Freedom to Discriminate

[lvstephanie]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.

[hawkeye3210]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.

[paints]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.

"Have to?"  No.  The black carpenter would never be asked to make a cross for the Klan.  Klan builds their own.
The homosexual owners of the print shop would never be asked by the "God hates f*gs" group to make their banners.  WBC makes their own.
Jewish deli owner would never be asked to cater a Neo-*bleep* anything.  Because they're Jews.

It's not discrimination to refuse to do business with someone who hates you. The hate in your examples are from customer to business.

In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/  for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.

And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[paints]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.

Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?

[lvstephanie]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.

"Have to?"  No.

Actually, yes they would "have to". When we are talking about laws, we have the underlying understanding that we as a society have given the government the right to execute the laws by means of force if need be. If the law states that no business can refuse service to another person for any reason, a business that does decide to discriminate would face the force of the government including shackling up the owner and hauling them off to jail at the end of a gun.

To be fair, in your first reply, you said that "personally" you don't think it's right for a business to be able to discriminate, and it was I that brought in the legal element. So assuming that you were not wanting to codify that sentiment into law, then you're correct that they wouldn't "have to" do anything they didn't want to because there is no government entity forcing the business to be open to everyone.

The black carpenter would never be asked to make a cross for the Klan.  Klan builds their own.
The homosexual owners of the print shop would never be asked by the "God hates f*gs" group to make their banners.  WBC makes their own.
Jewish deli owner would never be asked to cater a Neo-*bleep* anything.  Because they're Jews.

These are specious arguments. In each case, you are not arguing the impossibility of a situation, but rather the improbability of it. Yet the whole situation regarding the pizza parlor could just as easily be argued in the same way: no gay couple would ask an openly Christian restaurant to cater their wedding either (and none have; the incident arose when a journalist asked the owner's daughter about this hypothetical situation). But when considering whether to regulate something, it isn't enough to just state that something is improbable and therefore such a situation shouldn't even be considered; rather the law needs to consider all possible cases, even those that are highly improbable. In fact, I could actually see some of these situations happening, not because the customer likes the business, but rather because they dislike it. I could see the WBC going to that homosexual-ran print shop just to spite that business, esp. if they see how they can use the law as a weapon against that business they despise.

It's not discrimination to refuse to do business with someone who hates you. The hate in your examples are from customer to business.

So by this definition, it would not be considered "discrimination" if a white store owner refuses to do business with Malcolm X-like civil rights leader that has been overheard by the shop owner as saying that all white men are evil. Or for an openly Christian pizza parlor to refuse to do a wedding for a homosexual couple because the gay couple hates Christians and were only attempting to undermine the restaurant owner's Christian beliefs (yes, some homosexuals can hate Christians just as much as some Christians hate homosexuals).

In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/  for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.

And in every other example I've given, the discrimination has always been the business against the customer. It would be the carpenter that discriminates against the KKK, the print shop owner discriminating against the WBC, the deli owner that discriminates against the Neo-N*zis, the movie theater against the minor child. I don't understand where you were going with this esp. since it would be pointless considering the opposite possibility (ie the customer discriminating against the business) since customers do discriminate against which business they patron in a free market where such choices exist. Unless that statement goes back to your previous comment that treating someone different because of their characteristics or ideas isn't "discrimination" if the person making this distinction feels that they have been wronged by the other party, which I don't buy (and neither would the courts were a civil rights suit brought against the white owner refusing business against a black person that hates whites).

I think the distinction that Hawkeye was trying to make is that these are private transactions as opposed to something through the public / government sector. And the issue here is the point I was trying to make in answering the "Has to?" question... A private transaction is conducted on a volunteer basis: both the customer and the business undergo a mutually agreed upon transaction to the mutual benefit of both parties. The government, on the other hand, also has the power of force behind it. So while I have a choice whether I want to spend my money at a particular establishment or rather just save my money for something else, I cannot do the same when the government wants my money to pay for some service, even if I might never benefit from such a service. This is why the "Jim Crow" laws were wrong; not that the discrimination itself was wrong, but because the discrimination was coming from the government that had force behind it ensuring that everyone had to discriminate, even if they'd rather not. For example, a restaurant owner may not have wanted to discriminate against black customers because of the loss of business, but under the Jim Crow laws, they would have to because the law is telling them to discriminate. This is also why so much of the Civil Rights Act focused on discrimination inside the government structure, and not as much in terms of interactions within the private sector.

