The thing is simple: In most civilized countries, including the US (see Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) it’s forbidden to discriminate against people because of religion, color, race, etc. The new law now sets limits to this Civil Rights Act because you now get a loophole that allows you to discriminate based on your religious views. That’s definitely a step back. And as far as I am informed, several similar laws like Indiana’s SB 101 have already been overturned or have not been signed by the respective governors because of that.
And you actually got it backwards. Noone’s rights will be taken away if SB 101 will go to the trash. But if it becomes law it’s another step in the wrong direction. It’s in the same line of thought that brought us “highlights” like “teach the controversy” and similar crap. It’s the attempt of a vocal religious minority to turn a country based on freedom and secularism into a Christian theocracy.

You might think what I said is absurd, but perhaps you should look closer at the agenda of various religious organizations in the US. And you should look closely at the history of the USA.

I use “new law” because the SB 101 we’re talking about is actually new and has recently been voted for with 63 vs 31 votes, so it’s hardly a 100% in favor. You should also note that I am not the only one who thinks that the bill sends a wrong message.

The law you refer to is probably the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act”. Yes, it has been law for the last 22 years, but according to the Supreme Court it only applied to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and federal entities, and NOT the states. That’s actually the reason SB 101 exists in the first place, because the “old law” doesn’t apply in Indiana.

And your argument that it’s just about freedom of religion is like #gamergate’s argument that the whole kerfuffle was about ethics in journalism. SB 101 is Indiana’s Republicans way to show their voters that they are doing something against marriage equality in particular and the LGBTQ community in general or other issues like contraception and abortion. In my opinion it’s perverse if a business can exempt certain medication from their health care plans because it’s against their religious beliefs, or that an anesthesist can refuse to work during an abortion because of his or her beliefs.

A modern society can only work if people accept that the state is secular and while it allows freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) it must be clear that the rules apply to everyone. As soon as you allow people to circumvent these rules because of their Bronze Age religion, things start to fall apart.

Would you be ok with it, if a religion allowed slavery, and because of laws like SB 101 or RFRA government wasn’t able to ban it? Or what about human sacrifice? Or what about Female Genital Mutilation? Some religions consider it part of their traditions. Is it ok then?

What I try to say is that as soon as you raise religious views onto a pedestal and make it more important than other world views, you don’t strive for a free and equal society anymore. People with the “right” religious views get special rights, while people who don’t have any religion or just not the favorable one, get degraded to second-rate citizens.

Horse-pocky. There is a difference between being free to practice my religion (which is difficult here in America, as it is seen as backwards and violent by people who don’t know what they are talking about) and being free to mistreat others. This is something that people who want to retard change because they like the situation as is, (or as was, or as never was but they believe was) like to say because it is misleading.

You mention Muslims and bacon. Let’s take that as an example, since that is what I am (Muslim, not bacon). If I run a restaurant and don’t serve bacon, no law in the US will force me to serve bacon. And that is NOT what this law is about, though its defenders will insist, but it doesn’t hold water as an argument. People who want bacon can eat my halal turkey bacon, or they can eat somewhere else. But if people come in who are Christian and I say they can’t eat in my restaurant because they are eaters of swine, even before they order, I am discriminating. Why? Because I am treating them differently. In my restaurant, *everybody* is welcome and *nobody* gets pork. Everybody is treated the same. And I am not stopping anybody from getting pork elsewhere.

This law gives nobody any legitimate rights they did not have before. But it does make it easier for people to exclude others, to fail to treat them fairly, and to offer their religious or moral stance as “justification” for that. And saying it’s a matter of religious freedom is idiotic, because religious freedom in the US does not protect crime. If a Thugee cultist runs a Motel 6 and murders the occasional guest for the goddess Kali, his plea of religious freedom will not save him from trial for murder (well, I’m not sure about in Indiana).

So, how far may one go to exercise one’s religious beliefs? And how ridiculous might it get? And how unfair? If the manager of a Motel 6 (not the Thug) wants not to give a shared room to same-sex couples, does he do the same to unmarried straight couples?

This law is phony baloney because it is not intended to do anything but support one religious group, Protestant Evangelical Christians (PEC) and their particular prejudices. Saying it extends further is just camouflage.

To be fair, many Protestant Evangelical Christians opposed this law, and others who are not Protestant Evangelical Christians supported it. But as someone who was raised Catholic and was often given grief about it by PECs, and who has since embraced Islam, and is given grief about that, I know that “Evangelical” means that one item of belief is that they have the right–in fact, the duty–of pointing out that everyone who is not a PEC is in a false faith and should change it.

To a lot of them, religious freedom means they have the right to leave religious brochures at my door. I think it means I have the right to be left alone.

This law is a bad idea on so many levels. It just gives legal protection to mean people. And it’s going to be bad for business. I had planned to go to GenCon but no. Not until the law or the location changes.

In the US laws are made first and then have to face challenge in the Courts. This one will be challenged and will probably at worst have to be modified. We’ll see. The history of mankind is the history of stupid, unjust laws.

I thought it was disgusting about the Indiana Governor saying that there was a “Conspiracy” to make Indiana look like a state full of bigots. But no, Governor. You did that with the stroke of a pen.

The one bright side is that Both Florida and Arizona get a break from being the most embarrassing state in the Union. At least for a while.

Let’s clarify a few things. I am not from the US and my understanding of freedom of religion is different from how many Americans see it. I also understand how Americans value the first amendment but I believe that in some cases it goes too far. But that’s probably the European in me.
I guess we can discuss this topic for ages and we will never be on the same page. So I think we each made our points as well as we could (I probably didn’t get all my points across as well as I wished, but English is only my second language and I am no expert on US laws and politics), but we probably only agree to disagree.
By the way, I used the genital mutilation example, because often it helps to exaggerate to get a point across. I don’t think it’s that much more ridiculous than your example of the pig farmer and the Muslim restaurant.

In my opinion it’s ok for a business to show when it’s uncomfortable with certain legislations. I definitely prefer the open approach Gen Con LLC took than back room lobbying.

When people try to influence government and tell it what it should be doing, it’s called “democracy.”

GenCon LLC is not buying politicians nor is it contributing huge amounts of money into the election process, which like it or not, it has the right to do, according to the Roberts Court. What it is doing is saying, “well, then, we might go somewhere else.” It’s also doing it publicly instead of in secret back-room deals.

Your parallel fails. But I see the point you are making.

I doubt there will ever be legislation that forces a baker to bake penis shaped cakes. But there shouldn’t be a law that allows a baker to refuse service to someone just because the customer doesn’t fit into the baker’s religious world view.

You’re also advocating for the abolition of the first amendment. So your comparisons to slavery are apt. However, they corrected the slavery issue the proper way. They amended the constitution. If you want to remove the enshrined right to freedom to practice your religion without gov’t intervention than a constitutional amendment is the only way to do it. Otherwise and until then, “congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion”. I will simply close with this. Be careful what you wish for. You may feel the gov’t is in line with your views now, and so your willingness to give them the authority over individuals business decisions. But come the day that the gov’t is out of step with your beliefs, you will regret giving them that authority. And it will be nearly impossible to get it back.

No ill will to anyone on this thread. Least of all Stargazer, a blogger I very much appreciate and respect (if not always agree with). While I have no interest in boycotting GenCon or Indiana or whatever, I make no bones with people who choose to do so. That is precisely the free association and choice I seek to protect. Thanks for the interesting back and forth.