[Aqua Buddhist]

The law theoretically prevents made-up-on-the-spot "religious" rules (though given that it boils down to a judgment call, it opens the door to clogging the courts with frivolous claims).

That still leaves problems about acts which are clearly contrary to public policy and can be defended as established religious practice (e.g. the Minnesota cases mentioned earlier in the thread where Muslim cab drivers refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs or passengers with alcohol in their possession).

[JohnnyM]

So the answer to all these problems is to allow business owners to handle their property in any way they decide. Now, given the current cultural and political climate, that is an impossibility, so we have to work with what we got.

Now I see no problem with Muslim cab drivers refusing passengers with dogs or who are possessing alcohol, whether the reason is religious or not. A plumber can refuse to fix the plumbing at an abortion clinic or a lawyer can refuse clientele that he would feel uncomfortable defending. And they can do this legally, so why refuse these same privileges to the cab driver.

Now, what all these actors currently cannot do, by law, is discriminate solely based on race, sex, and in some states sexual orientation. So the cabbie could not refuse a fare because they are black, and the plumber could not refuse to fix a Christian's plumbing, and the lawyer could not refuse clientele because they are gay.

Now what the Arizona bill does is allow for individuals to be protected from state coercion to do things that violate their conscience as long as it passes a certain threshold of scrutiny. This is a step in the right direction, which is people being free to do with their property as they choose, and should be applauded.

So it will not protect a business owner who refuses to serve someone because of their orientation, assuming the state has laws against such discrimination, but it will allow them to refuse to participate in such events that go against their faith.

The Hobby Lobby case is in the same vein. The Arizona law would protect Hobby Lobby from having to provide and pay for abortifacient health care coverage, because it violates their conscience.

-JM