"TheEnd777" wrote: This OP is biased. The law is NOT about discrimination it is about religious freedom. Why should a caterer or a florist be forced to serve for a wedding that they believe is wrong and immoral according to their religion? Doesn't that violate their freedoms?
No, we already decided this in the Civil Rights era, when the argument was about interracial marriage and segregation instead of gay marriage, and the same arguments were being used by the racists; why should a religious business owner with genuinely held convictions that he believes are religiously inspired be required to serve a black man? Surely, he should be able to deny service to those he believes wrong and immoral according to his religion? Wouldn't it violate his freedoms to force him to serve people of other races?
Or do you see the problem?
The problem I have with this bill is that...it's ambiguous.
But, the governor who signed the law says that it does not give a license to discriminate against anyone.
"TheEnd777" wrote:Again, if gays want florists, find a florist that supplies gays.
Imagine, if you will, if the prevailing attitude were towards not allowing gays to buy products from your business, and it were entirely legal to do this as a business owner. The U.S. tried it before for quite some time and it was done away with.
"TheEnd777" wrote:If this was a law allowing gays to not sell to Christians and Muslims, no one would object.
A great many people who understand that consumers have basic rights, as well as those Christians and Muslims being discriminated against, would object.