Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?

[Hurlshort]

Well, if you are a homosexual and want to be married in a Catholic church or something, they should be free to just tell you no. Not sure how you being gay comes up when buying, say, coffee or tools, though.

 

Ah well, it'll get reverted with all this outrage.

 

The Catholic Church (and really, any organized religious group) is allowed set all sorts of criteria on membership and services offered.  Women aren't allowed to be priests, after all.  When my wife and I renewed our vows in a Catholic Church, we had to attend classes and I had to prove I was baptized as a child at a recognized denominational church.

 

But a commercial business does not get to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, etc.  It's not complicated.

[Malcador]

The Catholic Church (and really, any organized religious group) is allowed set all sorts of criteria on membership and services offered.  Women aren't allowed to be priests, after all.  When my wife and I renewed our vows in a Catholic Church, we had to attend classes and I had to prove I was baptized as a child at a recognized denominational church.

 

But a commercial business does not get to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, etc.  It's not complicated.

Where did I say it was complicated ? That was the point of my post, if you read it. This is a solution to a problem I am not convinced exists.

[Tsuga C]

The--ahem!--controversy is nothing more than the Orwellian "two minutes hate" routine. Nineteen other states have similar laws. This is simply another example of the foaming-at-the-mouth LibProgs thumping their collective chest to gin up fund raising dollars in the alphabet soup demographic.

 

"The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad."

 

Read on.

 

 

Edit: And I couldn't agree more.

 

"Frankly, RFRA’s balancing test is, if anything, only a mild protection. From the First Amendment alone, we should understand (in my opinion) that the nation’s traditions of religious freedom should protect the right of a traditional Christian baker not to make a cake for a same-sex marriage. It should protect the right of a Muslim baker not to provide unleavened bread for a Jewish seder. It should protect the right of a homosexual photographer to decline to take photos of a married couple standing under a Biblical inscription about marriage being between man and woman. It should protect the right of a Jewish deli owner to deny services to a Muslim hungry from a demonstration march where the Muslim held aloft a sign saying “Death to Israel and Jews.”

Edited March 31, 2015 by Tsuga C

[Amentep]

This has been an interesting post, nice one 

 

But I'm not understanding what you say is the "root problem ", are you saying that because marriage is seen as a religious right people who follow a certain religious view will always oppose same-sex marriage ?

 

The problem (IMO and I could be wrong - I don't propose this as a "magic bullet" cure all) can be outlined somewhat thusly:

 

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

So everyone has religious freedom and the freedom to exercise their religion.  Yay, 'Murica!

 

But within the tax and legal codes (federal and state), they government supports marriage (giving benefits to married couples, inheritance rights, etc.).  This is where things get murky; there are two types of marriage in the US - Union in the Eyes of G/god(s)/G/goddess(es) dependent on your religious affiliation and Union in the Eyes of the State.  They're both called "marriage" and generally they're inexorably paired and linked.  Treating them as the same concept because the language is ambiguous leads to a conceptual identifying of marriage as being a universal concept regardless of state or religious origin. 

 

In short because the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Hindu faith and the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Catholic faith, the state says these marriages are equal.  Things that are equal are interchangeable, so the challenge with this conceptual correlation is ensuring that the religious marriage remains unequal (based on faith - the state doesn't say the Catholic church has to recognize a Hindu wedding) while the civil marriage remains equal.

 

Part of the big push for legalization of gay marriage is due to the state sponsored benefits.  A lot of the push back from religious groups is because of an increasing feeling that they'll be mandated to provide gay marriages (because, again, the state marriage makes all marriage equal in the eyes of the state, or so they fear). 

 

But if, for example, all state unions (gay, straight) were called "Civil Unions" then it'd be harder to argue against, say, selling flowers for them.  And this is the crux of it, if a Southern Baptist florist had a gay couple ask for flowers for their marriage in a Unitarian church, it'd be easier to argue (and demonstrate) that requiring that purchase from an open-to-the-public business isn't having their personal faith violated because the Unitarian Marriage isn't "in" their faith and the "Civil Union" isn't in their faith,  They're not supporting marriage in the Eyes of their God by providing an open service for the couple (who ultimately, remain heretics in relation to their own personal faith). 

 

What this does is remove the concept that marriage equation through the state makes it about Southern Baptist Marriage (which is the ultimate argument of these religious freedom movements) and the dialogue is clearer because marriage doesn't mean multiple things (and the hinge point being, the state no longer becomes an equivocal point between the Southern Baptist Marriage and the Unitarian Marriage in the example by having them both endorsed by the State and seen as equal to one another - which they just can't ever be as the religions themselves aren't equal).