[hawkeye3210]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.

Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?

Private consumers. Private sector companies are in business to make a profit, not serve the public.

In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/  for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.

And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And what if it was a Muslim owned pizza place or cake decorator, and the event was a "Draw Mohammad Contest" like in Garland, Texas. Would the owner be discriminating if he/she refused to cater the event?

[paints]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.

Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?

Private consumers. Private sector companies are in business to make a profit, not serve the public.

Then why do they need a license (government issued) to do business?

In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/  for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.

And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And what if it was a Muslim owned pizza place or cake decorator, and the event was a "Draw Mohammad Contest" like in Garland, Texas. Would the owner be discriminating if he/she refused to cater the event?

No. In this instance, it would be refusing to spread the ignorance.
As it was in the case of the bakery in Denver who refuse to accept an order for an anti-gay cake.

[paints]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.

"Have to?"  No.

Actually, yes they would "have to". When we are talking about laws, we have the underlying understanding that we as a society have given the government the right to execute the laws by means of force if need be. If the law states that no business can refuse service to another person for any reason, a business that does decide to discriminate would face the force of the government including shackling up the owner and hauling them off to jail at the end of a gun.

To be fair, in your first reply, you said that "personally" you don't think it's right for a business to be able to discriminate, and it was I that brought in the legal element. So assuming that you were not wanting to codify that sentiment into law, then you're correct that they wouldn't "have to" do anything they didn't want to because there is no government entity forcing the business to be open to everyone.

The black carpenter would never be asked to make a cross for the Klan.  Klan builds their own.
The homosexual owners of the print shop would never be asked by the "God hates f*gs" group to make their banners.  WBC makes their own.
Jewish deli owner would never be asked to cater a Neo-*bleep* anything.  Because they're Jews.

These are specious arguments. In each case, you are not arguing the impossibility of a situation, but rather the improbability of it. Yet the whole situation regarding the pizza parlor could just as easily be argued in the same way: no gay couple would ask an openly Christian restaurant to cater their wedding either (and none have; the incident arose when a journalist asked the owner's daughter about this hypothetical situation). But when considering whether to regulate something, it isn't enough to just state that something is improbable and therefore such a situation shouldn't even be considered; rather the law needs to consider all possible cases, even those that are highly improbable. In fact, I could actually see some of these situations happening, not because the customer likes the business, but rather because they dislike it. I could see the WBC going to that homosexual-ran print shop just to spite that business, esp. if they see how they can use the law as a weapon against that business they despise.

It's not discrimination to refuse to do business with someone who hates you. The hate in your examples are from customer to business.

So by this definition, it would not be considered "discrimination" if a white store owner refuses to do business with Malcolm X-like civil rights leader that has been overheard by the shop owner as saying that all white men are evil. Or for an openly Christian pizza parlor to refuse to do a wedding for a homosexual couple because the gay couple hates Christians and were only attempting to undermine the restaurant owner's Christian beliefs (yes, some homosexuals can hate Christians just as much as some Christians hate homosexuals).

In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/  for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.

And in every other example I've given, the discrimination has always been the business against the customer. It would be the carpenter that discriminates against the KKK, the print shop owner discriminating against the WBC, the deli owner that discriminates against the Neo-N*zis, the movie theater against the minor child. I don't understand where you were going with this esp. since it would be pointless considering the opposite possibility (ie the customer discriminating against the business) since customers do discriminate against which business they patron in a free market where such choices exist. Unless that statement goes back to your previous comment that treating someone different because of their characteristics or ideas isn't "discrimination" if the person making this distinction feels that they have been wronged by the other party, which I don't buy (and neither would the courts were a civil rights suit brought against the white owner refusing business against a black person that hates whites).

I think the distinction that Hawkeye was trying to make is that these are private transactions as opposed to something through the public / government sector. And the issue here is the point I was trying to make in answering the "Has to?" question... A private transaction is conducted on a volunteer basis: both the customer and the business undergo a mutually agreed upon transaction to the mutual benefit of both parties. The government, on the other hand, also has the power of force behind it. So while I have a choice whether I want to spend my money at a particular establishment or rather just save my money for something else, I cannot do the same when the government wants my money to pay for some service, even if I might never benefit from such a service. This is why the "Jim Crow" laws were wrong; not that the discrimination itself was wrong, but because the discrimination was coming from the government that had force behind it ensuring that everyone had to discriminate, even if they'd rather not. For example, a restaurant owner may not have wanted to discriminate against black customers because of the loss of business, but under the Jim Crow laws, they would have to because the law is telling them to discriminate. This is also why so much of the Civil Rights Act focused on discrimination inside the government structure, and not as much in terms of interactions within the private sector.
[/quote

Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws,  a person had a choice.  We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.  A law that makes discrimination legal,  is itself illegal.

