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

[muon2]

If you mean that the level of discrimination would be so minor as to make such laws on private businesses unnecessary, then maybe.  The homogenization of American society along with the franchizification of American commerce mean that the public accommodation laws aren't strongly needed,  Shame and boycotts can probably deal with that area of commerce.  Housing and employment are areas where a stronger case can be made, certainly strong enough that I see no reason to repeal such laws, and a partial repeal for just public accommodations would be more trouble than it would be worth.

I think that's an incredibly naive way of thinking. Yes, there are many parts of the country where actively discriminating against gay people in the name of "religious freedom" would drive a company out of business. But there are plenty of regions where that's not the case. A town in rural Texas could easily have a supermarket, doctor's office, drug store and restaurants that proudly flaunt their "religious freedom," and because they live in a town that may oppose gay marriage by 80% or more, face little consequence. Quite the opposite -- there are many scenarios where a conservative Christian community would come together to protect such a business from harm.

Don't think this will happen? There are a stunning number of towns and communities that are actively working to skirt federal discrimination laws to keep black people out. This is not about protecting people's feelings. This is about protecting people from real financial harm in the name of a perversely twisted religious freedom to discriminate.

What does religious objection to gay marriage have to do with a drug store or a supermarket?

It shouldn't have anything to do with gay marriage, but some pharmacists in IL won a lawsuit and appeal (2012) against the state when a rule was passed requiring them to dispense morning-after pills against their religious views on abortion. One of the laws cited in the opinion (but not the most significant) was a Religious Freedom Act that is virtually identical to the new law in IN.

[muon2]

Is it the same exact law, though?

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=btn-facebook-pin

Also, doesn't Connecticut, unlike Indiana, have state protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation?

States that copy laws from other states frequently add language to clarify their intent when courts have made rulings since the original law was enacted. It looks pretty clear that IN did exactly that to make clear that RFRA gets the interpretation they want from their courts.

Your second point is more important. RFRA has an exception that allows laws to impinge on religion where there is a compelling state interest. An anti-discrimination statute sets a basis for the state to make an argument that the state has a compelling interest to override RFRA in those cases.

[muon2]

I'll remind people that the issue with bakeries isn't having to bake a special kind of cake for gays, it's not wanting a cake you'd bake for anyone to be bought by people you find icky who will serve that cake at a same-sex wedding that your church doesn't recognize as a valid ceremony.

The issue for bakers is usually not the cake and to whom it will be served, it's the decorations on the cake. They'll sell a standard unadorned cake to anyone, but some don't want to adorn it with a same-sex couple in wedding garb.

[muon2]

I don't have links because it is based on the statements by individuals made in IL to me a couple of years ago. Decorations (including names as well as figures) and delivery to a wedding site during a ceremony were the only bakery concerns I heard, but we have a strong Human Rights Act in IL, so the sale of a basic cake to a gay couple at a shop would be unlikely to come up. I agree that some compromises such as you suggest are the right way to resolve that, and it's similar to what was worked out for the pharmacists here in regards to the morning after pill. I'm not surprised to find that in other states where the history of their Human Rights Act might be different, other issues arise.