Indiana's New Law

I would like to note that the law has been changed since we started this debate. Sexual orientation and gender identity have now become exemptions(1). C 1: The constitution isn't some perfect document that cannot be gone against or changed. It was written to be a living document that changes to conform to the always changing country(2). And the amendments are up to interpretation and change(2). Religious people are not having their rights stifled by social conformity. Christians are an overwhelming majority in America(3). Churches and similar religious organizations are still tax exempt(4). If you start a company where you make things for weddings, and your state has same sex marriage, then you are expected to make things for them. If you don't like that then you should go into a different trade. Your statement about security doesn't in any way invalidate my argument. If anything it supports it. The government could say that it is protecting the rights of minorities, just like the anti-terrorism exceptions to the amendment protect all Americans' rights to safety. C 2- Con has in no way misunderstood discrimination. There are indeed laws protecting ideas; religions are not concrete things. They are abstract. The first amendment specifically says that the government can respect no establishment of religion(5). This has been taken by the government to mean that Atheists or Secular Humanists cannot be discriminated against due to the first amendment(6). The point of my argument is that if two laws contradict then you cannot always know which one will win over in the courts. And if a law allows some form of discrimination then it can go to the courts and possibly win against those that deny discrimination. C 3: How can Pro suggest to know what would happen after a Native American was denied service under this new law? If the Mormon in question had a good lawyer then they could defend themselves with this law. Federal law doesn't always beat state law. Cannabis is illegal by federal law(7). It is still allowed in some states(8). States' Rights are a very big issue, so he could use that to his advantage. C 4: Pro is simply wrong about the nature of this law. A Republican from Indiana has even stated the law as it was would allow businesses to put up signs barring homosexuals(9). And what would gay rights lobbyists care about the law if it didn't have some discrimination in it? While I agree that people have made it too much about homosexuality, the law does allow discrimination(9). C 5: Whether I should have used the word "blame," or not, it doesn't effect the fact that there is a link drawn between homosexuality and AIDS. I also admit that after the recent changes to the law that this could not happen(1). The story of the woman dying is definitely a relevant one. Private hospitals could start denying people certain things. Catholic doctrine may say that the abortion is allowed if the woman's life is in danger, but they are not the only religious group who have an opinion on abortions. There are also other religious beliefs in the medical world. Let us not forget about the Jehova's Witnesses. Jehova's Witnesses are against blood transfusions(10). In a private hospital this could be a very real problem. 1: http://talkingpointsmemo.com... 2: http://firstclass.rfsd.k12.co.us... 3: http://www.gallup.com... 4: http://www.irs.gov... 5: http://constitution.findlaw.com... 6: http://www.washingtonpost.com... 7: http://norml.org... 8: http://www.governing.com... 9: http://www.rawstory.com... 10: http://www.gotquestions.org...