments out of Indiana, which is why Greg Ballard, mayor of Indianapolis, came out and said explicitly that the law is bad and that he rejects its application in the city when it comes to discrimination. Of course, as you demonstrated, he didn't do anything that crazy in saying so, but he is trying to make the simple point that, rightly or wrongly, the law will hurt both business and consumers just because of how it is interpreted and how polarizing it has become, yet they signed it anyway.

So we are all agreeing that you should serve an individual, no matter his or her beliefs, no matter how abhorrent you may find them, right?

Correct