 

If that makes sense.

[BruceVC]

 

This has been an interesting post, nice one 

 

But I'm not understanding what you say is the "root problem ", are you saying that because marriage is seen as a religious right people who follow a certain religious view will always oppose same-sex marriage ?

 

The problem (IMO and I could be wrong - I don't propose this as a "magic bullet" cure all) can be outlined somewhat thusly:

 

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

So everyone has religious freedom and the freedom to exercise their religion.  Yay, 'Murica!

 

But within the tax and legal codes (federal and state), they government supports marriage (giving benefits to married couples, inheritance rights, etc.).  This is where things get murky; there are two types of marriage in the US - Union in the Eyes of G/god(s)/G/goddess(es) dependent on your religious affiliation and Union in the Eyes of the State.  They're both called "marriage" and generally they're inexorably paired and linked.  Treating them as the same concept because the language is ambiguous leads to a conceptual identifying of marriage as being a universal concept regardless of state or religious origin. 

 

In short because the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Hindu faith and the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Catholic faith, the state says these marriages are equal.  Things that are equal are interchangeable, so the challenge with this conceptual correlation is ensuring that the religious marriage remains unequal (based on faith - the state doesn't say the Catholic church has to recognize a Hindu wedding) while the civil marriage remains equal.

 

Part of the big push for legalization of gay marriage is due to the state sponsored benefits.  A lot of the push back from religious groups is because of an increasing feeling that they'll be mandated to provide gay marriages (because, again, the state marriage makes all marriage equal in the eyes of the state, or so they fear). 

 

But if, for example, all state unions (gay, straight) were called "Civil Unions" then it'd be harder to argue against, say, selling flowers for them.  And this is the crux of it, if a Southern Baptist florist had a gay couple ask for flowers for their marriage in a Unitarian church, it'd be easier to argue (and demonstrate) that requiring that purchase from an open-to-the-public business isn't having their personal faith violated because the Unitarian Marriage isn't "in" their faith and the "Civil Union" isn't in their faith,  They're not supporting marriage in the Eyes of their God by providing an open service for the couple (who ultimately, remain heretics in relation to their own personal faith). 

 

What this does is remove the concept that marriage equation through the state makes it about Southern Baptist Marriage (which is the ultimate argument of these religious freedom movements) and the dialogue is clearer because marriage doesn't mean multiple things (and the hinge point being, the state no longer becomes an equivocal point between the Southern Baptist Marriage and the Unitarian Marriage in the example by having them both endorsed by the State and seen as equal to one another - which they just can't ever be as the religions themselves aren't equal).

 

If that makes sense.

 

 

Thats an interesting post, very interesting. I need time to ruminate on your words

[BruceVC]

The--ahem!--controversy is nothing more than the Orwellian "two minutes hate" routine. Nineteen other states have similar laws. This is simply another example of the foaming-at-the-mouth LibProgs thumping their collective chest to gin up fund raising dollars in the alphabet soup demographic.

 

"The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad."

 

Read on.

 

Well sometimes punitive legal steps are necessary to get people to do the right thing, so yes you are right. This bill would have prevented businesses and people from being sued if they had refused to serve members of the LGBT community. And I'm not even talking about marriage or churches which we understand are different, I am talking about commercial entities.

So of course this would cause frustration and  offense. So yes this bill needs to be amended so people can't use the law to discriminate ..that's the whole point 

[Hurlshort]

 

The Catholic Church (and really, any organized religious group) is allowed set all sorts of criteria on membership and services offered.  Women aren't allowed to be priests, after all.  When my wife and I renewed our vows in a Catholic Church, we had to attend classes and I had to prove I was baptized as a child at a recognized denominational church.

 

But a commercial business does not get to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, etc.  It's not complicated.

Where did I say it was complicated ? That was the point of my post, if you read it. This is a solution to a problem I am not convinced exists.

 

 

I'm sorry if my post came across as argumentative.  I was agreeing with you, and sharing what I know about how the Catholic Church functions.

[Valsuelm]

 

The--ahem!--controversy is nothing more than the Orwellian "two minutes hate" routine. Nineteen other states have similar laws. This is simply another example of the foaming-at-the-mouth LibProgs thumping their collective chest to gin up fund raising dollars in the alphabet soup demographic.

