I buy it, though.
And more relevantly: the law does in fact allow corporations to exercise religious practice. And it’s not silly at all: the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore is a corporation. The Paschal Lamb, a Catholic bookstore, is a corporation. The Halal Meat Market is a corporation.
I think it’s very clear that all those corporations exercise religious practices.
And I suspect that business is getting its information from the opposition!
That is, they’re hearing the same misinformation as everyone else is, and incorrectly concluding that they can refuse service.
Pizza is not expressive conduct. (I will stipulate that if they offer some weird custom feature, where an engaged couple hires the pizza maker to create a new dish that embodies the unique expression of their love and new life together – if that sort of offering is involved, I believe the pizza maker can legitimately refuse.) If they are simply asking for the pizza maker to make the same kind of pizza they make for everyone else… then, no.
This is a confusing mish-mash of claims. What religion do you imagine is in play here?
The Old Testament prohibitions against mixed-cloth wearers and shellfish eaters don’t apply to Christians.
I imagine that the Christian pizzamakers would also refuse an adulterers’ love-fest or the catering of a thieves’ conference.
An Archdiocese is undoubtedly a corporation but it is a religious corporation. Your Catholic bookstores, Jewish delis or whatever may be corporations but are not religious organizations. When your sole proprietor deli shop can claim exemption from taxation on the grounds of being a member of the clergy, then the shop can be religious.
You said, " It’s just as silly to state that a corporation can have a religious belief." (I’ll note that you created a strawman argument with that phrase, since the RFRA protects religious practice as opposed to religious belief.
Can the Paschal Lamb, a Catholic bookstore, be said to have religious practice? How about the Halal Meat Market? Suppose the state legislature in North Brickerumland banned halal methods of slaughter because of cruelty to animals. Could the Halal Meat Market, a corporation, sue to challenge that law?
But are they* sincere*? 'Cause I never see them in church…
One must have a religious belief in order to being able to practice it. I think the Halal Meat Market could argue that they must buy meat killed under that religious method (or have it done for them) in order to meet the religious demands of their customers. Nothing wrong with a business being able to buy or make products to their customers’ specifications.
Moreover, any Muslim could bring suit against North Brickerumland should halal slaughter be banned and would likely win 9-0 at the US Supreme Court.
I don’t know why this had escaped me in the past, and perhaps I’m wrong about it so I’ll ask: are cities and counties legally known as Municipal Corporations?
Does anyone know who these “religious figures” are surrounding Governor Pencein this photo during the closed door bill signing of SB 101?
This thread is expanding faster than I have time to read. Thanks for spurring me to investigate further, as I WAS confused why Indiana’s law was a big deal and Illinois is not.
Found a couple of sources that explain the difference between Indiana and the fed / other states’ RFRAs pretty well.
So yes, freedom to practice your religion is good. I’m down with protecting the practices of (especially) minority religions that the mainstream may not think about or account for when writing broader laws. Freedom to cause trouble for other people under the guise of “religious freedom” is not. There is a difference between a practice that affects no one but the practitioner, and one that primarily affects people other than the practitioner. You can practice your religion; you just can’t force other people to.
A few ID’d here
They could argue on what legal grounds? They are a corporation. What law do you want the corproation to use to make the argument?
You’re right. I’ll add an exception to the law for individuals. They can always slaughter in the halal method for personal consumption – I just want the businesses out of the cruelty to animals business.
Did you see that I also linked to the Atlantic article, and then expose the misinformation in it? Post 153.
It’s not clear to me why you believe they explain it “pretty well” given the information I supply in post 153. Can you explain?
Yes.
Dude. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese OWNS the church.
I never see the Archdiocese at confession either. I think their claim is pretty shaky…
Pssh, Glenn Beck thinks everything leads to concentration camps, especially that new concentration camp bill. ITS JUST A NAME! For a type of very focused shelter area devoted to one kind of recreation.
So your answer is no? I see. Without some kind of operating definition, I don’t see how one can reasonably conclude that baking a cake or taking a picture should fall under different jurisdiction than making a hamburger or unclogging a sewer line
You are aware, of course, that you demand near perfect legal definitions from many liberal posters who claim one thing or another and that this irony is not lost on people. And if you demand that I name specific instances or posters, then you’re proving my point 
I don’t think it violates the 1st Amendment, but I do think it does violate the 14th.
Did you read my first sentence that you actually quoted?
I know where you stand. I’m aware you’ll argue that the differences are insignificant but there are plenty of people who disagree with you, including others with law degrees; such that at BEST the law lacks the clarity it needs to prevent discrimination, due to the fact that people are, in fact, arguing over what it means. Personally I strongly suspect that was intentional on the lawmakers’ parts. I don’t have time to play catch up on a thread that expands by two pages in a couple hours. And frankly I’m not interested in arguing with you, either. I work, y’know.
If you’re gay and want your wedding to include catered pizza, don’t call Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind.