Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here a map of way these bills stand across the nation.
It will be interesting the states with bill introduce will pull or re write them after the Arizona back lash.
North Carolina turn away gay bill didnt make the deadline for calendar for it's legislative session.
This was more than likely done on purpose, that is how this state republicans work by sneaking in bills by attaching themselves to something totally unrelated and during the Summer so it wont create as much noise.
That what they did last year attaching abortion to motorcycle safety.
If the bill is introduced and passes NC House it could make or break Rep Tom Tillis the Speaker of House the likely candidate to run against Senator Kay Hagan.
But the right to follow your religious dictates and preferences is protected by the Constitution, while the "right" to same-sex marriage is not.
Have a nice day.
Why would anyone craft legislation sanctioning discrimination? How did discrimination become a "religious liberty" issue in the eyes of the Religious Right? Why would right-wing organizations craft bills that would be so offensive to voters, business leaders, and many lawmakers?
I don't think that the new wave of so-called "religious liberty" bills is really about liberty. Nor do I think that the bills are really about religion. After all, where is "Thou shall not bake cakes for gays" written in scripture? Rather, the bills are the Religious Right's latest attempt to delegitimize LGBTQ people and impose a far-right agenda via legislation.
The bills are rooted in the myth that fundamentalist Christians' religious liberty is under threat and in need of special legal protection. In reality, Christians are not being persecuted, and religious freedom is not under threat. Americans enjoy freedom of worship, assembly, and speech as these relate to faith, but this freedom does not give citizens carte blanche to discriminate.
Bills filed in the South Dakota and Kansas legislatures seek to protect clergy, church officials and businesspeople who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages or receptions because of their religious beliefs.
The bills would prevent clergy or businesses from being forced to perform or supply goods or services to anything related to same-sex marriages. It could allow a business to refuse to host a reception for a same-sex couple legally married in another state.
The bills also say clergy and businesses could not be sued or charged with crimes if they refused to take part in gay marriages.
You do realize, of course, that the PURPOSE of marriage is to discriminate, right?
Either you discriminate, or you get rid of marriage entirely.
Bills filed in the South Dakota and Kansas legislatures seek to protect clergy, church officials and businesspeople who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages or receptions because of their religious beliefs.
The bills would prevent clergy or businesses from being forced to perform or supply goods or services to anything related to same-sex marriages. It could allow a business to refuse to host a reception for a same-sex couple legally married in another state.
The bills also say clergy and businesses could not be sued or charged with crimes if they refused to take part in gay marriages.
Its not discrimination; its freedom of association and choice. I am not interest in serving a Nazi for example. But even then the separation of church and state is not there to protect government but religion from government establishing their own religion to exclusion of others.Individual right to be different or whatever they wish.
Its not discrimination; its freedom of association and choice. I am not interest in serving a Nazi for example. But even then the separation of church and state is not there to protect government but religion from government establishing their own religion to exclusion of others.Individual right to be different or whatever they wish.
A person can believe whatever the hell they wish, they can be a discriminatory sack of crap, they do have that right. However, a Business does not have the right to discriminate, nor should they.
Could be wrong but IIRC correctly New York and a few other states that made SSM legal via the legislative process gave churches/religious persons an "opt out" clause. However that does not apply to businesses and others covered by the state's and local anti-discrimination laws.
Even when SSM becomes legal in England the Church of England is prohibited from doing the unions. Suppose that was done to get round there being a same sex married monarch in future or some such to appease the CofE.
Now I'll tell you why these various proposed or whatever state laws won't work.
The majority opinion of the SCOTUS striking down DOMA regardless of not directly saying so was clearly intended to make homosexuality a protected class equal to race. When Justice Kennedy stated that discrimination against gays was wrong and violated the USC that is what the man meant. That decision also took religion out of the argument. Therefore if you are a public accommodation or service just as you cannot discriminate against racial minorities, gays at least in the Court's eyes are now part of that group. The Saint Patrick's Parade in NYC, and the Boy Scouts among others famously get around discrimination because they are private and stand behind the freedom to assemble clause of the USC.
The only murky area here would be places affiliated with a religion such as a Knights of Columbus catering hall. Exemptions for such groups/businesses will actually be decided by cases in front of the Court regarding another matter "Obamacare" and the mandate to offer contraception coverage to employees.
