Don't forget these. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/baker-faces-complaint-refusing-make-anti-gay-cakes-n291771
Bingo. Society ain't perfect and it needs regulating and policing on many levels, but free enterprise at this fundamental level will police itself. And if the extreme left would quit pushing for laws that make some people do what they don't want to do, the extreme right wouldn't feel obliged to respond with idiocy like RFRA.
My point is that there are just not a lot of these cases. Her test case isn't going so well for her, is it? She can't make a case that photographing a wedding ceremony significantly impacts her freedom of religion. Her free speech argument is equally poor. She can't make a case that photographing someone else's wedding constitutes being forced to "celebrate" and approve of the betrothed. She is either in a public business or not. If she's in public business, she cannot discriminate based on this. Personally, I think this crap doesn't need another law to address. People have reasons to do business or not do business with vendors and contractors all of the time. Many times they cannot agree on the arrangements and must each go their own way. If a business doesn't want to make some grand public statement about their religious politics, they can find some other reason (price, logistics, calendar, guarantees, vacation) where they cannot come to terms on a contract. Recommend another contractor. Be nice. Don't overtly discriminate and there is room for an amiable arrangement. Likewise, I think if a customer suspects that a business holds him in contempt, he should just take his business elsewhere and vote with his wallet. I don't think they have reason to sue unless the business somehow overtly cheats them, holds them up to ridicule, or acts fraudulently in some fashion. Lots of gray area here, but that is what we pay judges to sort out, case by case. We can't make a law that pleases everybody or covers all circumstances.
Fear not peeps....Pat Haden is refusing to attend the NCAA Championship Committee meeting in Indiana because....he has a gay son. Things should be crystal clear now. Pat is willing to take it up the ass from the NCAA regarding his Trojan family but will stand up to the NCAA so that his son can....well....you know.
Could not agree more. Once upon a time on this forum, my mind changed regarding the concept of enforcing no-smoking restaurants, etc. I became convinced that restaurant owners should make the choice and then let the free market choose which establishment to support. The constant wrangling of rights via lawsuits and legislature is a waste of time and money.
That's eeoc which only relates to employment. Sex orientation is not a protected class. since blacks in the South were beaten for sitting at a private diner's counter. What if your "religion" said blacks were inferior because Moses cursed Ham?