Muddled Duck wrote:I'm for private business owners having the right to refuse business to anyone. Public places are a whole different thing.
A business that is "open to the public" is a public place; thats settled law, youre either open to the public or youre not. That said, all businesses reserve the right to refuse business to anyone. It just cant be solely because they are black or whatever federally protected class they might be. You can always refuse business to a black/white/whatever race person cause they are behaving like a jackass in your place of business.
This situation that im guessing spurred the op is a bit different imo. I havent read the law, but im guessing the service providers this law is (hopefully) narrowly targeting are those who are significantly involved in the "marraige business" and possibly "family/estate planning". Wedding photographers, planners, decorators, financial consultant, estate planner, etc. I would distinguish this relatively narrow class of business owners from all others in that the level of contact, the intimacy of contact is much higher than a dry cleaner or c-store owner. The question then becomes: where do the rights of gay folk to contract with whom they choose run afoul of others rights to practice their religion as they see fit?
I will co-opt number three from the op table, rephrased accordingly, to illustrate my point:
Religious Liberty is being violated
Being forced to spend many hours photographing/planning a gay wedding even though gay marriage is against your religion.
Religious Liberty is not being violated:
You are unable to prevent gay people from being married if they so choose.
Where does the level of contact, type of contact cross the line btw whose rights are being violated (religious freedom vs gay rights/equal protection)? Well, that appears to be the question pence is trying to answer. Whether he got it right or wrong I cant say.