[hawkeye3210]

Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do.  You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer. 
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.

These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.

Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?

Private consumers. Private sector companies are in business to make a profit, not serve the public.

Then why do they need a license (government issued) to do business?

In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/  for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.

And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And what if it was a Muslim owned pizza place or cake decorator, and the event was a "Draw Mohammad Contest" like in Garland, Texas. Would the owner be discriminating if he/she refused to cater the event?

No. In this instance, it would be refusing to spread the ignorance.
As it was in the case of the bakery in Denver who refuse to accept an order for an anti-gay cake.

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Spreading the ignorance? What ignorance? That the Islamic religion forbids one from drawing Muhammad? There's not a single verse in the Quran that even implies that you shouldn't have any pictures of Muhammad.

The reality is that both of this events are very similar in that they are viewed basically as sin to those in that religion. To claim otherwise would be naive.

[lvstephanie]

Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws,  a person had a choice.  We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.

I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.

A law that makes discrimination legal,  is itself illegal.

This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president. 

Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.

[paints]

Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws,  a person had a choice.  We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.

I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.

A law that makes discrimination legal,  is itself illegal.

This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president. 

Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.

The penalty for not following jim crow was more than jail.  Lynching, murders, beatings, burnings, of both blacks and whites.
Jim Crow laws mainly came about because former slave owners weren't willing to let it go.  They believed themselves superior, and by hook or by crook, they were going to stay in power.
They pitted whites against blacks, and fleeced them both.

 ''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html>

The same thing is going on now, with all these "religious freedom" laws. 
We are being played.  And it's still wrong.

[hawkeye3210]

Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws,  a person had a choice.  We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.

I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.

A law that makes discrimination legal,  is itself illegal.

This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president. 

Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.

The penalty for not following jim crow was more than jail.  Lynching, murders, beatings, burnings, of both blacks and whites.
Jim Crow laws mainly came about because former slave owners weren't willing to let it go.  They believed themselves superior, and by hook or by crook, they were going to stay in power.
They pitted whites against blacks, and fleeced them both.

 ''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html>

The same thing is going on now, with all these "religious freedom" laws. 
We are being played.  And it's still wrong.

You are being played if you really feel the religious freedom restoration act laws have anything to with discrimination.

First of all, they are not new. Clinton signed them into law back in 1993, and many states have already had them in place.

Second, it's been dumbed down to something about gay wedding cakes, and that's simply not the case. The last RFRA was an Apache leader who was returned some sacred eagle feathers. There was also the case in Texas were the school demanded a Native American boy to cut his hair, but he won his case against the school saying that they violated his RFRA rights. The boy received an award from the ACLU, which was when ACLU was very vocal in its support of the RFRA. Now, the ACLU is trying to claim the RFRA promotes discrimination? It's laughable. 99.9% of the RFRA cases have nothing to do with a business refusing to serve a certain customer. Sometimes you need to read more than just the headlines.

[paints]

Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws,  a person had a choice.  We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.

I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.

A law that makes discrimination legal,  is itself illegal.

This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president. 

Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.

The penalty for not following jim crow was more than jail.  Lynching, murders, beatings, burnings, of both blacks and whites.
Jim Crow laws mainly came about because former slave owners weren't willing to let it go.  They believed themselves superior, and by hook or by crook, they were going to stay in power.
They pitted whites against blacks, and fleeced them both.

 ''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html>

The same thing is going on now, with all these "religious freedom" laws. 
We are being played.  And it's still wrong.

You are being played if you really feel the religious freedom restoration act laws have anything to with discrimination.

Sometimes you need to read more than just the headlines.

Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines. 

The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. 
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.

[hawkeye3210]

Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines. 

The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. 
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.

Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.

If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.

So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.

The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.

Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.

[jmc1070]

I think the whole thing with the pizza place was a scam. They received close to a million dollars from supporters from a go fund me account to help support them since they closed their shop. Shortly after the valance got so huge, they reopen the shop.