Why Religious Freedom Laws Like Indiana's Are a Bad Idea for Left AND Right, Christian or Not

Let me first say, again, I strongly believe in protecting civil liberties, but not promoting them. This means regardless of whether I agree or disagree morally, I do NOT agree with extremists, right or left, hellbent on forcing opinion into law. Recently, this has been done by both sides, either by enacting deceptive state law that "pretends" it doesn't discriminate, or by filing deceptive lawsuits that "pretend" they're with whomever refused them, rather than finding the perfect situation for a lawsuit that would force state law decision on private discrimination.*

(*That does NOT mean the gay couple necessarily had the intent of suing from the get-go, see below. However, we're fairly sure Mike Pence was deceptive because his own former campaign words betrayed him.)

I'm a Christian who would serve gays in a heartbeat. However, I can understand why a person who didn't have much experience with gays or believed differently than me would feel extremely uncomfortable catering a gay wedding, and they should have the right not to, without getting sued. And I'm still not sure why such a couple didn't just go down the street and get a cake and say to heck with them anyway. Perhaps they had lawsuit on their minds form the getgo, but it also could be true that the baker was a jerk about it, rather than being diplomatic, too. I mean, did the lady publicly humiliate and shame them, making them angrier, or was she more diplomatic,?  I.e., "I'm sorry, no judgment or anything, but I'm just really uncomfortable with this, I'm sorry. Can I recommend another bakery?"

That happens every day without lawsuits over various ethical issues, not just on the gay issues, i.e., doctors who encourage either adoption counseling vs. abortion clinics or Planned Parenthood, admittedly based on their own ethical preference. So why this lawsuit? She may HAVE been diplomatic and they still just needed a sucker, yes. But I'd bet you $100 bucks if people in general handled their "refusal" as above, no one reasonable would be suing anyone else.

Other than doctors, here's another example to illustrate my point, let's take it off gay issues or even abortion for a second. Back in college while waiting tables, I refused serving a pregnant woman her third Long-Island Iced Tea, because I was so uncomfortable; but I did it exactly as I described above, kindly, without lecture. No lawsuit, no argument, she just asked if someone else could serve her, then, and my manager just found someone else. To certain far right Christians, whether we agree or not, serving gays might feel just as unethical to them as had I been forced by my manager to serve a pregnant woman her third LIT. So let's say my manager HAD forced me, how should I have handled it?

Well, I tell you what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't run to the other servers telling them they shouldn't serve her either, if they had ethics, and we should all stand together against her in solidarity.  I wouldn't run to politicians to establish a "pre-emptive strike" law protecting just MY rights not to serve the lady and try to control whether she "sins" or not. These are MY ethics, not everyone's. 

So I would simply quietly attend to my own ethics, take responsibility for them as being my preference, and be the business diplomat hopefully successful business people need to be, end of story.

But THIS issue IS going to be forced into law from somewhere, right or left. And we can blame the left or right for it, but both sides have had their turn and not just recently. It may be the left right now, but in the 2004 presidential election, Florida made their voters vote "yes" or "no" on "marriage is between a man and a woman". Voters couldn't abstain or their ballots were kicked back out.

Honestly, I don't think the government has any business in my marriage or bedroom, right or left. It's a religious issue, not a government issue, and our forefathers specifically founded this country upon separation of church and state in order to avoid disagreements they knew would come from people from various places, already feeling persecuted, who couldn't even agree amongst themselves as mostly Christians. But this IS going to be pushed to law, whomever is at fault. But before we do, shouldn't we consider some hypothetical situations for both the right and left before we do?

Hypothetical 'What If' Question #1:

What if an MTSO read this forum, figured out who you are by your writing style and decided to end your subcontracting relationship based on your religious stance on this issue? Since you're not an employee and mutual service is being provided, would they be protected in discriminating against you by refusing to provide you with work?

Hypothetical 'What If' Question #2:

What if on a private forum for professionals, someone from either the right or the left felt like they were being discriminated against by the other professionals in that community because of their stated religious stance on this issue? Well, even though our constitution gives us religious freedom, a new law making it okay for PRIVATE companies and individuals to discriminate would make it completely legal to so, they don't even have to post a sign to make that clear.

I'm sure others can think of more, whether you voice them here or not, and that's good. Because if you can think of even ONE gray area reason that will come up that would cause even more lawsuits than now under religious freedom law, that's good enough reason not to pass any sort of similar law. Just my opinion.