Religious freedom in Indiana

I don't get how this is freedom of religion. Isn't in fact discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs than that of the business owner? The logic doesn't logic.

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 8.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

(b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

So this Indiana law codifies, for state and local governments, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which was passed by a 97-3 margin in the U.S. Senate and unanimously in the U.S. House and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a side not, RFRA was originally intended to be applicable to federal, state and local government, but SCOTUS thought differently and it only applies to the feds.  

Section (a) is from the First Amendment and the interpreting case law, and section (b) is the strict scrutiny standard that courts are to apply when reviewing laws that affect rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

This law does not give a green light for businesses to discriminate or even answer the question of whether a business owner can refuse its services to gays.  Basically what it says, in harmony with RFRA, is the government should not punish people for exercising their religion, unless there is a good reason to do so.  If the governmental entity can show that it has a compelling interest in anti-discrimination (should be should be fairly easy) and show that compelling a business to provide services is the least restrictive means of compelling that interest, then the business shall be so compelled.

I believe in individual liberty until its exercise infringes on another's - don't hurt people, don't take their things, and keep your promises.  I believe gays have a right to love who they love and marry who the want to marry.  Even so, I have a difficult time compelling a business to participate in a gay wedding if the owner has a sincere religious belief against homosexuality or gay marriage.  

There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of these things, but overall I agree completely with your premise.  I've said numerous times before that homosexuality is no more a sin than fornication (sex outside of marriage) so to be Biblicly consistent a Christian cake maker would need to disallow selling cakes to all couples who are sleeping together prior to their wedding (gay or straight).  #oops

As for the OP, you have to be careful with the argument of "somebody not getting in the business of X" because they don't have a social view that you have.  You're essentially wanting to shut down a business owner for the sole reason that they do not share the same social views as you do, which is the exact same thing as a business owner refusing to do business with someone based on their sexual orientation.  They're both discrimination.

You can certainly choose to not shop there, or use their services but to put them out of business isn't exactly what I'd call tolerance.

A business can choose to not sell to ANYONE as long as it doesn't violate their constitutional or civil rights.  I can walk into a store to buy a donut and they can say get out of here white guy, and there's nothing I can do other than not shop there again.  The LGBT community is trying to elevate itself to a protected class through the legislature in may places, but until it does people can choose to not sell to them all they want from a legal standpoint.  Think, no shoes, no shirt, no service.

Now, that being said I think it's completely stupid for a business to not sell to anyone for any reason other than fearing for personal safety type reasons.  If I make cakes I'll sell cakes to anyone who wants to buy them, and I'm a pretty strong Christian.  Same goes for employees; I'll hire gay people, straight people, atheists, you name it as long as they're the best candidates for the position.

I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is that you have to be a protected class in order to be under the protections of the Civil Rights Act.  Meaning if somebody does throw me out based on the color of my skin I have no law to use against them.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I've always understood it.  Kind of like having to be a certain age before I have age based protections in the workplace.