put another way, if you support the right to deny service to gays on philosophical grounds, then why wouldn't you support the right to deny service to blacks on philosophical grounds? can you make that argument, without contradicting yourself?
to be clear, i'd argue that denying service based on religious grounds is discrimination. the canadian constitution would be clear on this point - s. 15 equality rights. and there's a human rights code that upholds it and bans this sort of thing. we're similar in some ways, but very different on issues of discrimination. i wouldn't expect a law like the one in indiana to withhold a constitutional challenge, here. and most canadians would think this is right.
the gay wedding cake thing is a little more subtle, as none of these stores are providing an exclusive service. that is, there is no monopoly. if there was a monopoly, they'd have to do it. otherwise, the court would tell you to chill out and just go to a different store.
that's the legality of this: you could sue them, but you'd probably lose, even in canada - because they don't have a monopoly.
from a social standpoint, i feel the more important issue is that the dominant secular society really ought to push the message that this kind of mindset is unacceptable - that it is not acceptable for a business to judge their customers, or try and force their religious beliefs on them. hiding behind a book and calling your bigotry "religion" shouldn't give it a stronger legal protection. bigotry is bigotry, whether it's religious or not.
to me, that makes these laws wrong-headed. the state should not be working to uphold religious exceptions under a tenuous reading of the constitution (it's about making peace between denominations), but to establish a post-religious society, where these arbitrary systems of judgement are kept out of the public discourse.
it's backwardsness, no matter how you try and parse it. and indiana's economy will suffer for it.
ArnoldArchives
Easy question. Here's one way to put it: In your lifetime, you may meet or learn about many former homosexuals, but you will never come across or learn about a former black person. Get the point? If not, maybe this will help: Homosexuality is a chosen behavior or lifestyle, whereas ethnicity is an immutable fact of biology. Thus, comparing homosexuality to ethnicity/race is like comparing apples and tennis shoes -- they're worlds apart.
Furthermore, as a matter of conscience and conviction, neither Christians nor Jews nor Muslims can or should be compelled by the government (that's called fascism or tyranny) to bake a cake, photograph, provide flowers for or participate in any other capacity in a same-sex wedding ceremony, because such an event is a public celebration and affirmation of sexual behavior that is clearly prohibited in both the Bible and the Quran. Moreover, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects each citizen's (that includes entrepreneurs) freedom of religion -- which includes the free exercise of religion -- and conscience rights. These same protections apply to self-identifying homosexuals and supporters of same-sex marriage, for which you and they should be grateful. After all, if these laws do not protect ALL business owners from having to violate their consciences, then business owners who are proponents of same-sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle should equally be forced by the government to decorate cakes, t-shirts, signs, etc. with anti-homosexual messages or to photograph a KKK or Westboro Baptist Church rally, for example, if their customers request as much. Be careful what you ask for (or ferociously demand, as may be the case), because the sword of the law cuts both ways. Bet you never thought your own logic through, did you? Glad I could help.
deathtokoalas
i don't see how the choice argument is relevant - the issue isn't the gay/black person, it's your opinion of that person. your opinion may change if you perceive the issue as one of choice, but that's not the issue - the issue is your opinion. if i had a racist book that claimed blacks are inferior - and the book of mormon gets close - i could present the same argument you're presenting. would you therefore agree that it should be legal to deny service to blacks, merely because a person has racist opinions?
there's also two different issues, here, and i tried to point that out. denying general service is not the same thing as denying specific service. this case is not actionable, for that reason. the kkk thing would fail for the same reason that this one would. but, i don't think the courts should uphold the idea that a black store owner can refuse general service to a klan member based solely on their political affiliation - should they choose to enter the store.
your argument is essentially "i should have the right to be a bigot, because i have bigoted beliefs.". it's entirely circular.
it's logically the same as stating "i should have the right to beat my wife, because i believe in beating my wife."
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
yes - anybody can deny specific service for any reason. that's why this "expose" is a strawman. i explained that clearly. it's not the issue in the bill, and there's no use in pretending it's an issue for debate. i'm not interested in debating with dishonest (or stupid, as it may be) people and will block and delete.
if anybody else would like to try and break the logic down and explain why you think that saying it's alright to deny general service based on one arbitrary characteristic does not imply it's alright to deny general service based on any other then i'm all for it.