My question is this...What if a gay establishment has to make a cake for a group of people celebrating traditional marriage.

 

Then about 99.99% of them will make a cake without any hesitation.

So then you would be fine with gay photographers being hired to chronicle the activities of Westboro Baptist because according to this law and the additional provisions made recently they can't refuse, regardless of how strongly they object to their vile actions.

 

You're OK with a caterer that is strongly pro-choice being hired to cater a Right To Life event, because according to the law and the clarifications made to it they can't refuse.

 

Of course, why would anyone not be?

The amendment to the IN legislation, and the legislation in KY include exemptions for churches, religious organizations, etc.

 

Thanks, sounds like they're trying to get it right. Hopefully this is something both sides can work with.

Do any of those laws address the religious rights aspect? People seem to forget it is a two headed coin which is the concern of the other side. In any of those states could a person be forced to provide a service or product that could make it appear he supports a cause that his/her religion thinks is a sin?

 

As far as I concerned they don't. It does exempt religious organizations but not individuals. A photographer could still be compelled to take pictures at a same-sex wedding regardless of their beliefs.

 

If, God forbid, we are ever in a situation again where we have to institute a draft into military service I wonder if the left will still want a conscientious objector status for those individuals whose religious beliefs prevent them from serving.

Do any of those laws address the religious rights aspect? People seem to forget it is a two headed coin which is the concern of the other side. In any of those states could a person be forced to provide a service or product that could make it appear he supports a cause that his/her religion thinks is a sin?

 

It doesn't make it appear they support anything. All it does is show they operate a business that provides a service. No more, no less.

Another good, comprehensive explainer. Link below.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/rights-laws-quickly-fall-into-retreat.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Arnold Schwarzenneger is "furious" over what happened in Indiana.

 

Schwarzenegger: Indiana?s religious freedom law is bad for Republicans - The Washington Post

It doesn't make it appear they support anything. All it does is show they operate a business that provides a service. No more, no less.

 

So under these laws a very religious printer who's religion teaches him that gay marriage is a sin could not be forced to print up flyers for a gay rights event? Or can he refuse the job?

So under these laws a very religious printer who's religion teaches him that gay marriage is a sin could not be forced to print up flyers for a gay rights event? Or can he refuse the job?

 

He can not refuse the job for the reason that the customer is gay.

Sure I do. Doesn't alter my last post one iota. In fact if anything it makes me feel stronger about it. The left does not care what a person believes as long as their protected classes are in no way "harmed".

 

Darn those minorities, anyway. Why can't they just die, or absent that, go someplace else?

He can not refuse the job for the reason that the customer is gay.

 

Thanks. I can see some real battles moving forward with lawsuits by one side or the other pitting the rights of the two groups against each other.

Darn those minorities, anyway. Why can't they just die, or absent that, go someplace else?

 

Then we can all live in that wonderful white, straight, Christian male society! Sounds awesome to me.

Thanks. I can see some real battles moving forward with lawsuits by one side or the other pitting the rights of the two groups against each other.

 

A lot of talk about beliefs and protected classes in this thread, so let me throw out some hypotheticals...

 

- Scenario 1: A business owner firmly believes with every fiber of their being that whites and blacks are not equal. Should they be able to refuse service to one race due to their beliefs?

 

- Scenario 2: An atheist business owner refuses to serve Christians. Should that be allowed?

 

If the answer is no, then why should a business be able to tell gays, "sorry, no dice"?

Thanks. I can see some real battles moving forward with lawsuits by one side or the other pitting the rights of the two groups against each other.

 

I'm really concerned about things going forward after the Hobby Lobby decision and laws like these that we might start seeing lawsuits that address the concepts of "religious tests" or something like that. How do we verify or gauge belief? Do we need to judicially determine whether beliefs are sincere? Do we have to determine whether refused service was due to discrimination or other factors and how can we decide?

 

Really strange judicial times ahead...

Another good, comprehensive explainer. Link below.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/rights-laws-quickly-fall-into-retreat.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

 

The operative phrase:

 

 

But by this week, Mr. Pence, the governor, was visibly alarmed by the economic fallout threatening his state.