Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

I don't know. It seems like you're trying to compare refusing to serve gay people to firing an employee who refuses to work.

 

It's not a ridiculous level of abstraction, MC. In one scenario, you choose to not do business with a particular individual. In the other, you choose to not do business with a particular individual

 

OK. Take Mark out of it.

Let's say it's your award winning reporter, who everybody likes, and who is deeply religious. He's never caused any problems before, but he tells his editor that his religious beliefs inform him that gay marriage is wrong, and that he would be uncomfortable, and unwilling, to cover such a union.

 

There's no way any coffee machines in a 200-mile radius of you need fixing.

 

I don't know what this means.

 

I thought an accommodation was made for the cabbies? Am I wrong? Maybe it was just proposed, and I thought it was agreed to.

 

Assuming the assigning editor has a pool of people to choose from, rather than it assign, you'd ask at 10 a.m. staff if anyone wants to cover it.

Gay weddings aren't exactly breaking news so, in theory, you'd have time to figure that out.

Oh wait is this one of the ticking clocking scenarios so beloved by Jack Bauer?

 

One has greater latitude when entered into a contract to exchange money for services.

If you can't see how that's different, it's because you don't want to see it.

 

Yeah, I think that should be punished. Just like not traveling to Indiana should be. I don't know why traveling/residing in Indiana is being construed as supporting this law.

If the gay wedding is newsworthy, and you're a reporter paid to cover the news, you should cover that news.

I don't agree with a lot of shit, but if something comes up in an assignment, I put that aside.

 

Should Sandy Koufax have been fired for refusing to pitch on Yom Kippur?

 

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' latest attempt to block penalties from being imposed when they refuse to transport passengers because they're carrying alcoholic beverages.


An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cabbie's license for 30 days for refusing to pick up a passenger for any reason at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.

 

I still don't know what you are saying.

If one has greater latitude when entering into a contract to exchange money for services, then it sounds to me like you are saying a photographer should be able to turn down a request to photograph a gay wedding.

If this is not what you think, could you state plainly what you do think?