Most Helpful Guy
From what I understand of the rather confusingly worded article, it is already legal in that state to refuse to serve people in the private sector out of an opposition to extra-marital sex or homosexuality or transgender. What this new bill does is to re-affirm that freedom, while expanding this 'protection' to employees of the state government.
I therefore oppose this bill on two grounds. 1. The good part of it merely reiterates existing law and is therefore superfluous. 2. By extending this to cover state government employees, this bill ignores the fact that a free society requires a government that performs its legitimate functions, among them the enforcement of contracts, such as marriage contracts: a government agent is not a private-sector worker.
But, if you are asking in general, whether someone has the moral right to deny service (private-sector service) because of a religiously-motivated opposition to homosexuality, extra-marital sex or transgender, I would go further and say that everyone has the moral right to deny service (private-sector service) because of any motivation.
Would I be 'fine' with being denied service because of my race, for example? It depends on what you mean by 'fine'. I would support the right to do that. But, I would consider it immoral. Not all actions that are immoral ought to be illegal. Only rights violations ought to be illegal. I do not have the 'right' to be served: that would be the 'right' to enslave!2
Most Helpful Girl
For it. The person running the business has as many rights as the people he is serving/refusing to serve. People tend to forget that when rallying for the cause of the day.0