Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't any business refuse service and/or discriminate (on a legal basis) before this proposed legislation even came into existence? That's the right of any business owner. Some clubs have bouncers for a reason.
To expand on the response already given, you can refuse service based on legitimate reasons, like if the person is being disruptive to the operation of the business, the person is acting in a way that presents a danger to someone (including himself), etc.
Any refusal is supposed to be on an individual basis, not a blanket refusal of a whole class of people, so you usually cannot refuse service for relatively immutable personal characteristics like gender, race, or religion.
It's a proaction against what other states have already had to deal with. You have to be living under a rock to not have heard about all of the religious resistance of certain businesses in participating in same-sex weddings, and I think this is born of that.
Yes, it is.
Imagine GenCon rolls around and someone starts making a scene at a restaurant. Regardless of what the scene is, the bar owner determines that this is not the kind of thing he/she wants at their establishment. Let's say its a bunch of gamers playing D&D and they're taking up too much space. If the owner asks them to leave is he discriminating against gamers or is he looking out for the betterment of his business? The gamers may feel that he's discriminating against them. But at the end of the day, the gamers can't bring a lawsuit against the owner, or one that would have any teeth to it, and claim that the owner is discriminating against them because they are gamers. There is no law protecting the owner against gamers because this is his right.
The gamers are being refused service because they are being disruptive, not because they are gamers, so this is legal.
They can still file the lawsuit, but they are extremely unlikely to win.
Now the reason someone felt there needs to be a law to protect the religious scruples of business owners is because their right as business owners and as Americans and as religious adherents is being infringed upon by a group who has a past record of bringing lawsuits against religious American business owners. The curious thing about it is that these cases haven't been "We don't serve yer kind round here", but rather, "We don't want to participate in something that causes us to compromise our religious beliefs" and plain and simple serving isn't the issue. There is always a catch. The Christian baker or photographer will serve homosexuals up to the point where it compromises his belief of baking a wedding cake or taking wedding photos.
I'm a Catholic. How does it compromise one's Christian belief to bake a cake?
Martin Luther was once approached by a working man who wanted to know how he could serve the Lord. Luther asked him, "What is your work now?" The man replied, "I'm a shoemaker."
Much to the cobbler's surprise, Luther replied, "Then make a good shoe and sell it at a fair price."
He didn't tell the man to make "Christian shoes" or shoes only for good Lutherans. He didn't tell him to leave his shoes and become a monk.
Imagine now the group of gamers at the restaurant again. The owner wants them out, says they're taking up too much space, but he keeps looking awkwardly at the guy in the dress among them. All of a sudden, even without the owner saying anything, what kind of scenario pops in your mind? Is this discrimination against that transgender person? All of a sudden a lawsuit from the gamers has a bit more teeth, and now the owner is in need of something to protect his rights.
No additional legislation is needed- they're being disruptive, and can legally be refused service for it.
I'll make it 100% clear: if it were me being disruptive, I could still be refused service on that basis,
even though I am black. A disruptive female gamer could still be refused service,
even though she is female.
But lets carry it one step further. Imagine a man and a woman getting handsy in a restaurant. The owner who kicks them out and tells them to get a room isn't doing so based on their sexual orientation or gender but because he has deemed (as his right) that this is not the kind of behavior he wants in his establishment. The same situation with a same sex couple automatically gets placed on a different level.
No it doesn't. He is refusing service based on disruption. Not unless it can be demonstrated that he used a different standard of "handsyness" for straights and gays (straights can get to first base, but gays can't even touch, for example) for such refusal is he in any jeopardy.
But let's take it beyond that. If there is a legitimate religious reason (like the wedding cake) for refusing service, should not the owner have that right? What if there is a print shop in Indy, owned by a Christian, and a gay rights gaming group comes to them to have them print their promotional information for GenCon. It's not hard to imagine the religious owner having a conflict about it. He disagrees with their position and doesn't want to participate in their promotion of it. Should he not have the right to refuse service without the fear of a lawsuit? Flip the story, a Christian group wants to protest a homosexual wedding with flyers and posters and banners. They go to a print shop where the owner is homosexual. It's not hard to see why the owner would have a conflict of interest. Should he not have the right to refuse service without fear of a lawsuit? Of course.
Can Nation of Islam adherents refuse to serve whites because they are white? No.
Can Christian Identity adherents refuse to serve blacks because they are black? No.
Can Southern Baptists refuse to serve Catholics because they are Catholics? No.
When you operate a business, you are open to the public.
All of the public. You pretty much don't get to pick and choose your clientele based on class characteristics.
At the end of the day, it looks like this is less the granting of rights to owners and more of a protection of rights already held.
No, it is seeking to establish a legal ground to discriminate in a way that is currently impermissible.
The reason it is a religious bill is because religious business owners are the ones currently under fire.
It is a religious bill because some religious people are trying to make a sword out of a shield. Because they are using a torturous reinterpretation of the tenets of their faith.
When the people of the Middle East 2000 years ago objected to tax collectors, "women of tarnished virtue", the ritually unclean, etc., where was Jesus?
Having dinner with them.