 

"The religious-freedom laws once were associated with minorities that progressives could embrace or tolerate — Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of religious ceremonies, Amish who drive their buggies on the roads, and the like. That was fine. It is the specter of Christian small-business people — say, a baker or a florist — using the laws to protect themselves from punishment for opting out of gay-wedding ceremonies that drives progressives mad."

 

Read on.

 

Well sometimes punitive legal steps are necessary to get people to do the right thing, so yes you are right. This bill would have prevented businesses and people from being sued if they had refused to serve members of the LGBT community. And I'm not even talking about marriage or churches which we understand are different, I am talking about commercial entities.

So of course this would cause frustration and  offense. So yes this bill needs to be amended so people can't use the law to discriminate ..that's the whole point 

 

 

That's called tyranny. It's not necessary. It's evil.

 

What you think is a good idea is no more a good idea than a law that says a man can't stick his weewee in another man's bunghole, even if both men are cool with it.

[ravenshrike]

 

This reminds me of a conversation I had about SB 1062 last year where I explained why laws like these are far worse than people realize – namely that they doesn’t just allow for discrimination against gays but it allows for discrimination against anyone (be it atheists, people of color, the left-handed, or the poor or disabled). If someone can show-horn discrimination into a religious belief system they’re covered and that’s a really frightening concept.

 

 

That's my concern, a person could use this bill to discriminate against any group of people that they have some personal issue with and then claim they not discriminating but rather its there "religious right " to do this and they would be protected from being sued due to this bill

Well, they could claim that. They would lose horribly in court given the actual law, but they could claim that. The most that this law could do, to use an already existing situation, would be to allow a bakery to not bake a cake with writing on it celebrating being gay or having a same sex little wedding topper on it. They also, arguably, could not be forced to deliver the cake to the wedding reception. That would be the extent of the 'protection' under the law. They could not refuse to bake the cake without writing/decorations, and they could not refuse people from taking the cake wherever they wanted.

[Tsuga C]

Ravenshrike summed up the limitations of the law reasonably well. If we're to have actual rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment, then tolerance of those whose behaviors run contrary to the traditional Judeo-Christian (light on the Judeo, heavy on the Christian) foundations of this nation--not endorsement--must be the limit of what the government may mandate. You might--say again, might--have a right to engage in a particular act, but you have no right to demand that others who disagree with said act endorse such behavior.

[Tort]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

 

 

Indiana  governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a "Religious Freedom " bill  that has been vociferously criticized by many as people are concerned that this will allow businesses  in Indiana  to refuse to serve members of the LGBT  community and will effectively  legitimize  discrimination in Indiana against gay people.

Oww its indianas law..

 

I am a bit conflicted about this, I had the same issue with some anti-smoking laws. Whereas I am against smoking, I thought that private business should be able to choose. (in the extreme, a cigar club shouldn't have non smoker places just for my benefit\entertainment) As long as it is clearly marked, i'll just pick my money and go where I want.

 

Anyway in the end, in most case public health argument won over the inconvenience of the business owners, however, with religion and belief its a bit different. Again in the extreme i don't see why orthodox christian wedding service should be sued for refusing to serve a guy couple, or an orthodox muslim for refusing to make a muhammad drawing or an orthodox jew serve for not serving kosher stuff..

 

Let them do it. At least we can have an experiment on how the law will affect society, good and bad. I do have my suspicions that it will produce som unsawery results.

According to the article: "It's actually the 20th state to adopt a "religious freedom restoration" law, most of which are modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993."

 

So it has been working for a while, but isn't sutisfactory to the LGBT community, who is lobbying to promote its acceptance in religious circles,

[BruceVC]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

 

 

Indiana  governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a "Religious Freedom " bill  that has been vociferously criticized by many as people are concerned that this will allow businesses  in Indiana  to refuse to serve members of the LGBT  community and will effectively  legitimize  discrimination in Indiana against gay people.

Oww its indianas law..

 

I am a bit conflicted about this, I had the same issue with some anti-smoking laws. Whereas I am against smoking, I thought that private business should be able to choose. (in the extreme, a cigar club shouldn't have non smoker places just for my benefit\entertainment) As long as it is clearly marked, i'll just pick my money and go where I want.

 

Anyway in the end, in most case public health argument won over the inconvenience of the business owners, however, with religion and belief its a bit different. Again in the extreme i don't see why orthodox christian wedding service should be sued for refusing to serve a guy couple, or an orthodox muslim for refusing to make a muhammad drawing or an orthodox jew serve for not serving kosher stuff..

