Morally I agree with you Goblin. 100% and more so. And if you can show me a way to get those who believe differently to realize that such things are a part of nature, then I will bend over backward and help you prove this to them.
It's happening, but it won't happen instantly.
And some people will keep on persisting, just like there are still people who for serious
believe the earth is flat. (and even tie it to religious beliefs as well, if I remember correctly)
I can't offer you a way to get rid of intolerance, but I think that this law is one of the ways of minimizing the harm caused by intolerant individuals to other individuals.
It's like it's not really possible to eliminate crime once and for all, but it's possible to pass laws that protect people as well as possible.
I do believe there is laws in place where you can not fire someone for such things if they are already hired..and even if there is a law that is passed forcing employers to hire x number of people of each sexual orientation, x number of people who eat ham, and x number of women who do NOT wear burquas, I do believe that employers will simply 'find' reasons not to hire them.
That's not the same thing. This law is *not* about forcing an employer to hire a set number of a given minority. This is not 'affirmative action' or 'paritet' or 'minority quota' type legislation.
Because employers will always find their way to fire someone if they really need to, the only thing this law will assure is that it will be harder for them to do so.
This law won't eliminate bigotry, but it will be a dis-incentive for bigots to harm minorities.
As far as your black sign example, as far as I know there are no religions that actually stated that being black was a sin. Nor do I endorse that transgendered people should be barred from eating establishments, markets or any other public venue simply because of their preferences, no matter what religious preferences the owner has they opened a public place for what? the public.
But why assume that religion-based bigotry is somehow deserving of protection while other bigotry doesn't?
I'd point out there are many Christian denominations that are a-okay with homosexuality, transgenderism and what have you. There are tolerant Jews and Muslims as well.
As for religions supporting racism, they existed in history and they still exist now, just not in USA at the moment.
I just fear that with this passing, that it will just open the doors for government to say "Ok..now that we have made it discrimanatory to not hire someone who you believe is a sinner, we can now use that as precendent to say you can not preach in your churches that this is a sin."(yes extreme but an example) etc etc..its not this law that really bothers me but the rammifications that can happen.
This sort of fear is called 'the slippery slope fallacy'.
One could take any principle and inflate it into absurd, and from both sides.
For example, drugs.
Anti-drug person can say "If you legalize medical marihuana, next you're going to legalize selling meth to children!"
Pro-drug person can say "If you outlaw pot, why don't you outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine and chocolate as well?"
Pro-gun person "If you won't let me have plastic explosives, next you'll be coming for my handgun and then my kitchen knife!"
Anti-gun person "If you'll let adult people own a revolver, next stage is going to be kids running around with grenades!"
The idea is to judge the law on it's own merit and remember that there's no rule saying that if you pass one law then you will have to pass another law later that will go too far.
For one, there'd be no support for a law that would censor what preachers can say in churches. Even from pro-tolerance people like me, I'm sure.