Despite my best efforts to take a break from the political cesspool, the story of Mr. Pence's theater trip has bubbled onto my timeline. So I have been thinking about the idiocy of the latest round of "Religious Freedom" bills that have been making the rounds.
The root problem with the bills is that Religious Beliefs are not well-defined.
Allowing religion to be a valid reason for denial of goods and services is a terrible idea. The primary reason is that the boundaries can not be objectively tested and it would require the Court to determine what a person's religion actually means.
Take the classic example of a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay-wedding.
Even among religious scholars there is much debate as to whether the Bible allows sales of goods and services to sinners. Some scholars point to 1 Corinthians disallowing it while others argue that it does not.
Even if 1 Corinthians disallows the sales of goods and services to sinners, wouldn't that mean all sales of goods and services and not just Wedding services?
If religious scholars can not agree on what the Bible says, do we really want the Court to make a determination?