I'm guessing even a competent doctor DOES cause many deaths. I doubt anyone is lucky enough to make the right decisions 100% of the time.

But they did work for that money. They worked x months, which entitles them to an extra Y money if they get fired.
Just like executives get bonuses at the end of the year.
If the company never hired those workers then they would not have needed to pay them anything.

Why didn't the CEO or the owners give a loan to the company. If it just needed a few months to pay it off, then there wasn't any risk was there? And unlike the former employees the CEO and the owner had both an interest in keeping the company going and all the information about it's current status.

So why don't they increase prices as it is? Do you think corporations just figure out they are making enough profit and keep rices low out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or do they raise their prices as high as possible without actually loosing profit due to diminished sales?

I can see how this would damage the company, but won't this actually help the customers? Right now they are relying on the locks to be secure. We do not know how many other people have discovered the flaw that makes them insecure. So is it better to leave the customers in the dark, or should they be notified so they can switch to a different lock supplier?

I'm guessing no vaccine is ever completely effective. But if everyone is vaccinated then the people whose vaccination didn't work are a lot less likely to ever be exposed to the disease.

Again, I was responding to your statement.

And all of the situations I described were possible outcomes if the law followed your reasoning. I understand that the current law does not go that far. However it is clearly right to compel people to go against their beliefs in SOME cases. So what makes it OK to discriminate in this case?

I think you vastly overestimate humanity if you think these are just straw men.

All the cases I imagined could, and in some manner likely would happen. Perhaps not as blatantly (the person might feel at least a bit of shame), but similar situations occur all the time.
Think about people doing their best to prevent certain groups from voting.
Or the way cops like to protect their own.
I do admit that the example with the doctor is a bit far fetched (at least I hope it it), but I can see homeless people being turned away - (helping someone that can't pay is wrong!).

All of those situations would now be completely legal. So even if an investigation uncovered them, what could you do - they were just following their conscience.

I was responding to your statement, which went well beyond the Indiana statute.

That would lead to some very strange situations.

A: So did you arrest the rapist?
B: No, that would have been against my conscience.

A: So how many people voted at your station?
B: None, they were all black so I didn't give them the ballots.

A: What happened to that gunshot victim you were operating on?
B: Oh he turned out to be a Jew so I just let him bleed out. It would have been against my conscience to save one of those.

If it's a hacker, then they already broke the law. So why bother adding another law?

Would the law also apply if Joe declares that he can only serve people that are satanists (due to his religion)? If it does I can see shops becoming quite a good jobs for lazy people - "My religion prevents me from serving you because you are human, sorry."

It only makes 20K only as long as the farmer owns it. When someone else buys it, they can bribe the local politicians to change the zoning and suddenly the land can make quite a bit more.

Wasn't there a study that found that placebos had positive effects even when the patients were told that they were placebos?

Isn't that more of a problem with the whole legal system, rather than a problem with patent reform?

Having a "loser pays" system in a "fair" system (where the side that has the law on their side actually wins) is fairer than not having that system. Because without "loser pays", the side that wins may be in a worse situation than if they had just given up in the first place (they may win 50k, but spent 100k on lawyers).

Think about the current system from the other side. A small company is sued by a big one over a frivolous patent. The small company may have the law on their side, but if they fight and win they will still be bankrupt.