Pence signed it: Add Indiana to the list of states with "religious freedom" laws

[Torie]

"Religious freedom" means the freedom to practice your religion, things like building a church, attending religious services, observing certain holy days and such. 

"Religious freedom" does not mean this freestanding right to divest yourself of any contact with people you dislike.  I would hope we all agree for example: A religious person could not create a taxi service or an airline that banned Jews or Catholics.

It certainly would be against current law.  It certainly would be economically stupid to limit one's market, even without taking into consideration the boycott of such a business by those who would object to such discrimination despite not being personally affected.  However, the prevention of stupidity by itself is insufficient to pass a law banning a practice however much even a majority finds objectionable.

Insufficient by what metric?  You seem to think discrimination isn't a big deal.  You're also someone who is not discriminated against in any way.  

I think part of the law should function to create social limits, what is and is not acceptable behavior.  There's a basic right to be treated like a normal member of society, regardless of your race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.  That's a norm we ought to enforce, even as we allow people to make up their own mind and conscience.  

Yes, exactly, well said. However, there is a part of the Venn Diagram of policy options as it where here, where a law might be Constitutional, or indeed mandated by the Constitution under the freedom to exercise religion clause, that legalizes behavior that would shock the conscience of most of us here. It is important to bear that distinction in mind I think.

[Torie]

It seems to me that government power can be used to protect things like freedom of speech or right to assemble, even when restrictions on freedom of speech or assembly may not directly cause physical or economic harm.  Even if one individual's freedom or speech or assembly rights are impinged, I don't think the individual's case so trivial that they can't bring a case against that impingement.  Why then would defending people's rights to be treated equitably in business transactions need to pass some kind of critical mass test before such defense can be undertaken?  And I still fail to see how expecting the owner of a cake store to sell already available products to customers willing to pay the seller's price for them as the imposition of a "substantial burden" on them.  But now Indiana and some 19 other states protect the cake store owner. 

Yes, I find a rather sharp difference between a guy selling something over the counter to someone who goes in their store (really none of his business as to why someone is purchasing the product), to a guy having to spend the day filming a gay wedding ceremony, when gay marriages is against his religious views.

[Torie]

Are some minority groups more special than others?

Absolutely. Which is why it's ludicrous that religiously derived conscientious decisions are protected in statute's like this and not other forms of conscience, derived from other means. Why is religion given such special treatment?...

It's only given special treatment if one defines religion so narrowly as to exclude belief systems such as secularism, humanism, or atheism. I don't nor has SCOTUS been in the habit of doing that.

What about other belief systems? Nationalism, Anarchism, Fascism, Nilhilism, Racial Superiority? I have no doubt that there are people who genuinely and in accordance with their conscience believe in the superiority of the white race. Why aren't they afforded protection in law if the right of a person to live, associate and do business in accordance with his own conscience is the reason why there are conscience clauses within the legal framework in the first place?

Traditionally there has been a greater deference given to philosophical views than to political views. However that was also back in the day when not every facet of life was potentially a political topic governments might get involved in. Those days are long gone tho the pendulum has swung back some from the days when the core antidiscrimination laws were passed in this country.  I don't think we'll ever return to 18th century liberalism nor should we.

Your historical narrative is extremely problematic. Early America was hardly a libertarian paradise.  In the 18th century, government actively protected the right to own other humans. Several states had official religions. Government granted monopolies were a commonplace thing in commerce. To say that government didn't get intimately involved in people's day to day lives is either a complete misunderstanding of history or a deliberate distortion.

Did I say that it was a libertarian paradise?  No, I said, there was general agreement as to which topics were political and which were not.  Granted, that 18th century liberal practice and 21st century libertarian theory are one and the same is a common misperception of 21st libertarians. It's not one I share.

If there was a general agreement as to which was which, it is not one we share now as to the choices made. Many colonies still operated a theocratic regime, for example.