They can literally do anything short of murder and arson based on religion and they are now legally protected for doing it. Don't want to sell books to women because you think they shouldn't be educated? You can. Get intoxicated on sacramental wine? You can make a case for why the accident that you caused while driving drunk was a religious necessity. It's too broad, and frankly it's quite clear it was made too broad on purpose.
The freedom of doing wrong is wrong. Refusing service for such a reason is not a defense of your religion, it is an offense to homosexuals -it is 100% discrimination. It is just like saying that someone is harassing your dietary health if they eat a doughnut while you are on a diet.
Who cares what your costumer sexuality is they have money and you need this money. Its simple but apparently our lawmakers don't want to catch this "Gay Disease" to be on there products. Besides there is a separation of Church and State but that no longer has recognition. Everyone check your food it might start feeling you up. Come on Supreme Court strike these kind of laws down.
This law should have never passed. It's only the beginning. How many of you read just last month that a pediatrician in the US refused to treat a baby because the baby's mothers were...Mothers? Her homophobia overrode "first do no harm." I live in New York City and I watch the news. The amount of African-Americans and Hispanics being shot (often dead) by the police is scary. And you must remember Ferguson.
It is discrimination. It's exactly like turning down someone because they are Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Black, White, Asian, or any other group of people. In the USA we have separation of church and state so our laws can't be backed by any religion so I don't see how this Act is even constitutional.
One poster in support of the act stated that "People have religious rights and should be able to deny service to people of whom they wish. The business controls its own decisions and should not be forced to do things the owner finds morally reprehensible. A gay couple going to another bakery is much better than a Christian baker being forced to compromise his or her beliefs."
What if the bakery owner decided not to serve a black or mixed race couple because it "compromised their beliefs" or was to them "morally reprehensible"?
You are not disobeying your religious beliefs. So what if some gay dude wants a cake, give him a cake. It is business, not lovey duby time. What your customers sexual orientation or belief system is, is irrelevant. You don't have the right to hurt others just because of you specific religious beliefs. Keep religion out of places that are not intended for it.
This law passed by the State of Indiana is a carefully worded, document constructed by the extreme right, that descrimenates against gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. The government should be there to protect all people and to prevent descrimination before all else. Can we please eliminate ignorance in state governments?
What makes this any different from segregation during the civil rights movement? Remember, the thing that ended because it was completely unconstitutional? The idea that it would be OK to deny anyone the right to fulfill a basic human necessity like read because you don't believe women should be educated is ridiculous.
There seems to be some confusion about the law. Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act does NOT allow for-profit businesses to refuse service to anyone. It protects religious freedom unless there is something which is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest.” It was long been the law of the land that preventing discrimination is a compelling governmental interest. Public business do not have the right to turn any group people. Indiana’s law did not change this. Their legislature added an amendment to make this explicitly clear, but they did not need to. It seems that many people thought they had the right to turn people away based on sexual orientation. This law does not, and never did, allow that.
The law seems acceptable, but not necessary. It is mainly a symbolic statement which does not provide any significant change to the legal practices in Indiana.
People have religious rights and should be able to deny service to people of whom they wish. The business controls its own decisions and should not be forced to do things the owner finds morally reprehensible. A gay couple going to another bakery is much better than a Christian baker being forced to compromise his or her beliefs.
It is my understanding that the law itself doesn't mention homosexuality. Plus there are like 12 states that have similar laws (and no, they are not all republican states. Rhode Island and Connecticut both have something similar) and a federal law that was signed in 1993 by Clinton.
I personally have no problem with homosexuals or their rights to marry, but this is just clear agenda seeking bull Sh@t.
I'm not going to pretend that it is a perfect law; we could do better than that law. However, overall it is good. It is a measure that insures the newfound rights of the LGBT movement do not have an adverse effect on the rights of people who adhere to various faiths. Who gets religious exemptions for what could and should be narrowed down a bit, but let's remember that the LGBTs are not the only group whose rights are at stake here.
It's their business, it's their cake, it's their job. Anyways, why can't the LGBT people go somewhere else to get their wedding cake or to find someone else to cater to them. Their are MILLIONS of other restaurants out their that will give them food, in fact they'll probably give them a discount because their gay! LOL.
Senate Bill 568 protects the state or government from burdening an individual's right to exercise their religion. Many are worried that this means gays can be denied service, and this is true. However, in this era of social media, I see no threat to businesses being able to deny anyone for any reason. If they are unjust, public backlash alone will be their punishment (such as the case with Big Earl's Bait Shop), and customers would get to know just the kind of people they're doing business with. Let the public work out social issues for themselves, people are more likely to change when they aren't forced to anyway.
From the Plessy v Ferguson repeal, SCOTUS has established that public businesses, by operating in the public sphere, must conform to a certain set of public rules. Basically, businesses, by their nature of being businesses open to the public, become public entities themselves.
However, that means that you become, functionally, a public servant-- and citizens can't be compelled over religious objections to, for example, fight in a war. Similarly, citizens should not be compelled to contribute to something their religion explicitly bans.