RE: Ignore that the media is saying about the bill and read this excellent piece about what it actually is: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3127170/posts
And that my friend is the problem right there... it does not explicitly mention gays, therefore, it is SO GENERAL that it could allow discrimination based on race or ethnicity simply because it violates a person’s religion or conscience ( whatever it is ).
While sad, this is also funny.
If the GOP said they agree with the rats on abortion and gay marriage, the rats would never win another election.
It would force rats to run on things like illegal immigration and Obamacare, issues which have overwhelming GOP support.
And why is that a problem? In a truly free country, a private business owner should be able to turn away anybody they want for ANY reason they want, don't like ugly people? don't like fat people? don't like people with green eyes? It's your business, if you would rather lose the business from those people, that's your choice, you should be able to run it as you see fit.
It also doesn’t allow anything like what you’ve describing.
And even if it did, why is that a bad thing? Isn’t it the flip side of the Obamacare coin, in where we argue that the government has no right to compel an individual to buy a service? How can you make that case and also believe that the government can compel a service provider to provide a specific service to a specific person?
Not everything that is morally or ethically wrong needs to be illegal. Remember that government’s only tool is force, and you have to ask yourself the question: “am I willing to authorize the use of violence against people who violate this law?” The fact that we have so many laws where the answer is “no” is frankly a condemnation of our society.
So, what about the case where, say, a Mulsim doctor in an ER refuses to provide life-saving care to a patient because he’s Jewish? Well, from a purist sense, one could make the argument that it is a civil liability issue for the hospital/clinic for failing to ensure that all patients can be treated and possibly for the doctor himself if (s)he failed to let the hospital/clinic know of these objections.
But in practice, this is why the “religious freedom” law also specifies when the state CAN infringe on religious liberty. It requires that the state show that the law/regulation has a compelling government interest and uses the least infringing method reasonably possible to achieve that objective.
I think we can all agree that providing emergency medical treatment to anyone who rehires it is a compelling state interest.
A law or regulation that requires the FACILITY to provide such services certainly meets the test of minimal intrusion - it would not require a specific doctor to provide treatment if another is available, but would only so compel if that was the only doctor available. That places the absolute minimum burden on the doctor’s religious beliefs necessary to ensure the compelling government interest.
Now, to the issue at hand over why these laws are needed... is there a compelling government interest that a baker provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding? Of course not, and therefore, there’s no need to even bring the minimum intrusion argument to the table. Ditto for asking a Jewish or Muslim butcher to provide pork. Or a homosexual-owned print shop making “God hates fags” banners for the Westboro idiots.