Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Love that during hockey fights. Thanks Starman!

 

I think trying to persuade a person of faith that the Bible is wrong is in itself wrong, as well as being a very effective way to make the person defensive.

Why is providing a service to a wedding "participating in a ceremony?" I don't think of the flower provider and cake provider (assuming these are being provided by a business and not an actual participant in the wedding) as participating in any wedding or any birthday, anniversary, going away, retirement or any other kind of party for which they may be asked to provide their advertised-to-the-public service. Bring the flowers and cake, drop them off, leave. There is nothing about providing these services that should be interpreted as an affirmation or approval of any occasion to which they are provided because that's not part of the service.

What religious belief or practice is implicated in a business providing its service to a wedding? How is any person prevented by practicing his or her religion?

From some of what I've read/heard, I think a new 1st A constitutional fight is being framed outside of any statutory protections. Many defenders of the bill refer to these various service providers as being "artistic" or "creative." This, arguably, implicates free speech. In Smith, while SCOTUS held a balancing test should not apply when a law of general application impacts a religious practice, the Court also distinguished its holding from its decisions in cases where another Constitutional right, such as free speech, was implicated. I think after Hobby Lobby, there could be a belief that the bakers and flower arrangers would have a good chance of success.

 

Hypothetical:

I own a gun shop

Customer comes in.

He says: "I need to buy a gun. I'm going to kill my wife with it."

Should I sell it to him?

 

No, but his wife is and his wife is not Ann Heche.

 

The problem here, the elephant in the room, is religious fundamentalism. Amy, you say it's "wrong" to try to persuade a Christian that the Bible is, in places, wrong. But it's not wrong. Not necessarily. Scientists do it with every breath they take.

There is, in some ways, a battle for Anerica's soul going on right now. And if progressives want to win it, really win it, they have to reframe the understanding of the Bible that maby still have. They have to start to budge people from fundamentalism and to a place where even devout evangelicals can in good conscience understand and accept that in this instance, somehow, the Bible flubbed it.

 

Now it's a party!!

 

Would-be murderers are not and should not be a protected class of people.

Neither are the garden-variety assholes in Ragu's hypothetical.

Aiding and abetting homicide is a crime, for good reason.

Aiding and abetting The Gay isn't.

 

I understand that, and I think that the florist should have to cater the wedding or find another job.

But I'm responding to Amy's assertion that catering the wedding does not implicate their religious beliefs. It does. They are a participant, no less than the gun salesman in the hypothetical.

 

Refusing service to someone who spit in your face.