I was talking to my wife about this new law and explained it thusly:
Let’s say you own a restaurant and have strong Christian values. There is one scenario in which this law does not allow you to discriminate and one in which it does:
1. A group of homosexuals come in and want to have lunch. You have to let them eat there. Refusing them service is discriminatory because the purpose of their visit is that they are human beings requiring nourishment. The FUNCTION your establishment provides is nourishment. Eating is not against your religion.
2. A Homosexual wedding party wants to have their reception in your banquet room. You can discriminate because they are now requesting to use your establishment for an event (homosexual marriage) that is against your religion.
I like when laws are nice and black and white.
That’s a good example. But there is a large minority of people in this country rather violently opposed to your point number two, and where this all is going to end I don’t think anyone knows.
Sounds like the law defines “needs” and “wants”.
There is also the tacit endorsement of adultery that occurs when a homosexual event is “sponsored” by Hillary, Miley, et al. Most homosexual activity is outside of a marriage, even one as repugnant as a homo marriage. But, to support “gay” people is to endorse adultery and fornication. How does anyone who claims to be a believer support Hillary?
As a capitalist, I believe that the market will take care of this problem. If one business will not provide a service, there is another business that will. The Indiana law simply allows businesses to abandon a market to their competitors.
"1. A group of homosexuals come in and want to have lunch."
Unless you already knew that the group was homosexual, how do you know that they are homosexual unless they deliberately indicate that they are?
Also, the only discrimination criteria that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is race and sex as they relate to voting rights as evidenced by the 15th and 19th Amendments.
In fact, several constitutional provisions discriminate on the basis of age by establishing minimum age requirements to hold pubilc office, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment and the 26th Amendments also discriminating by age. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment also discriminates on the basis of sex.
Additionally, note that the Founding States recognized the right not to do business with someone as evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, the feds able to purchase state land only with the consent of the state.
Also note that pro-gay PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) is arguably a litmus test for determining if somebody has actually read the Constitution or not. This is because Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found also prohibits the states from making laws / policies which unreasonably abridge the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [emphases added].
So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage for example, the states are free to make laws / policies which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay marriage, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
On the other hand, pro-gay activist states have violated the 14th Amendment imo. This is because they are using equality policies to protect constitutionally unprotected gay “rights” in order to bully Christian business owners who are protected by the 1st Amendment’s religious expression provision.
In fact, the Indiana law actually helps to protect Indiana from unthinkingly violating the 14th Amendment like the misguided, low-information, pro-gay states already have imo.
Save
Exactly. If they come in and just eat, fine. If they come in and want to show off their homosexuality and try to force everyone else to accept it, NO.