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.
LANSING, Mich. — A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs was put on a fast track Thursday, passing out of the House Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives on straight party line votes Thursday.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents claim but will merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.
He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.
"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."
I get the autopsy protection, but not the refusal to make a cake. That is discrimination no matter how you slice it.
It's 'we don't want this done -to us'' compared to 'we don't want to do this -for you'.
"The House also passed a separate package of bills, on mostly party-line votes, that would allow adoption agencies to refuse services to people if that violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. Those bills also now move to the Senate."
What it sounds like to me is a bill to allow the religious to discriminate against anything they don't like on religious grounds - or anything they claim as religious grounds. I can see this ending up as causing so many problems that it will have to be struck down, as other attempts to push through religion -favouring legislation have had to be.
LANSING, Mich. — A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs was put on a fast track Thursday, passing out of the House Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives on straight party line votes Thursday.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents claim but will merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.
He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.
"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."
That's precisely what it is - a license to discriminate, so long as a religious excuse is cited as the reason for the discrimination.
Some years ago here in Minnesota, there was a sizeable contingent of taxi drivers serving MSP (the largest airport in the state) who refused to take passengers transporting alcohol or using service dogs, citing their Muslim beliefs (the local Somali immigrant community, mostly Muslim, accounts for a large proportion of the taxi drivers in the Twin Cities).
After all, they had 'sincerely held religious beliefs'.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission properly told them that they could either stop discriminating against customers or they could find another line of work.
If people want to participate in the business community, they have to obey the laws the rest of us have to obey. I'm an atheist. If I run a business and this law were in effect, I could discriminate against gays because I cannot cite a 'sincerely held religious belief'. That I do not wish to discriminate against gays is beside the point. This ridiculous law, which I highly doubt will ever become an enforceable law (it will likely be stayed before it takes effect, and then struck down by a federal court), does nothing but create special exemptions from the law for religious bigots who can't handle obeying basic civil rights laws.
I have no more sympathy for some pouting baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, and adopts the posture that it's his religion and not his own anti-gay animus as his motivation, than I do for some hotel owner who finds a religious excuse to discriminate against blacks.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,512,471 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Did you read father down in that article?
"The House also passed a separate package of bills, on mostly party-line votes, that would allow adoption agencies to refuse services to people if that violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. Those bills also now move to the Senate."
They will be challenged (if the lawsuit(s) has not been already file) and overturn eventually. No biggie. Just annoying for the time being.
LANSING, Mich. — A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs was put on a fast track Thursday, passing out of the House Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives on straight party line votes Thursday.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents claim but will merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.
He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.
"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."
I'm curious. Which part of the constitution is that?
One nation under God?
This is a Christian nation?
In God we trust?
If memory serves me, they are not in the constitution.
No, they aren't, but freedom of religion is...
First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God" "natural right" "worship" or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.
Last edited by Richard1965; 12-07-2014 at 12:02 PM..
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.
