>>>http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/25/4848361/missouri-senator-introduces-religious.html
>>>
>>>...and I know there is something similar in the works in Arizona and a couple other states right now too. I have to admit I find it somewhat baffling (not to mention disturbing) that while the trend in the country is for sure leaning more towards acceptance and tolerance that these backwards morons want to legalize bigotry.
>>
>>with you on assessment that ideas like condemming one for his orientation or or colour are probably not smart/wise. OTOH I think the pendulum swings too far if there are laws forcing you to work/serve/service people doing things going against your beliefs - as long as there is no monopoly on the service (if thinking on utilities like electricity, gas or phone access) and your work/service is not in any way publicly funded. And I do know that the last part is slippery to argue, like having a license constitutes some arrangement with "the public".
>>
>>In my ideal world the bigoted places are allowed to do as they please, will go broke but are not forced to serve those customers owner feels uncomfortable with ;-)
>
>In the US, the law is very clear. If you run a place of "public accommodation" (which means a business open to the public), you're not allowed to discriminate. That doesn't mean you can't keep someone out for their behavior in your place of business, but you can't refuse to serve them because of their race, religion, sex, etc. This is settled law.

How is it handled in practice ? The owner cannot just decline service but must state some grounds which later can be checked by a court ?
THis year a lawyer more than half won a case of job discrimination against a lawyer company stating in the ad they looked for a rookie and he did not get the job after the interview - for me uch a description tightly bound to function and probably payment level. And if they cater to specific customers, looking for either older or younger lawyers might make sense from their biz angle, but they must tread lightly not to trip discrimination laws - which IMO has begun to snip away too much of freedom.

>
>One of the issues with these so-called religious freedom laws is that they will be found unconstitutional. So the states that pass them are simply creating an unnecessary cost for the taxpayers. Frankly, I think there should be civil penalties for legislators who pass laws that they know will be found unconstitutional. There've been a whole series of laws restricting abortion that fit the same model; there, the goal is to get a new case before the Supreme Court.

Judges over here are almost totally immune to almost all blunders done while on the bench and the same goes here for legislators - and even if such rules existed, proving that they know it might be difficult. I'd love to have similar rules making legislators liable for the ridicolous cost and time overruns some large projects "surprisingly" reach ;-) See Berlin Airport, Elbphilharmonie or Stuttgart 21...