Here a map of way these bills stand across the nation.
It will be interesting the states with bill introduce will pull or re write them after the Arizona back lash.
North Carolina turn away gay bill didnt make the deadline for calendar for it's legislative session.
This was more than likely done on purpose, that is how this state republicans work by sneaking in bills by attaching themselves to something totally unrelated and during the Summer so it wont create as much noise.
That what they did last year attaching abortion to motorcycle safety.
If the bill is introduced and passes NC House it could make or break Rep Tom Tillis the Speaker of House the likely candidate to run against Senator Kay Hagan.
That map appears to rule out the notion that this "phenomena" is isolated to the "Bible Belt."
Why would anyone craft legislation sanctioning discrimination? How did discrimination become a "religious liberty" issue in the eyes of the Religious Right? Why would right-wing organizations craft bills that would be so offensive to voters, business leaders, and many lawmakers?
I don't think that the new wave of so-called "religious liberty" bills is really about liberty. Nor do I think that the bills are really about religion. After all, where is "Thou shall not bake cakes for gays" written in scripture? Rather, the bills are the Religious Right's latest attempt to delegitimize LGBTQ people and impose a far-right agenda via legislation.
The bills are rooted in the myth that fundamentalist Christians' religious liberty is under threat and in need of special legal protection. In reality, Christians are not being persecuted, and religious freedom is not under threat. Americans enjoy freedom of worship, assembly, and speech as these relate to faith, but this freedom does not give citizens carte blanche to discriminate.
I hope you realize the exact opposite of what you said is true as well. Through the creation of "protected classes" Democrats not only have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, they are now claiming those "protected classes" supersedes the constitutionally protected rights of everyone else.
"Why would anyone craft legislation sanctioning discrimination?"
A better question is why did Democrats violate the US Constitution and create a special group of people who can supersede the constitutionally protected rights of everyone else?
Christianity is indeed under attack in the US, and has been for decades. Sometimes deservedly so, and other times not. Whether you like it or not, the First Amendment is suppose to guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Since it has been well established that devote Christians have a particular religious aversion to homosexuality, it would be a violation of their constitutionally protected First Amendment right to force them to provide services to those they find "religiously objectionable."
Before you get any ideas that I am some kind of fundamentalist or even a Christian, I will inform you that I am neither. I acknowledge and respect the fact that ~90% of the population believes in some kind of deity. I do not happen to be among those ~90%, but I am not an anti-theist either. People have the inherent right, which is constitutionally protected, to believe or not believe anything they want. If you want people to have respect for your beliefs, you have to have a modicum of respect for theirs.
Looks like these attempt to legislate to discriminate are failing just like these narriage bans are.
Mississippi is now the ninth state to fail to pass a “turn away the gays” bill, in the guise of “religious liberty.”
In addition to the veto in Arizona, bills were defeated in Ohio, Indiana, and Georgia, Kansas, Maine, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Idaho.
I hope you realize the exact opposite of what you said is true as well. Through the creation of "protected classes" Democrats not only have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, they are now claiming those "protected classes" supersedes the constitutionally protected rights of everyone else.
"Why would anyone craft legislation sanctioning discrimination?"
A better question is why did Democrats violate the US Constitution and create a special group of people who can supersede the constitutionally protected rights of everyone else?
Christianity is indeed under attack in the US, and has been for decades. Sometimes deservedly so, and other times not. Whether you like it or not, the First Amendment is suppose to guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Since it has been well established that devote Christians have a particular religious aversion to homosexuality, it would be a violation of their constitutionally protected First Amendment right to force them to provide services to those they find "religiously objectionable."
Before you get any ideas that I am some kind of fundamentalist or even a Christian, I will inform you that I am neither. I acknowledge and respect the fact that ~90% of the population believes in some kind of deity. I do not happen to be among those ~90%, but I am not an anti-theist either. People have the inherent right, which is constitutionally protected, to believe or not believe anything they want. If you want people to have respect for your beliefs, you have to have a modicum of respect for theirs.
They are not protected classes, they just want to be treated equally as should anyone under the constitution, these bills are attempting to make it legal to discriminate.
Christianity is not under attack, that is just an excuse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
