Indiana Gov. signs law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay customers.

[JeffreyS]

"it will be helpful to move legislation this week to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone."

http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/

But Jeb, Marco and Ted have already said they like that part.

[coredumped]

Oh boy this guy is slippery. Watch him not answer 1 question on ABC news regarding this bill. Bonus points if you can make it all the way to the end without your blood pressure increasing:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447

[fsquid]

If all the pro LGBT businesses leave or threaten to leave Indiana or any other state with these religious freedom laws, won't the effect disproportionately impact LGBT residents of that state that depended on inclusive employers for jobs and LGBT rights orgs who depended on philanthropic giving from those orgs?

[finehoe]

If all the pro LGBT businesses leave or threaten to leave Indiana or any other state with these religious freedom laws, won't the effect disproportionately impact LGBT residents of that state that depended on inclusive employers for jobs and LGBT rights orgs who depended on philanthropic giving from those orgs?

I think a more likely scenario is once rinky-dink businesses begin advertising they don't serve gays on religious grounds, gay activists will publish lists of them. Then they'll be boycotted by gays and right-minded people.

Weak-minded religion freaks will mostly shop at places they already go to, gay or no gay, mostly based on convenience or price, so the other side of the equation won't be much of a factor.

Oh, and it won't just be retailers and service businesses like Bodegas and Barber Shops. Some dumbass Machine Shop will advertise they don't serve gays, and lose their large contracts with bigger, national firms after the national media picks up their announcement. Not to mention Federal contracts.

[copperfiend]

"it will be helpful to move legislation this week to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone."

http://politicalwire.com/2015/03/31/pence-will-amend-religious-freedom-law/

But Jeb, Marco and Ted have already said they like that part.

They need to find out which way the wind is blowing today

[copperfiend]

I guess NC wants some of this action too.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article16956950.html

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article16511249.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-2

Thankfully their governor has said he will not support it.

[finehoe]

Arkansas jumps in.

The Arkansas legislature on Tuesday passed its version of a bill described by proponents as a religious freedom law, even as Indiana's political leaders struggled to gain control over a growing backlash that has led to calls to boycott the state because of criticism that its law could be a vehicle for discrimination against gay couples.

The Arkansas bill now goes to the state's Republican governor, Asa Hutchinson, who expressed reservations about an earlier version but more recently said he would sign the measure if it "reaches my desk in similar form as to what has been passed in 20 other states." But the bill already faces a significant corporate backlash, including from Doug McMillon, the chief executive of Walmart, the state's largest corporation, who said Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Hutchinson should veto it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/religious-freedom-restoration-act-arkansas-indiana.html

[JeffreyS]

The Arkansas Governor has caved and said he won't sign the bill. Wal-Mart said he wasn't allowed. Good for WM.

[finehoe]

Wal-Mart said he wasn't allowed.

[fsquid]

Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

[TimmyB]

Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

Just my opinion, but "absolutely none".  A "business" is not registered with a church; it is registered with the appropriate governing agencies (local, state, federal), and must abide by their rules.  Since government is to have no endorsement WHATSOEVER of ANY religion, using that as an excuse is preposterous.  You opened your doors for business, serve those that come in to spend their hard-earned money. 

[I-10east]

I don't think that modern Christians are as hardline establishment as many think. YES they are anti-gay marriage (just like seemingly every religion), but far as denying services and that sorta thing, I think that it's highly overblown. Many would argue that Christianity is the most flakiest (if you will) of the big three religions, with many not taking the religion that seriously. The Jewish are the least intrusive IMO. Islam is the most hardline, though in the US it's a vast minority.

[finehoe]

I don't think that modern Christians are as hardline establishment as many think. YES they are anti-gay marriage (just like seemingly every religion)

You're mistaken if you think all Christian denominations are anti-gay and/or anti-gay marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

[I-10east]

You're mistaken if you think all Christian denominations are anti-gay and/or anti-gay marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

My bad, thanks for the info.

[WarDamJagFan]

Just curious but what consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

Just my opinion, but "absolutely none".  A "business" is not registered with a church; it is registered with the appropriate governing agencies (local, state, federal), and must abide by their rules.  Since government is to have no endorsement WHATSOEVER of ANY religion, using that as an excuse is preposterous.  You opened your doors for business, serve those that come in to spend their hard-earned money.

Actually, the Supreme Court would slightly disagree with you on this one via Citizens United vs Federal Election Committee where corporations were deemed to be "people" and therefore are protected under the First Amendment. Obviously, that decision was more geared towards political donations, but the essence of the law would still give a company the right to have its own "values", if you will because of said First Amendment.