discrimination

So much of the debate over Indiana’s new religious freedom law revolves around the gap between the letter of the law and the politics behind it. Supporters note that the law doesn’t mention gays and lesbians, and that similar laws (though not identical ones) have been on the books in other jurisdictions for years. Opponents point to the fact that the law’s advocates organized support for it with arguments about protecting business owners who object to being vendors for same-sex weddings. They're both right, just about different things.

One baker doesn’t want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Another baker doesn’t want to decorate a cake with the words “God hates gays.” Are the two cases comparable?

The differences may be obvious, but they’re also complex.

Did you hear about the for-profit wedding chapel owners in Idaho who are claiming a constitutional right (pdf) to refuse services to same-sex couples? From Marci Glass's entertaining post:

I hate to be the one to point this out to the Reverends Knapp, but they are not, in fact, pastors of a church. They own a wedding mill.

People used to talk about religious freedom less, and when they did they were often liberals. What changed?

I started in the pastorate in my mid-twenties. I was short and good-natured, and I received awkward comments quite a bit. I don’t as much any longer. I got better with reaction time and gained some tools to deflect the comments.

On Wednesday, the Catholic bishops' ad hoc committee issued a strongly worded statement on religious liberty. It includes a number of specific examples of "religious liberty under attack." Over at U.S Catholic, Meghan Murphy-Gill responds to these one by one.

Today the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments for Hosanna-Tabor v
EEOC, a major case about church exemptions to employment laws.
Wendy Kaminer offers a helpful introduction.