Indiana's New Law

Ok so the law has been changed, but we will go on. 1. No, the consitution is not a perfect document. But it is the source of our governmnent with the basic necessities we must have in order to run the country. A consitution is a pillar of the government, and if you remove a pillar, the building will fall. As will the government. Maybe not a literal change of regime, but if the consitution no longer constitutes the basis government, it is no longer the consitution. Now, you here have misinterpreted what it means to be a "living document". First of all, the consitution was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was an extremely strict interpreter of it (again, he wrote it), and thought of it as it was: the first building block of the country. The premise of being a living document is that it can be added to or edited, and the new edits become the new law, and that is where we get the updated consitution. But, now let's recognize that the consitution has in no way barred anyone from freedom of speech or expression or press, and the 14th amendment even clafies this, saying "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [1]. And as you can also notice from the constitution, no person anywhere has the right to be served or to purchase anything. And yes, religious people are having their rights stifled. But it's a slow process that involves changing culture. Society is becoming extremely secular, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for religions to express themselves in the public square. And as for tax exemption, that is a privilege, not a right, and many organizations have that priveledge. The government is getting very involved in religious activity, trying to limit it to private places only (specifically christianity). Let's not lie to ourselves here and pretend that it isn't becoming harder to discuss religion in public, and obviously in schools. This last comment about cakes is absolutely ridiculous. A christain baker DOES NOT have to bake the cake. Or let me say, should not. Again, no where in the law does it ever say that anyone has the right to be served or to entitled servitude. This idea fully expresses the problem with our society: we are willing to throw away the law to adhere to a social doctrine that is aimed at hurting the free market for some idea that everyone is entitled to whatever they want. Let me give you this scenario: say you work at a local bakery, and man walks in. You and him proceed to get into an argument, and you kick him out. He demands you serve him. Do you have to serve him? No, you can kick him out, no problem. He'll complain, but he will most likely leave swearing. This is only to show that you don't have to serve anyone under any circumstance. By your logic, because he has broken no laws, I must serve him. And the wedding example is worse. If Americans really come to believe that a private business owner should be forced to serve a gay wedding, even though he doesn't want to, then we will have gone under, as Ronald Reagan would say. Let's also consider that this is the first time in history that people are being forced to not discriminate against an idea, not even an outward sign or color. Just something that is not visible, only mental. And about the security, what about the rights of the majority? Or of a religion? In this country it has become minority rules, and everyone is supposed to receive equal protection under he consitution. So instead of protecting a small group of people, how about protect everyone as a whole. But also, there were no exemptions. The law was still the law. And these discrimination things arent threatening a gay persons safety physically, because getting rejected trying to order a cake for a gay wedding is not going to hurt you physically. 2. Yes but religion is specifically mentioned. It is right there to see, and as you can see it does not mention any other ideas. Religion also could be argued to be half physical also. You also cited one example of a local judge deciding secular humanism is a religion. But the article itself even debates whether it is or not, showing that it is not a fact. It is up for interpretation. Atheism is definitely not a religion, and secular humanism is more of a philosophy. One local liberal judge saying it is a religion doesn't mean anything. The government as a whole has also never taken any steps to back secular humanism and atheism as religions, because they are so individual that they cannot be regulated. And those state laws only rely on theism, which is not a religion. They don't force you to be Christian or Jewish or anything, just theistic. 3. Because in the fourteenth amendment, again, everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the laws. And federal laws prohibit discrimination against anyone for race, color, gender, religion, or national origin [2]. And this law is enforced by the EEOC, and is a law that no states can oppose. Did you ever wonder why the NAACP wasn't mad about the law? What you're saying could suggest that I could discriminate against someone who is black in Indiana. But they weren't mad, as the gay rights activists were, because you can't discriminate against a black man like that 4. Sorry, I should have clarified in the last round. I mean real discrimination. Not wanting to let a homosexual use your photo company for his/her wedding is not discrimination, it is expression of religion or values. If a gay person is really discriminated against, and denied something vital or beat up etc, then that would be discrimination. You can't discriminate against an idea, as long as you don't know the idea at least. This entire point depends on where you determine discrimination to be. 5. Of course there is a link. Gay men are almost the entire reason it spead around. And the hospital one is first of all in Ireland and the other one ignores the idea that we are all guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first one is life, and that's the key here. Hospitals are not allowed to deny or kill patients at all due to this. You cannot deny someone life. So if they need a blood transfusion, and you don't give it to them, then you just commited a major crime. The religion doesn't matter here. [1]- http://constitutioncenter.org... [2]- http://www.eeoc.gov...