Hiding behind religion to practice bigotry is a crock of chit. If they held their religious convictions so strongly they wouldn't be open. They would have to refuse service to all "sinners".
This is exactly what I thought of the moment I heard of Indiana's Religious Freedom law. Contrary to what was being reported, the Indiana law is slightly different from the federal law. The federal law,
H.R. 1308, essentially keeps the government from intruding on an individual's right to practice his/her religion of choice as he/she sees fit as long as doing so doesn't intruded on another person's First Amendment rights nor violates existing laws. Indiana's religious freedom law,
S. 568, is similar with one distinctive difference:
Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion.
(b) The term includes a person's ability to: (1) act; or (2) refuse to act; in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person's sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "person" means an individual, an association, a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a church, a religious institution, an estate, a trust, a foundation, or any other legal entity.
In other words, if I (insert religion here) am convinced that you don't...say...hold the same religious beliefs as I do, I could choose not to serve you. Of course, we all know that opposing another person's religious belief isn't the real intent behind Indiana's religious freedom law. It's to provide cover for business owners on a completely different social and moral issue. Nonetheless, the law gives business owners cover not to be prosecuted on discriminatory grounds by virtue of hiding behind religion.
Think of it this way...
During the era of Jim Crow, if a White business owner refused to serve a Black customer, the rationale was "You're a Negro; I don't serve Negros." Despite being a socially accept practice in the South, the fact of the matter was a Black man can't change the pigment of his skin. Nonetheless, the business owner's refusal to serve the Black man ultimately came to be viewed as a discriminatory practice; you're singling out a person based on the color of their skin.
Under Indiana's religious freedom law, a business owner can do much the same thing only this time such refusal is subjective. It's based on the business owner's belief that the customer doesn't hold the same religious beliefs or adheres to the same religious convictions. So, if I'm a pastor of a church, a cake maker, a florist, a wedding planner, a wedding photographer, a jeweler and I believe the customer before me is gay or an Atheist or a Muslim and I'm a Christian, I can refuse to sell to them or provide the desired service based strictly on my religious conviction because doing so violates my religious beliefs.
To that, I have to ask, "How are you harmed?" by providing such services or selling a given products to someone you think might not hold the same religious beliefs as you? How does buying a product or service infringe on another person's religious rights? How does my buying a given product or services from a Christian, a Muslim or even a Buddhist as the proprietor interfere with said proprietor's ability to practice their religion of choice? To my way of thinking, if a person's religious believes are that strongly held that they refusal to sell me a product or provide a service, it's not the religion the person holds dear. It's their bias and bigotry.
Now, I've danced around the true intent of Indiana's law and I've done so on purpose. So, I'll just come out with it here. It's clear that this is an attempt to protect business owners from selling a product or providing a service to gays and lesbians not merely anyone whose religious convictions aren't the same as the proprietor's. As such, that's discrimination, plain and simple.
