Oops. Somebody Didn't See That Coming - By Josh Marshall

[BrotherIvan]

11. But a law so unspecific could have troubling consequences

An easy workaround for a racist bigot is not to say that they are specifically discriminating against a person for race or gender. It is more clear cut for say a florist who doesn't want to make flowers for a gay wedding because they can verify the couple is gay. But what if a business owner wants to discriminate for behavior? Because the question of how to tell if someone is gay often comes down to behavior in their bigot minds. So why not extend the argument, which could be done quite easily. All of the following would easily offend some "Christians"

Mixed race couple
Unmarried couple
Unwed mother
Two men eating dinner
Woman wearing a short skirt
Teenager wearing a heavy metal T-shirt
Tattoos
Family who doesn't pray before eating
Muslim woman with a headscarf
A menstuating woman
A woman with an uncovered head

All of these could potentially piss of a religious person and somehow translate to stepping on their religion. The Supreme Court with Hobby Lobby has said that an employee's insurance paying for birth control somehow steps on the religious rights of the employer. That slippery slope has created this law (they use the exact quote "least restrictive&quot . So where does the right of a religious person to be offended end?