 

Let them do it. At least we can have an experiment on how the law will affect society, good and bad. I do have my suspicions that it will produce som unsawery results.

According to the article: "It's actually the 20th state to adopt a "religious freedom restoration" law, most of which are modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993."

 

So it has been working for a while, but isn't sutisfactory to the LGBT community, who is lobbying to promote its acceptance in religious circles,

 

You right this law was in fact implemented under Bill Clinton but times have changed and the USA has really progressed since then. Especially when it comes to gay rights, more states than ever before now recognize same-sex marriage for example. So it doesn't help if  a state wants to implement some form of discrimination against the LGBT community and says " but we are just using an established law that Clinton created" ...this will be challenged and disputed which is exactly what we are seeing in Indiana 

[Tort]

Hold on, I think its great that the state has recognized same-sex marriage, however, I don't see how it contradicts the individuals right for religious freedom, or how my examples constitute discrimination...

 

IMO in this case 'fighting discrimination' is a better slogan then 'their belief is inconvenient to me'. (Btw: I am an atheist)

[BruceVC]

Hold on, I think its great that the state has recognized same-sex marriage, however, I don't see how it contradicts the individuals right for religious freedom, or how my examples constitute discrimination...

 

IMO in this case 'fighting discrimination' is a better slogan then 'their belief is inconvenient to me'. (Btw: I am an atheist)

 

No one is saying you can't have religious freedom but you can't refuse to serve anyone who comes to your business because they are a member of LGBT community...and its actually simpler than that, you can refuse to serve them but you can and will get sued. This Indiana law would have prevented businesses from being sued as they would have used the "Religious Freedom Law" as a defense from legal action

[Tort]

No one is saying you can't have religious freedom but you can't refuse to serve anyone who comes to your business because they are a member of LGBT community.

But that is exactly what you saying, you just replaced 'do something against your belief' with 'serve member of LGBT community'..

 

So to put it plainly, do you think that an orthodox priest should liable for not agreeing to preform a service against his belief? Or a Muslim painter for not agreeing to draw a cartoon of muhammad?

[BruceVC]

 

No one is saying you can't have religious freedom but you can't refuse to serve anyone who comes to your business because they are a member of LGBT community.

But that is exactly what you saying, you just replaced 'do something against your belief' with 'serve member of LGBT community'..

 

So to put it plainly, do you think that an orthodox priest should liable for not agreeing to preform a service against his belief? Or a Muslim painter for not agreeing to draw a cartoon of muhammad?

 

 

No we are not talking about churches or religious organisations. This is commercial businesses, so for example a bakery that refuses to serve members of the LGBT community 

 

And this furore  is about people being refused  service in a shop, like a restaurant,  because of there sexual orientation. We are not talking about you forcing a Muslim to draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad which is against there religious  belief 

[Tort]

You make an "interesting" distinction between freedom of religion of "religious organisation" and religious people. But for the sake of the argument, the second example above was of a cartoonist i.e. a commercial businesses.

 

So do you think that Muslim cartoonist should be liable for not agreeing to draw a cartoon of muhammad? I can also ask about the liability of a wedding place run by orthodox Muslims community, for not agreeing to serve Jewish who want non halal food to be served, but I prefer to put some distance from the loaded issue of marriage.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Tort

[BruceVC]

You make an "interesting" distinction between freedom of religion of "religious organisation" and religious people. But for the sake of the argument, the second example above was of a cartoonist i.e. a commercial businesses.

 

So do you think that Muslim cartoonist should be liable for not agreeing to draw a cartoon of muhammad? ( Or wedding place run by orthodox Muslims community, should be liable for not agreeing to serve Christians who want non halal food to be served?)

In the example of the Muslim cartoonist he shouldn't be held liable for not  drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, of course this is an extreme example because most of us know that Muslims don't believe that any images of the Prophet are acceptable. So no one would expect a Muslim to do this 

 

And I also dont think the other example is particularly valid because there are many Kosher and Halal restaurants that only serve a certain type of food based on religious doctrine and these restaurants are never sued 

 

So neither of these examples is relevant to a restaurant refusing to serve members of LGBT community, surly you can see the difference ?

[Meshugger]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/

 

 

Indiana  governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a "Religious Freedom " bill  that has been vociferously criticized by many as people are concerned that this will allow businesses  in Indiana  to refuse to serve members of the LGBT  community and will effectively  legitimize  discrimination in Indiana against gay people.

