Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
clueliss

"Religious Freedom" Amendment proposed in Missouri

Recommended Posts

Spent
clueliss

This one is hitting the news in Kansas City - because KC is, in general, concerned that it might lose tings like the Big 12 Basketball Tournament and conventions over a proposed 'religious freedom' amendment in Missouri that would allow businesses to refuse service based on things such as sexual orientation based on religious beliefs.  Indiana apparently has a similar law that is costing the city if Indianapolis convention money now.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/blair-kerkhoff/article66059372.html#storylink=fb_staff

(and yes - that is a link to the sports section discussing politics - because college basketball in KC is newsworthy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundaymorning

I think this whole "religious freedom" argument is really ridiculous.

I do think that no one should be forced to do business with someone else, but not because of religious reasons, but simply because I believe that ideally, individuals should have the freedom of contract, just like you have the freedom of speech in the US.

But if you have to have laws where you can force people to do business with each other, you might as well implement them without any exceptions for special :special-snowflake2:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doggie

the stupid thing is all businesses have the right to refuse a customer. they just need to not say that it is because they hate gay people. what they want is to be able to refuse someone and not pay the price of getting bad publicity doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mercer

As a Christian, it is horribly offensive to me when people try to institutionalize discrimination by calling it "religious freedom."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sawasdee

In the comments to the article cited above, one responder claims that if the NCAA were to withdraw tournaments from the city if this amendment were passed, it's because the NCAA is bigoted and anti christian.:my_sick:

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julifornia

This sounds like it pertains solely to weddings and receptions, per the actual proposed text. 

Making it into a constitutional amendment seems beyond overkill, though.  California is the state that's supposed to amend the constitution all the time.  :-)

https://legiscan.com/MO/text/SJR39/2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salex

http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/04/24/gov-brownback-signs-kansas-preservation-of-religious-freedom-act/

 

Kansas did this a couple of years ago.  Because, you know, Kansas is known for people being forced to violate their religious standards....

 

Quote

“Kansans can now rely on permanent, statutory protection of their religious liberties,” stated Robert Noland, Executive Director of the Kansas Family Policy Council. “Kansas has a long history of protecting religion and rights of conscience. The Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act continues that rich tradition by codifying the current judicial standard requiring a compelling government interest must be proven before state or local law can require any Kansan to act (or not act) in any manner that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. 

I wonder how many of these bills are word for word from the ALEC pages

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spent
clueliss

Oh, well, that explains it since Missouri seems to be hellbent on taking us in the direction of Kansas.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enraged
47of74
5 hours ago, salex said:

http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/04/24/gov-brownback-signs-kansas-preservation-of-religious-freedom-act/

 

Kansas did this a couple of years ago.  Because, you know, Kansas is known for people being forced to violate their religious standards....

 

I wonder how many of these bills are word for word from the ALEC pages

 

Sometimes the legislators are so stupid they forget to take out the template headers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samira_catlover

Partial hijack: Georgia is pulling a similar thing on LGBT protections, and it's likely to cost them a lot of movie business. Whew, $1.7 billion USD in direct spending alone for movie/film production, plus allied business support. (HRC link)

http://comicsalliance.com/disney-marvel-georgia-boycott-anti-lgbt-law/

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entertainment-industry-leaders-to-georgia-gov-veto-hb757-or-we-will-abandon

Not to mention the allies (also HRC link): >>In addition to this letter from the entertainment industry, sports teams, major corporations, and countless businesses have spoken out against the Georgia bill, including: Apple, the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Falcons, the Atlanta Hawks, Dell, the Dow Chemical Company, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Hilton, Intel, Intercontinental Hotels, Live Nation Entertainment, Marriott, MailChimp, the Metro Atlanta Chamber, Microsoft, the NFL, Paypal, Salesforce, Square, Turner, Twitter, Unilever, Virgin, Yelp, and many others.<<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RosyDaisy

Oops somebody beat me to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sawasdee
13 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Meanwhile in George - the Governor is going to  vetoing the "religious liberty" bill.  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/us/georgia-north-carolina-lgbt-bills/index.html

At last a politician showing both sense and compassion.

I do wonder how large a percentage of the electorate support this type of legislation, and the enshrining of discrimination in law. The US appears to be going backward, as the rest of the  world (with the notable exceptions of Russia, parts of Africa and fundamentalist Muslim states) attempts to move away from such prejudice. Even the Pope has been making some attempt at a rapprochement with the LGBTQ community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spent
clueliss

I'm not sure that was compassion so much as protecting tax revenues that would be lost from businesses threatening to leave Georgia.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sawasdee

But at least his statement made a pretense, if not a genuine , stab at compassion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doggie

But it can be overridden it has happened before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enraged
47of74

Now North Carolina is experiencing the blow back, as it were...

huffingtonpost.com/entry/porn-site-bans-north-carolina-users-due-to-states-anti-lgbt-laws_us_570bd057e4b0885fb50d9a92

Quote

There’s a new kink in North Carolina’s LGBT controversy: A popular porn website is banning all computers from “The Tar Heel State.”

XHamster.com has been refusing to serve anyone from North Carolina since 12:30 p.m. EDT, Monday.

Instead, users with a North Carolina IP address are just seeing a black screen on their computer — no porn.

The extreme measures will stay in place until North Carolina repeals House Bill 2, a law passed on March 23 that effectively prevents cities and counties in the state from passing rules that protect LGBT rights.

I guess all those Republican family values types will have find something else to get their hootus working...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spent
clueliss

and it FAILS!!!!!! in the Missouri House.  

 

http://www.abc17news.com/news/religious-freedom-measure-fails-in-missouri-house/39244572

Quote

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -

On Wednesday, a panel in the Missouri House failed to approve a religious freedom measure attracting national controversy.

The House Emerging Issues Committee had a 6-6 vote on Senate Joint Resolution 39, failing to move it any further the state legislature. If the constitutional amendment was passed by lawmakers and then voters, businesses could refuse services for same-sex couples and their weddings.

The proposal already passed the Senate last month after a lot of debate, including a record, 40-hour filibuster.

PROMO, an advocacy for the LGBT community, reports the state representatives who voted against SJR39 are: Rep. Jeremy LaFaver, Rep. Mike Colona, Rep. Jim Hansen, Rep. Sharon Pace, Rep. Caleb Rowden, and Rep. Anne Zerr.

"We are grateful to the Emerging Issues committee for searching their hearts, listening to both sides of this issue, and doing the right thing today,” said Steph Perkins Executive Director of PROMO.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloraKitty35

These "Religious Freedom" laws  are a waste of taxpayer money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sillybeebo
On May 3, 2016 at 9:37 PM, FloraKitty35 said:

These "Religious Freedom" laws  are a waste of taxpayer money. 

They want to combat the marriage equality that recently passed. There are other, more important things those "Christians" could and should be worrying about! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.