Basically, the article said that this law gives businesses the explicit right to pretty much discriminate against the LGBT+ community.
I don't think that is fair, why would someone be discriminated in terms of work just because they are gay? Can't they do the job as well?
I don't think that's accurate at all. The law doesn't solve anything in regards to businesses being able to discriminate. It gives them the ability to raise concerns and have a court address it. If they can compel the court that they have a legitimate religious objection. And that's pretty tough to do. Most who try to deny services to gays on the basis of religion have ended up being forced to prove the services anyway.
As I said in another post, this law gives license to discriminate against any group of people who don't fit one's religious doctrine. For the life of me I don't understand why such a law was even consider. I don't know if it was to placate the conservative, ultra extreme right wing base or for political reasons due to elections coming up. I can't comprehend it but I do know politicians in Indiana are scrambling to fix the law and modify the language. Hahahaha, yeah, I guess change the wording to make it appear more pleasant when a person wants to tell another individual they have the legal right to discriminate against them. Basically, just toss the law aside and leave it alone.
Yep, this is accurate. It gives someone with legitimate faith concerns an avenue for recourse if there is a conflict between one's personal conscience (religious views) and someone trying to force them to perform a business activity. I see nothing wrong with that. There are activities in this world and not everybody is in agreement about them. If I was a baker, I would not want to bake a cake that promoted prostitution or made fun of violence against women (a fraternity cake might do this), etc. I wouldn't want to bake a cake for satan worshippers that depicted animal or human torture. Some thing are objectionable to some people and they should not be forced to have to participate. People should be allowed to say, "No". It is also no secret that the LGBT agenda people have been it their mission to destroy any and all resistance to what they think is right. Well, that is not America. We don't all agree on everything and nobody should be forced to believe in or agree with someone if they don't want to.
While I agree that nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to...the questions is where do YOUR rights end and mine begin? If people should be able to follow their religion 100% then ISIS shouldn't be considered a "terrorist group" now, should they? After all, that's what their religion tells them to do! Ah, but they kill people! Well, that's true, and that's why they're called terrorists. Now, on a smaller scale...if businesses don't want to serve Asians or black people then they'd be called racists. YET this bill basically says that businesses can discriminate against LGBT people, no problem, how is that any different?
That is a good question queen. People should be judged on their ability to work and not on the color of their skin of sexual preferences, it's something that doesn't make sense to me.
So if someone doesn't want to sell anything to gays they'd have to let a court address their concerns? Now since judges aren't all that disinterested in all this as most people would like to believe, supposing a judge handling the case is homophobic? Wouldn't he allow that business to discriminate against gay customers?
I think this looks like a trip to the past when black people didn't have the same rights as white ones. Is this what we want? Because this is what this sort of laws is making.