Oww its indianas law..

 

I am a bit conflicted about this, I had the same issue with some anti-smoking laws. Whereas I am against smoking, I thought that private business should be able to choose. (in the extreme, a cigar club shouldn't have non smoker places just for my benefit\entertainment) As long as it is clearly marked, i'll just pick my money and go where I want.

 

Anyway in the end, in most case public health argument won over the inconvenience of the business owners, however, with religion and belief its a bit different. Again in the extreme i don't see why orthodox christian wedding service should be sued for refusing to serve a guy couple, or an orthodox muslim for refusing to make a muhammad drawing or an orthodox jew serve for not serving kosher stuff..

 

Let them do it. At least we can have an experiment on how the law will affect society, good and bad. I do have my suspicions that it will produce som unsawery results.

According to the article: "It's actually the 20th state to adopt a "religious freedom restoration" law, most of which are modeled after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993."

 

So it has been working for a while, but isn't sutisfactory to the LGBT community, who is lobbying to promote its acceptance in religious circles,

 

 

i caennot red. sory.

[Amentep]

 

You make an "interesting" distinction between freedom of religion of "religious organisation" and religious people. But for the sake of the argument, the second example above was of a cartoonist i.e. a commercial businesses.

 

So do you think that Muslim cartoonist should be liable for not agreeing to draw a cartoon of muhammad? ( Or wedding place run by orthodox Muslims community, should be liable for not agreeing to serve Christians who want non halal food to be served?)

In the example of the Muslim cartoonist he shouldn't be held liable for not  drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, of course this is an extreme example because most of us know that Muslims don't believe that any images of the Prophet are acceptable. So no one would expect a Muslim to do this 

 

And I also dont think the other example is particularly valid because there are many Kosher and Halal restaurants that only serve a certain type of food based on religious doctrine and these restaurants are never sued 

 

So neither of these examples is relevant to a restaurant refusing to serve members of LGBT community, surly you can see the difference ?

 

To be fair, your distinction is arbitrary, so the difference is hard to see.

 

Customer comes in and requests A. A is against the belief of the proprietor. Is customer right to service stronger that proprietor's personal belief against A?

 

It really doesn't matter if "A" is flowers for a wedding, a drawing of Muhammed or non-Kosher food.

 

The problem (from the Christian perspective) is that everyone feels the Christians just need to "get over it" and do what everyone wants regardless of their belief - something that would never be said to the artist or the restaurant proprietors.  Note that in the famous case of the florist shop the gay man she refused to provide flowers for his wedding was a regular customer.  She never refused him flowers until he asked for flowers for the wedding, at which point she turned him down.  So it isn't a clear cut case of "denying service" (as say was the case with Lunch Counters in the 50s); from her perspective she wasn't denying him a service so much as she was denying support of a religious ceremony she felt blasphemous.  Its a hard distinction to make (thus, controversy).

 

The difficulty in many ways (as I mentioned before) is the inability to divorce a heretical service from the Christian one because of the concept that all Christian marriages are equal (and really that all marriages are equal in general).  I doubt the proprietor would have denied flowers to a Hindi couple despite their beliefs not being Christian; so the problem becomes really the inability to recognize that a service outside of your faith doesn't really reflect on your faith (IMO) even if both sects are "Christian".  From the perspective of the specific Christian sects against gay marriage, the gay marriage is just as heretical as the Hindi one; neither would be recognized in the "Eyes of the Lord" (for them).  Service to one should be no more supporting heretical messages as the other.

 

In reality the difference (getting back to the example) is that the services provided are different; an artist can refuse to make a specific drawing while being open to doing other drawings (I know a number of artists, for example, who won't do sexually explicit drawing); the restaurant serves what is on its menu - you can't enter McDonalds and order a Whopper.  Similarly a florist could refuse to make a bouquet using, say, poison oak or even one using petunas (for a variety of reasons - availability, price, etc).  The issue - to be clearer - is really about denying service because of the use of the object.  Could an artist who regularly does nudes refuse to draw one for a patron simply because the patron says when offering to buy it that he wants to **** on it?  Could a restaurant refuse service to a person who orders a meal from them but indicates they don't want to eat it, they just want to be a bastard and order a buffet and sit in the window laughing at street urchins who are starving while letting the food go to waste? 

