Not if a business serves the public.
If you don’t like non-discrimination statutes, you’re free not to open your doors.
We have all have to obey laws we don’t like.
No, we don’t.
“We have all have to obey laws we don’t like.”
Actually that’s not quite true. Otherwise “separate but equal” might still be the law of the land.
Non-discrimination statues are Unconstitutional, just like 3/4’s of the current Federal Government.
“We have all have to obey laws we don’t like.” Couldn’t disagree more. No one has an obligation to obey an unjust law. An unjust law is no law at all. A law that forces someone to do something that violated their Christian beliefs is not a just law. Laws typical are fashioned in the negative - to prevent someone from doing that which is wrong, never to force someone to do something that someone else thinks is right.
That is the very same thing Germans folks explained to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials.
The fact of the matter is, moral people have an obligation to disobey unlawful or immoral orders.
So it's not discrimination against a category of persons. Rather, it's a choice not to enter into a contract to produce a particular product. The government has not authority to force people to contract for work they don't want to do.
Try that with, say, artist Fairey Shepard, who designed the iconic Obama "Hope" poster. Try to force him to design one just like that for Trump. See how far you'd get in a court of law.
That’s funny- nightclubs and bars are allowed to bar members of the public and even toss them out using bouncers. And they are allowed to - required to- discriminate based on age.
Health insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on all kinds of reasons.
Theme parks are allowed to discriminate based on height.
Airlines based on weight.
Beauty contests based on beauty.
The military likewise discriminates for various reasons.
Universities discriminate against Asians.
In this case we have government discriminating against people based on their religion and government establishing religion of its own [liberal secularism] that it forces onto others by placing itself as the ultimate authority on what the religious beliefs and practices of business owners shall be:
“She said, “the printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs’ independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives.”
Here the judge has left the confines of law to enter the confines of theology. She is, by asserting her own beliefs about what does and does not constitute a religion, establishing the Church of Judge Karen Mullins. She thinks religion is just going to church, singing hymns, and expressing beliefs, but not in actually PRACTICING those beliefs.
She is asserting that a religion may not define as sin anything the state or mere judge defines as permissible and the faithful must perform any act the state permits merely because another person requests it, putting the faith or lack thereof of a third party ahead of the faith of the business owner. Now, it’s one thing for a government to prohibit a religious practice deemed harmful to other individual’s inalienable rights [those rights upon which government is not allowed to infringe ] but quite another for a government to require the religious to commit a sin by active participation in or by facilitating others in sinning so others’ feelings won’t be hurt.
The judge is also failing to recognize that in some protestant churches, whatever vocation we find ourselves in is not merely a job but an act of faith done foremost for the glory of God. Some may, with clean consciences, decide that by doing excellent work for everyone they are witnessing, but the consciences of others just as cleanly may lead them to conclude they would be aiding others in sin and thus they refuse this work. The judge is putting her conscience ahead of all others.
She is forcing a provider of nonessential services to abandon their faith and join her newly fabricated cult or face persecution. She’s also defining what does not constitute a sin by declaring that anything government declares is legal cannot be a sin.
An unjust law is no law at all -MLK