# That Indiana law **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 6, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958 "2015-04-06T14:42:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/1 "2015-04-06T14:42:56Z")
IMHO, individuals have religious beliefs and should be able to avoid being caterers, photographers, or DJs at a gay wedding if this violates their sincere religious beliefs. Of course, I wonder how a religion that claims to be based on lover turns into one based on hate. So this applies to free-lancers and individual entrepreneurs. But the idiotic supreme court notwithstanding, businesses cannot have religious beliefs and, once you form your enterprise into a business with employees, accept all the protections that businesses are given (limited liability for one), you become a public actor and should not be allowed to discriminate in the way. Imagine the situation of a small town in which all the catering is done by just one company. Should they be permitted to discriminate just because it violates their owner’s religious beliefs? I think that was the issue in the Hobby Lobby case. They were imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. Incidentally, the analogies brought up with a kosher catering company are absurd. No they will not provide ham because that is not their business. And they should be happy to cater a Muslim wedding. It is not even absurd because kosher food is generally considered hallal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2015, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/2 "2015-04-06T15:05:01Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > IMHO, individuals have religious beliefs and should be able to avoid being caterers, photographers, or DJs at a gay wedding if this violates their sincere religious beliefs. Of course, I wonder how a religion that claims to be based on lover turns into one based on hate. So this applies to free-lancers and individual entrepreneurs. But the idiotic supreme court notwithstanding, businesses cannot have religious beliefs and, once you form your enterprise into a business with employees, accept all the protections that businesses are given (limited liability for one), you become a public actor and should not be allowed to discriminate in the way. > > Imagine the situation of a small town in which all the catering is done by just one company. Should they be permitted to discriminate just because it violates their owner’s religious beliefs? I think that was the issue in the Hobby Lobby case. They were imposing their religious beliefs on their employees. > > Incidentally, the analogies brought up with a kosher catering company are absurd. No they will not provide ham because that is not their business. And they should be happy to cater a Muslim wedding. It is not even absurd because kosher food is generally considered hallal. If you think that’s what the law should be, that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. But the “idiotic supreme court” you mention read the plain text of the law, which plainly applies to companies and says that the federal RFRA protects both companies and individual, natural persons. I think that’s a better way to run the country than your way. That’s my opinion: the opinion that when we pass laws, we should be bound by what those laws says. The opinion that the best way to interpret laws is to read their plain meaning and apply that plain meaning is an opinion that I have, too. So i do not agree with your opinion. I think the Supreme Court was correct in reading and applying the law, and I think that in this country, if you want to change the law, you have to get the legislature to vote in favor of your proposed changes. ---
**Author:** ![race\_to\_the\_bottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c4cdca/32.png) [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/race_to_the_bottom)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/3 "2015-04-10T01:33:04Z")
What about if it is my sincere religious belief that Jews killed Christ and I won’t cater their bar and bat Mitzvahs. Maybe I believe Catholics are the spawn of Satan. I won’t sell them any fish. I won’t pay taxes for schools because they may have gay kids there. Hell, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/4 "2015-04-10T01:39:14Z")
> [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](#): > > What about if it is my sincere religious belief that Jews killed Christ and I won’t cater their bar and bat Mitzvahs. Maybe I believe Catholics are the spawn of Satan. I won’t sell them any fish. I won’t pay taxes for schools because they may have gay kids there. > > Hell, why not? Because the law does not permit you to do so. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/5 "2015-04-10T02:03:19Z")
> [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](#): > > What about if it is my sincere religious belief that Jews killed Christ and I won’t cater their bar and bat Mitzvahs. Maybe I believe Catholics are the spawn of Satan. I won’t sell them any fish. I won’t pay taxes for schools because they may have gay kids there. > > Hell, why not? If you have a problem selling things to some people then don’t sell things. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![race\_to\_the\_bottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c4cdca/32.png) [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/race_to_the_bottom)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/6 "2015-04-10T05:08:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the law does not permit you to do so. No, not yet, but apparently sincerely held religious beliefs are now allowed to trump the law. Hard to say how far this can be stretched. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/7 "2015-04-10T05:21:27Z")
It’s a sin that these sorts of laws ever withstood constitutional review. “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.” Except, I guess, when they really want to. (The same for the “Office of Faith Based Initiatives.” Absolutely unconstitutional…except to a Supreme Court that can’t read.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/8 "2015-04-10T20:34:50Z")
> [@race\_to\_the\_bottom](#): > > No, not yet, but apparently sincerely held religious beliefs are now allowed to trump the law. Hard to say how far this can be stretched. That’s not remotely true. What is true is that the law includes a provision to protect the exercise of religious practices. This law is found in the US Code, at 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb et seq. So there is no “trumping.” The law does not trump the law. The law is the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-indiana-law/716958/9 "2015-04-10T20:42:26Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s a sin that these sorts of laws ever withstood constitutional review. “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.” > > Except, I guess, when they really want to. > > (The same for the “Office of Faith Based Initiatives.” Absolutely unconstitutional…except to a Supreme Court that can’t read.) No – that’s not an “establishment” of religion.