Indiana Senate Bill 101 for "Religious Freedom" is set to be debated in the
Indiana House. It would prevent the government from forcing people to act
or do work against their religious beliefs. This bill paints with too wide of a
brush in that every case is, in my mind, different, and the vast majority of
claims are probably over-reaching and illegitimate. The nation's obsession with
gay marriage has blinded both sides from acknowledging that although
legitimate grievances can probably only be counted on one hand, those
few cases are still worth protecting, but they need to be clearly defined.
For example, here are, in my mind, illegitimate grievances that constitute
discrimination and have no legal cover: refusing medical treatments, turning
people away from restaurants, or refusing to sell items to people you
consider to be the wrong faith or immoral. On the other hand, if
a wedding photographer disagrees with gay marriage, they are directly involved
and religious freedom principles should apply.
Now for the truly controversial statement: the dress on social media was clearly black and periwinkle.