Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Huh. I would have sworn that something was worked out.

 

That would have been the best thing that ever happened to him.

 

I'm sure the Gaystapo will be protesting there by tonight.

 

If an employer fires a columnist for not covering his/her assigned event, he/she is doing so because an agreed-upon contract has been broken. Unless previous accommodations had been agreed upon.

If a business owner refuses to provide services for a gay wedding, he/she is discriminating against those people for no other reason than their sexual orientation.

Some people argue the business owners should be allowed to discriminate if their religious beliefs dictate.

No one is arguing that religious beliefs should exempt you from providing services for which you're getting paid.

The situations would be analogous only if the photographer took the money and THEN refused to photograph the gay wedding.

 

Blacks are 15 percent more likely than whites to support requiring businesses to serve same-sex couples.

African-Americans Are An Outlier On Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | FiveThirtyEight

 

Thing is, they refused to serve at same-sex weddings but they claim they wouldn't refuse lunch to a gay person. THAT's what I'm waiting for.

 

In terms of the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker refusing to provide services for a gay wedding, I'm always reminded of the Seinfeld episode where he told the store clerk that he wanted to return the suit he purchased for "spite" and was told that wasn't a valid reason.

A photographer could tell a gay couple that they were booked on the date in question, but if they decline the job because they would be uncomfortable participating in a gay wedding, then they are open to a lawsuit.

Seems a little silly.

Both lawsuits of this nature, and laws seeking to defend the behavior look like solutions in search of a problem to me.

As a business owner, I feel like I should be able to choose my customers. I certainly wouldn't turn down a customer because he was gay, but would and have because they were an asshole. Thankfully I don't think any of the assholes were gay.

I did do some work for a coffee roaster who was gay, and he used his sexual orientation as means of networking to grow his business. So, I did install equipment at Hamburger Mary's and the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. I lost his business when he hired away my transgendered technician to go an work for him.

But, what if someone did turn down his work because they weren't comfortable having to do work in a gay bar? Is that discrimination?

It's not a decision I would make, and it might even change how I would think of a person who would hold the position. But, should it open them up to a lawsuit?

And, isn't that really all these laws do? It allows them to at least make a defense if they are sued, right?

 

MC, don't you live in Virginia? We're employed at will here. No contracts, generally. My boss could fire me if he didn't like my shirt.

Which is actually a fine metaphor here, because all it takes for businesses to not serve gay couples is to say, "I'm sorry, we're booked up that day." But that's not enough - they have to let those fags know that they don't approve.

 

Indiana: Too Stupid To Lie

 

A landlord who declines to rent to a couple because they are black is open to a lawsuit. A landlord who just says someone else beat them to it is A-OK.

Basically what supporters of this law want is the right to say "I'm not baking your cake, homo," instead of "boy I'm just booked solid right now."

 

Third reference.

 

I'm not sure I agree.

Nearly all of the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have said they would do business with gay people -- and have in the past.

It's the specifics of participating in a gay marriage that is the sticking point.

Certainly an ad agency would be wrong if they turned down all work for gay customers. But, an ad agency could turn down working on a particular ad campaign that they didn't agree with, right?

If an LGTB group wanted to hire an ad agency to launch a campaign attacking religious groups for their stance on LGBT issues, they could turn down the work, right? Not because the client is gay, but because of the particular campaign.