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

[memphis]

But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Viewed by whom? You may want to take a look at the religious demographics of people who are of prime marrying age. About 1/3 of young adults claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. And yet, most of these folks still want to get married sooner or later should they find the right partner. Marriage can be a churchy thing, if that's your inclination, but that's by no means a necessary condition. As far as the government is concerned, it's simply a civil contract.
And Pence is now blaming "Obamacare" for his anti-gay law. If ever a suggested deserved a this is it.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pence-pins-need-indiana-religious-freedom-law-obamacare-n332926

[memphis]

But only someone who is a rabid secularist would deny that weddings are usually viewed as religious ceremonies.

Marriage can be a churchy thing, if that's your inclination, but that's by no means a necessary condition. As far as the government is concerned, it's simply a civil contract.

If flowers or catering were a requirement for civil marriage, you'd have a point.  My point is that there are people who view marriage as a primarily churchy thing and requiring them to participate in a marriage ceremony that their religion would not allow is an impingement upon freedom of religion.  A minor impingement to be sure, and if it were for something more vital than celebrating a wedding, say ensuring that people could travel freely or have a reasonably equal opportunity to get a job or housing, it's an impingement that would be necessary to secure the rights of others.

We needn't structure our laws around a few nutters here and there, who for whatever reason, incorrectly believe that a wedding, by definition, has to be a religious ceremony. That's just a flatly absurd suggestion.

[memphis]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

[memphis]

Most likely, swastika cakes are not a service that any bakeries (Jewish or otherwise) offer to anybody. The issue here is a minority getting the same service already offered to everybody else.  Are you being this obtuse on purpose?

Some bakeries will put whatever you want on a cake, no questions asked.  Why shouldn't gays or Jewish bakers be held to the same standards?  The issue is forcing someone to do something they find offensive, ratifying, under penalty of law, something they don't believe in.  

And when a gay bakery, who writes messages on cakes, (rightfully) refuses to put a pro-tradtional marriage message on a cake, why isn't that issue a minority - religious people who think gay marriage is a sin - getting the same service already offered to everybody else, too?  Are some minority groups more special than others?

Find me a bakery who will make a swastika cake. I triple dog dare you. There's not one. It'd be all over the news and they'd be out of business immediately. You are so full of shenanigans on this one! And as for comparing gays to Nazis, there aren't enough emoticons in the world for that.

[memphis]

Yeah, no. In the real world, no bakery is going to bake a swastika cake. Not because of laws. Because the public relations Inksstrorm would be swift, brutal, and intense. It's great to sit around on the internet and talk about conscience and rights and freedom or whatever, but making a swastika cake would instantly destroy not just the bakery, but the baker as well. Nobody in America is going to want to touch that with a 10 foot pole. Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a good or even a reasonable idea. A Confederate flag would be much more of a gray area than a swastika. I have my doubts that a commercial bakery would do it, but it's somewhat within the realm of possibility that somebody, somewhere might be crazy enough to do it. I would say, though, that the Confederate flag worshippers, seem unlikely to want to put the flag on a cake. It seems a bit unseemly (to me at least) to eat your flag.

[memphis]

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.