Indiana's New Law

Pro, I did request no refutations or rebuttals until round three, but I don't really care and won't ask you to change anything or make you forfeit a round. I find that to be unsportsmanlike. Pro has twisted my words a little here. This is very clearly saying that the Angelican in this example wouldn't be forced to view it as O.K. and would be allowed to refuse the person service. That is made very clear by, "whether or not compelled by, or central to a system of religious belief." "Whether or not," is the operative phrase here. C-1: Pro seems to misunderstand the first amendment. The law just passed is very obviously respecting religion. It is respecting it over those who are not religious. And plenty of laws do contradict that amendment. People are regularly arrested for threats of terrorism. "Making a terrorist threat is one such form of speech that is prohibited.(3)" "A terroristic threat is when a person threatens to commit any crime of violence against another person with the intent to terrorize.(1)" These arrests can be done over something as simple as a line of emojis(2). Sarcastic comments with no backing made in a chat during a game are enough to get you arrested(4). From that it is easy to see that exceptions can be made to the first amendment. C-2: Federal laws against discrimination are regularly defied by the states. Atheists aren't allowed to run for public office in several states(5). This is the thirty seventh article in Maryland's constitution, "Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.(6)" While it is in accordance with other laws on the issue of not administering a religious text, but it says that one must declare their belief in the existence of a God. This is a respect of religion over a lack of religion. There are several other states with similar articles in their constitutions. Laws against discrimination are occasionally worked around by those who wish strongly enough to discriminate. C-3: You most definitely can refuse service to people based upon race if their race is against your religion. The books of Nephi in the book of Mormon are horribly racist. "The Native Americans are the descendants of those "who dwindled in unbelief." As a punishment for their disbelief, their skin was darkened and they became "a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.(7)" Are you suggesting that a Mormon couldn't use this quote to refuse to serve people of Native American heritage? "The Lamanites were once "a delightsome people", but God made them a dark-skinned, "filthy and loathsome people, led about by Satan" because of their unbelief and idolatry.(7)" The mentioned Lamanites are viewed as the forefathers of Native Americans in Mormonism. If you believed these things, you could almost definitely refuse to even allow people of Native American descent into your establishment according to this law. C-4: There is also a valid case to be made about misunderstandings. Let us say that you suspect a man in your establishment to be a homosexual or transsexual and are extremely against it. He has extremely effeminate mannerisms. Do you have the right to refuse him service? "The remnant of the sodomites who remained in the days of his father Asa, he expelled from the land.(8)" "The term "sodomite" is taken from the city of Sodom. The word refers to anyone who engages in homosexual or lesbian acts. Sin of Sodom. There is a document at this site entitled "Same Sex Patterns of Life." It provides a biblical understanding of what happened at Sodom and the nature of the sin. The sin was homosexuality. The sin was males with males. Then later in the New Testament God includes females with females.(9)" According to this they would even be allowed to remove them from their property if the Law is about people expressing their religious freedom within their own property. Would the man be able to sue if it turned out he was straight? And how would one go about proving or disproving that statement in court? C-5: So much worse can happen than a gay couple being refused wedding services. A private hospital could now refuse services to people suffering from AIDS. The medical community still blames homosexuality for contracting the disease(10). There was also once an instance in Ireland where a woman was suffering from a miscarriage due to natural causes. An abortion could have saved her, but her and her baby both died. Catholicism was cited as the reason by the hospital(11). That is also an example of freedom from religion, because the couple was Hindu(12). This means that she was oppressed and killed by a religion that was not her own. What would stop private hospitals from doing things like this? Sources 1: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... 2: https://www.techdirt.com... 3: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... 4: http://www.khou.com... 5: http://www.alternet.org... 6: Constitution of Maryland 7: Book of Mormon 8: Bible 9: http://www.neverthirsty.org... 10: http://www.fda.gov... 11: http://www.bbc.com... 12: http://www.theguardian.com...