By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 28 March 2015
Edit Thread
Zappykins said:

The outrage is about gay people - right now, but more disturbing is the law says religion trumps law on very flimsy grounds.

So you could just not serve anyone cause you felt like it - which doesn't sound bad unless you think about it.

1. How about an Emergency Room Doctor not treating you because 'gamers are against his/her religion?'

2. Or a Taxi cab kick you out because they only allow 'The Right Console Gamers' gamers in their cab? And they leave you in a really bad part of town.

3. It was just a display to say 'we don't want to be forced to like gay marriage!' And nobody expect anyone to be forced to do that. Recently a Reverend refused to marry a bride because he didn't like her dress. And yes, he has the right to do that.

4. The problem is that it's basically a Christan version of Sharia Law - and the US was founded on the separation of Church and State, and this law, with the Hobby Lobby ruling say Church > State.

5. Plus, its going to get tied up in the courts and cost Indiana another bunch of money.

6. Bonus point:  I'm going to move there and decide that Taxes are against my Religion, and that everybody I say hi to, owes me $100 or they are violating my religion.

While I think the law should include any ethical views, as this refers to private property, I do have some criticisms of your post beyond that: 

1. Slippery Slope fallacy. Hippocratic oath prevents this in most cases. The doctor would likely lose his job and license (which is granted through private organizations) if he did that. A hospital that turned down sick people would likely have absymal reputation. 

2. Again Taxi cab drivers don't determine who they are allowed to drive, they just drive. It is a boss who determies this. And if Taxi corporations did this Lyft and Uber would run them into the ground. Furthermore, since Taxi companies have a monopoly privelge and subsidies by government in many cities, the city should/would threaten to remove said monopoly privelege if they were to discriminate. Taxi companies would comply with said cities because they realize they'd lose even more revenue if the city were to do this. 

3. It was a response to people getting sued hundreds of thousands of dollars or losing their business because they didn't provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. 

4. No it's not. This is a false equivalence.  

5. Probably not. SCoTUS has shied away from determining sexuality as protected under the CRA. I don't see where the courts would conflict on this matter. As for seperation of church and state, it isn't a codified law but more of a legal policy. I do think non-religious ethical views/morals matter as well though. It is silly to single out only religous beliefs.  

6. The tax argument is legitimate for any one to be honest, not just religious people, but we won't get into that because I realize that isn't how the overwhelming majority of people see things. You only have rights in so much as you don't infringe upon others (not providing a piece of your property in exchange for another piece of property is not infringing on another's rights, although it might reduce their "positive freedoms.") If you steal from other people you are taking their property without their permission, therefore you are infringing on their property rights, and no - religion doesn't protect that, just like religion doesn't protect against murder and slavery. This one is a non-sequitur.