Indiana's New Law

My apologies, I forgot about that clause. Thanks for going along. Also, sorry for the late response. Not for the rebuttals All I'm trying to show by that example was that it allows people to live their lives using their moral values. The quote you copied was irrelevant because they couldn't consitute the law to only specific rekigions, they need to include all religions and ideologies. You misunderstand what I'm getting at 1. I understand that some laws contradict freedom of speech. I am not saying laws don't contradict it, I know there are laws out there that don't follow rule #1. What I AM saying is that the laws shouldn't contradict it. The constitution is there supposedly as the central root of the American government. It should outline what our government needs to do on a basic level. Therefore, unless you want to blatantly go against the constitution or overturn it, you must respect the laws. Which include our right to free speech and religion. To counter your point about religion over non religion, I would argue that that statement makes little sense, due to generalizing an entire group of people. Yes, one side is religious. But that DOES NOT mean the other side is non religious or athiest. In fact, there is no "other side". There is only one side. The law is meant to be for religious people, not against anyone else. And the reason it's pro religious is because the religious are the ones with their rights being stifled by social conformity. And about terrorism, the governments main job is to protect the American public, and that was something that was recognized by the founding fathers as well. This allows for a seizure of a person committinh terroristic threats, as they are a threat to society. So that argument is invalid, and again my point here is to reinforce what our consitution states. 2. Con here misunderstands "discrimination" laws. There is no laws protecting an idea. There are laws protecting someone for something visible that they cannot help, such as race. There aren't laws protecting ideas, again, because that is impossible to define. Now, we also need to see that states have individual and seperate constitutions, that they established long ago on core values. That means it isn't breaking any law or violating any code when states such as Maryland or Texas make people declare a belief in God. So con's entire point here is not valid, because the laws are entirely under the law and consitutional. Anyway, this point has little to do with the law anyway. This is government, whereas the law deals in the private sector. 3. This statement is utterly false and not considering any law. Yes, the Book of Mormon may say natives were bad people, and yes, a Mormon could refuse a native serve. But what would happen after? The native would file a lawsuit and easily win. Because there are non discrimination laws that were enacted in the LBJ era not just for blacks, but for all people. As I stated in point 2, you cannot deny someone something due to race. This law trumps the state law, and it applies everywhere. Con also clearly does not understand the law. All it states is that the government may only restrict a person"s "exercise of religion" ONLY "in the furtherance of a compelling government interest" and must use "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest." The law is based off a federal law from 1993. And since the federal law was established, not a single person has used it to win a case in court over discrimination[1]. The law only means the government cannot restrict religious activity unless it is really compelling to do so. 4. No, again the law has little to do with discrimination. The gay person could take a shipowner to court and win easily. The law is referring to religious activity and practices and letting it operate in your life in public. Quoting scriptural books and saying you could use that to justify discrimination does not apply. The reason of the backlash is due to gay rights lobbyists not wanting a religious agenda being allowed, and also the fact that some people have misinterpreted the law as explicitly allowing discrimination. 5. Your statement that the medical community blames homosexuality for contracting aids is backed up by a meaningless source. All it states is the fact that gay men have a much higher risk of STDs and therefore should not donate blood. Not hard to understand. And a gay couple being refused wedding services is something that I have no problem with personally and do not consider discrimination, but I'm not an expert on the topic. Your claim about the woman in Ireland is attending reality and really just false. I am catholic and went to catholic school, and I can tell you the only instance where the church allows abortions is if it endangers the woman's life. So if her life was in danger, catholic doctrine would allow the abortion. That situation was an error on a local level. I find you saying she was oppressed and killed by a religion to be extremely disrespectful and blatently stupid, as you clearly don't understand the teaching behind it. It would make more sense to blame it on the nurses, because Irish law even states that if the woman's life is in danger, the baby may be aborted. So again, this entire point is not valid and also irrelevant. [1]- http://dailycaller.com...