Pence signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com
Perhaps a substantial burden to be proven? Perhaps they are not legally related?Washington (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's decision to sign into law a measure that could allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom" has left the NCAA fretting ahead of next week's men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4
(also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government - for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal - because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.
If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
Well, to be fair, you wouldn't hold a hospital responsible for withholding life saving care, so obviously this isn't a problem in libertarian land....Ah..I see, well, I'm not sure it is reasonable to hold someone accountable for your clients feelings.
Liberty is always a balancing act. For me, personally, the government should only infringe on one's liberty when it GREATLY benefits the people and doesn't overburden them. For example, I am fine with not allowing explosives on commercial planes. The tradeoff is worth it.
Preventing people from getting their meds is not worth a person's right to do whatever they want. Preventing someone from getting a cake is.
I do limit this to private non-essential services. Publicly traded corporations should not be able to discriminate. They receive several financial advantages and protections under the law from the government and if they want to enjoy those advantages then they shouldn't be able to discriminate. And of course most grocery stores in the US are publicly traded corporations.
I think laws should change with the times. I think there was a time in our recent history that public accommodation laws made sense. But I believe we have advanced enough that they are no longer needed. The overwhelming majority of business owners just want to make a profit.