[Tort]

And I also dont think the other example is particularly valid because there are many Kosher and Halal restaurants that only serve a certain type of food based on religious doctrine and these restaurants are never sued

What follows, is that in this case you'd be OK with business exercising their religious right as long as there was enough places that serve the LGBT community.. Surely you can see the problem with this...

 

 

In the example of the Muslim cartoonist he shouldn't be held liable for not drawing a cartoon of Muhammad, of course this is an extreme example [..]

I agree its an extreme examples, I find them useful when outlining an argument. But do tell how does a Muslim cartoonist who refuse to draw a cartoon of muhammad because it offend his belief, differ from a Muslim baker, who refuse to put a gay figurines on his cake for the same reason...

 

 

Anyway, I understand what the LGBT community tries to achieve and I support it in spirit, but your religious rights are enshrined in law, and from what described here the OP law isn't discriminatory.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Tort

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The thing that people seem to be ignoring is that current anti-discrimination law already requires employers to accommodate reasonable requests by an employee, such as the ability to wear a headscarf or not draw Muhammad, as long as it does not cause undue expense, hardship, or directly interfere in the normal, everyday requirements of the job:

 

“The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause difficulty or expense for the employer. This means an employer may have to make reasonable adjustments at work that will allow the employee to practice his or her religion, such as allowing an employee to voluntarily swap shifts with a co- worker so that he or she can attend religious services.”

 

There's no need for an additional law, especially one as open-ended as this one.

 

And, sure, ostensibly someone has to 'prove' that they had a sincerely held religious belief that would be burdened to discriminate, something that would not be too hard given the inordinately stupid amount of leeway already given by the government to people because of their religious beliefs, but that’s not reassuring and still leaves entirely too much room for abuse even taking a ‘litmus test of faith’ into account. 

For example, someone who believed that the Curse of Ham, Genesis 9:20–27, dictated that people of color, or really any group that is out of favor –it has been used to justify mistreatment of everyone from Jews to the poor to people of color-, be servants and slaves could refuse service because of that belief:

“20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

I’m not saying that this is an accurate interpretation of the verse, or that it is a common one, but there are people and organizations, ranging from the Klu Klux Klan to more, in theory, mainstream groups, who do espouse this belief:

“The Appleby church, whose pastor could not immediately be reached for comment, proclaims a litany of racist beliefs on its website: The black descendants of Ham like fair-skinned women, of course. And ‘the proof of the presence of God among the Israelites was the absence of the black skinned folk of Canaan … It is obvious God is a separator, not a mixer. It is God who set the boundaries.’”

Likewise there are people who would, based on similarly flawed beliefs, refuse to serve a wide array of groups. And that is confining yourself to the various Christian sects because they're the majority in the United States; add to this the innumerable other groups that could be included once you take into account other religions –e.g. a devout Hindu might refuse service to people who eat beef-, and you’re well into the realm of insanity.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Tsuga C]

And this furore  is about people being refused  service in a shop, like a restaurant,  because of there sexual orientation.

No, it's not. Rather, it's a about screaming meemie LibProgs, self-described archons of tolerance, being intolerant...again.

[Valsuelm]

Ed Schultz...

 

The poster boy for what's wrong with the mainstream media news networks.

 

He makes Bill O'Reilly look level headed, Sean Hannity look humble, Keith Olbermann look mentally well balanced, and Piers Morgan look intelligent. Fortunately the latter two are gone from 'news' for the time being, if only all the other aforementioned would follow suit.

[Guard Dog]

I'd so love to wade into this. But I just don't have the time or mental energy. Let me sum up my position on it this way:

 

Scenario 1) If a gay couple go to a bakery and order a gay themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds, that is fine.

Scenario 2) If he refuses to make them ANY theme wedding cake, that is bad. 

 

Laws like this come into existence because in scenario 1 above the gay couple walk out, hire a lawyer and sue the baker out of existence. That is bad. In scenario 2 they might have case, but the way thing are going the court is not drawing a distinction between the two.

 

So not the legislatures are here to correct this great wrong. The problem is legislation is a blunt instrument. It is ALWAYS too broad, to open to interpretation and seldom fully understood by the people who pass and sign it.  

 

Now the way all of this could have been avoided is if the gay couple in scenario 1 took their business elsewhere without a legal fuss.

 

I am a Christian and I'm not gay but if I were the baker in scenario 1 and the aforementioned gay couple had a valid credit card, the only question I would ask them is "Whipped cream or butter cream"?