How do you feel about this new law in Indiana?

"Other States have similar laws,..."

But there's still a problem. The federal law on which it is based and, at least the Indiana version (I haven't read the others) are poorly written, extremely broad, and, in my opinion, impermissibly vague.

That said, the other similar laws have been on the books for up to 23 years with only one substantive challenge (New Mexico--and the plaintiff won) which might indicate that despite the laxity of the language, the intent has been both consistent and largely unobjectionable.

My understanding is that most other State and Federal laws of this nature focus on the relationship between the Individual and the State... however this law also deals with the relationship between individuals. It seems to me that a person who decided to discriminate against someone else for religious reasons would quickly go out of business if they chose to do it against a majority group like Christians, however less powerful groups would all be vulnerable (unless their a protected minority under Indiana law). The minority group that seems most likely to suffer are those who are openly Gay, although I suspect that other groups will be affected as well.

I'm going to ignore the specific content of the law for the moment, because that is just a "dividing issue" and frankly it's irrelevant. That's what starts fights.

Let's instead look at a Philosophic Concept instead.

"Should any Right be subject to the whims of Democracy?"

Ask yourself that first. Should the Majority (no matter how big or how small of one), have the ability to infringe on the Right(s) of the Minority?

If no, the discussion is over. There's a conceptual impasse, from BOTH sides.

If yes, to what extent? Figure out that extent in your own head, and then apply it to this situation, again from BOTH sides. Does either side "cross the line?"

This situation is reminiscent of so many others "they did it first" is the argument it stinks of, which honestly is a @#$%@ argument, hence the foul smell.

Now once we get past that argument, we get into "intent." Remove all the extraneous factors, whether it be religion, gender, orientation, race, or whatever, and substitute those adjectives (which is all it really is), and put in the words "Star Bellied Sneetches" and tell me if our Framers & Founders would have put up with the same argument.

/End Rant.