So I read a little more, and the burden is on the government to prove it has a "compelling interest" to pass a law. So this makes it difficult for local governments.
Indiana does not allow discrimination in state government employment. In other forms of employment it is like the majority of states where an employer can walk up to a worker and say "Hey, you're my best worker, but I didn't know that you are gay. You're fired!"
Compelling state interest only applies to laws that restrict a constitutional right. It can be argued that there are competing constitutional rights here; therefore no "compelling state interest" test. I would argue that if the business has competitors that will provide substitute services, no rights have been infringed on LGBT's. However, it's certainly murky enough so a judge can rule any damn way they want.
In your second example, unless you have a written contract you are an "at will" employee, subject to the will of your employer, unless you are a protected class, (race, Viet Nam Vet, etc.). But don't trust me, Honda says I never went to Law School.
BTW, I am unaware of any employment case where a court protected the employment rights of a Viet Nam Vet. So much for "caring" about Vets. Just another law to get us to vote for Patty "If I Only Had a Brain" Murray, even though she votes against every piece of meaningful Veteran legislation.
The market will work it out. A few back country businesses that give a shit isn't worth getting all worked up over. 99% 81% of Indiana businesses will not turn down a buck from the LGBT community. They will go out of their way to advertise that they are gay friendly.
Emmert should just shut the fuck up as usual
So this is what literally worshipping the dollar looks like.
Comments