So even more laws, now to provide "special rights" to the religious or anyone that claims "moral conscience" and doesn't ant to service customers.
Don't want to serve blacks - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve Jews - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve gays - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve the elderly - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve women - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience.
Don't want to serve veterans - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include veterans status in the Public Accommodation laws.)
Don't want to serve divorcees - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (Yes some states include marital status in the Public Accommodation laws.)
Don't want to perform the duties your employer pays you for - just claim it's your religious or moral conscience. (I do believe you have supported these special rights be incorporated into employment situations also so that employers can require their employees to do their jobs and not be fired for it.)
Adding MORE laws to control how MORE people can or cannot act is a very liberal idea. Not one I agree with. Here is a thought, instead of ADDING laws to give special rights to a group you agree with, how about instead we argue for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private business.
Instead of bigger more intrusive government, now about we repeal some laws. Allow individual freedom for both sides of the coin. Businesses get to refuse services to anyone for any reason, and customers get to share their experiences with their friends and the public. Let the marketplace decide if a business succeeds or fails. Let the business owner decide if an employee that refuses to perform their assigned tasks get to continue to receive a paycheck.
****************************************
See looking at it from a legal and logical perspective. The intent of the law, as we saw in the recent debacle in Arizona (SB 1062) was that businesses would be exempt from having to serve gays. However if the law was written specifically to only apply to gays, then it's unconstitutional (See Romer v. Evans when Colorado tried to target gays - it was struck as unconstitutional). On other other hand if you make the law very general - then anyone can claim that their personal religion or their personal moral objection applies. As SB 1062 said ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." There can't be a requirement that the individuals religious beliefs or "moral conscience" as you call it be part of an established religious dogma. Why you ask? The answer is that it would require the
government then to approve or disapprove or religoius doctrine as valid or invalid. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is the government defining religious doctrine as valid or invalid.
>>>>