Jump to content

Anti gay bills

Politics   (10,794 Views 202 Comments)
6 Followers; 100,626 Visitors; 16,580 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

North Dakota:

"No person or entity may bring suit against a business for refusing to serve a person or couple based on sexual orientation. The Legislature finds that businesses are private and that their views on sexual orientation are protected to the same extent as the views of private citizens.

No private business may be compelled to employ a person based on sexual orientation"

SB 128 - South Dakota Legislature - State of South Dakota

 

Tennessee:

As introduced, permits persons and religious or denominational organizations, based on sincere religious belief, to refuse to provide services or goods in furtherance of a civil union, domestic partnership, or marriage not recognized by the Tennessee Constitution.

 

http://openstates.org/tn/bills/108/SB2566/documents/TND00047627/

Arizona:

State action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it the government or nongovernmental person seeking the enforcement of state action demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

E. A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:

1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.

2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.

3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.htm&Session_ID=112

Idaho:

One bigoted business owner

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554910/Oklahoma-restaurant-owner-declares-wont-serve-freaks-faggots-unemployed-offensive-TV-interview.html

Edited by herring_RN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an aside, the South Dakota PDF link brings me back to AN.

How are businesses going to determine if someone is gay or not? On appearance? Will they have the right to ask customers which sex they sleep with?

I saw on the Rachel Maddow show last night that people are not sure if Jan Brewer will sign the Arizona bill into law anyway.

I'm really tired of people using religion as a cover for their bigotry. Just as Jesus wouldn't be toting a machine gun, he wouldn't have anything to do with this nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope none of these becomes law.

Why are these so called conservatives wasting time on these exclusive laws.

With these laws nurses could refuse to care for gay patients. WHAT?

PS: I think the link is fixed. I have no idea how that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope none of these becomes law.

Why are these so called conservatives wasting time on these exclusive laws.

With these laws nurses could refuse to care for gay patients. WHAT?

PS: I think the link is fixed. I have no idea how that happened.

Nurses aren't businesses. They are employees. Whether they could refuse to care for anyone would be between them and the employer, just as it is now. I suppose the hospital could refuse to serve patients. But, I don't think they all of a sudden are going to start just because now they can't be sued for it.

Businesses always could refuse to serve homosexuals if they wanted. Nothing is different. Businesses aren't all of a sudden going to start screening people, as another poster suggested. Most businesses are grateful to serve whoever can pay.

One of these laws came from a case where a gay couple sued a wedding photographer who didn't want to do their wedding. Common sense would dictate they wouldn't want to hire that person anyway. So, why should they be able to sue for that.

In the big picture, these laws are pretty meaningless. So, I do agree they are a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these laws came from a case where a gay couple sued a wedding photographer who didn't want to do their wedding. Common sense would dictate they wouldn't want to hire that person anyway. So, why should they be able to sue for that.

In the big picture, these laws are pretty meaningless. So, I do agree they are a waste of time.

i think this is a big part of it....why would anybody want a wedding cake (as happened to a bakery in Oregon) or wedding photos taken by someone whose heart wasn't in it? Unless that bakery or photography studio was specifically targeted to make a point.

I would hope my gay daughter and her partner would have enough sense to seek out people who do not have an issue with them as a couple, rather than ruin the livelihood of another couple. And there are bakeries and photography studios aplenty, so availability is not the problem.

How does one keep one's right to freedom of religion these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Christians will like it when then cannot buy felafel or humus from their local shop because they offend the owner who is now allowed to discriminate based upon religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the humus seekers will sue and the humus sellers will be convicted and lose their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think this is a big part of it....why would anybody want a wedding cake (as happened to a bakery in Oregon) or wedding photos taken by someone whose heart wasn't in it? Unless that bakery or photography studio was specifically targeted to make a point.

I would hope my gay daughter and her partner would have enough sense to seek out people who do not have an issue with them as a couple, rather than ruin the livelihood of another couple. And there are bakeries and photography studios aplenty, so availability is not the problem.

How does one keep one's right to freedom of religion these days?

This sounds a bit like the article I posted a few days ago from the physician who basically stated the folks who are anti-vax should not be part of his medical practice. I had so many people respond that the physician HAS to accept these folks or he is discriminating against them.

Physician's can choose to accept folks or not accept folk into his/her practice. Just as folks can choose to join or not join.

I too think these laws spring from the lawsuits against business (like the wedding photographer or baker who didn't want to make a cake or take photos for a gay couple) who get sued over choices they make about customers.

No shirt, no shoes, no service . . . ?

I personally think the laws are a waste of time but I also can see the other side's point as well.

(Here's the link to the doc's article to give you an idea of what I meant)

Pediatrician: Vaccinate Your Kidsâ€"Or Get Out of My Office - The Daily Beast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the humus seekers will sue and the humus sellers will be convicted and lose their business.

Why not just go to a different store that does sell hummus/felafel?

I shop at 3-4 different grocery stores to get the stuff I personally want. Not every store carries everything.

It would be pretty darn silly to sue over a store not carrying hummus. No matter what their reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. Interestingly, I just re-read the article from the doctor and under it is another article about THIS subject!! :bookworm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be pretty darn silly to sue over a store not carrying hummus. No matter what their reasoning.

Or wedding cakes and photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.