>>>Peaceful protest is never inappropriate. Violent protest almost always is.
>
>Yes, but people are protesting against lawful mandate. They're undermining the constitution and provoking unrest and unhappiness trying to achieve- what exactly? Do they expect to harass/insult Trump out of office and have they never heard the consequence of non-stop "crying Wolf" since the election?
>

It appears that constant protesting played a big role in defeating the governor of NC's reelection:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/12/why-pat-mccrory-lost-and-what-it-means-in-trumps-america.html


>>>No, they shouldn't be able to be forced. OTOH, a hospital should be able to say that we can't hire you if you won't perform the tasks that go with the job.
>
>So should the St Vincent's Hospital Groups be forced to perform abortions and accredit (not hire) only doctors who will perform them?
>

No, the hospital can decide they don't perform abortions. FWIW, a few years ago, two of my local hospitals proposed a merger. One was a Catholic hospital and it was announced that their policy on abortion would apply at both hospitals. Our community rose up and protested loudly and insistently that that was not acceptable. The merger was scrapped.


>>>What about a small Muslim bakery that doesn't want to cater for a gay event, quoting passages like Hadith 38:4447 when challenged? Should they be called hateful with the state empowered to force the bigots to comply?
>>Depends on what you mean by "cater for." If people come into the bakery and want to buy items the bakery sells, then the bakery should have to sell to them. When you start getting into custom items, it's a little more complicated.
>
>That "complicated" word, I believe, proves that the devil is in the details and is the cause of much of the world's unhappiness. Unless the law covers "complicated" as well as "obvious" then the law is an ass. So to return to the topic: whether you agree with Pence's position or not, he's trying to create laws to eliminate that "complicated" grey area you have identified. He sides with the Muslim bakery. It's good lawmaking, even if you don't like the actual law.
>

I disagree. The law that Pence signed allowed pure discrimination in the obvious area. Had it stood, it likely would have been overturned by Federal courts, but in the meantime, people would have been hurt by it.

Tamar

>FWIW, I trained in a profession where (contrary to lay impressions) uncertainty is part of almost every decision and action. Costs rise as barrages of tests are performed to try to limit the uncertainty, but it's still there because human beings are not sacks of wheat. You cannot insist on consistent standards of raw materials, and every sack on the conveyor belt has a voice (and sometimes a lawyer. '-) ) Many physicians look at lawmaking and envy the ease with which it ought to be possible to control uncertainty, since policy laws are not subject to the vagaries of Mother Nature and are entirely wo/man-made. And yet the law is full of anachronisms and "complications" that keep lawmakers amused, protestors rationalized and lawyers in Porsches.