http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/local/2014/12/04/michigan-religious-freedom-bill-moves-house/19892103/
This bill is fundamentally similar to similar bills, such as the one in Arizona, that ended up getting vetoed, or the one signed in Mississippi.
Now, for the inevitable poster who will say, well, if the bill was really going to discriminate against anyone, why wouldn't they just say that they were discriminating them in the bill itself? This is an absurd argument because animus can no longer be codified in law by a brazenness that says that "anyone can refuse to serve gay people because they're icky." We're already seeing the demise of gay marriage bills -- which never actually explicitly mention gay people in their text -- even though they exclusive target gay people. Laws such as the Poll Tax never actually mentioned black people -- and while that is a far more nefarious bill than the one in this OP, it's an example of animus being applied in a way that doesn't include mustache-twirling evil of saying "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" in the text of the law.
Similarly here, this is not to protect Muslims other unliked religious minorities. This is specifically happening now, at this time, because bakeries, wedding photographers, and venues that serve everyone else are turning away gay couples. While Michigan's public accommodation law to protect LGBT people failed (the Elliott Larsen bill in the OP), this would create a situation where anyone could refuse service to a gay couple or gay person and cite religious beliefs. Imagine if you owned a restaurant and were able to turn away black people because you didn't like them. We decided in the 1960s that this was not okay, and I'm of the opinion that the same laws should apply to gay people. We shouldn't deny service to gay people because they're gay or in a gay relationship.
Similarly, trying to make a semantic argument that refusing to serve a "gay marriage" is somehow different than serving "gay people" is problematic. Refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage because you're against black people marrying white people is an animus rooted in racism, just as these arguments have an animus rooted in homophobia.
That's why I called this bill what its true purpose is in the title. This isn't about religious freedom -- it's about animus in the guise of religious freedom and treating some different than others on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The MI House passed this 59-50. The MI Senate is 26 Republicans, 12 Democrats. The governor, a Republican, said he would've signed the LGBT rights bill for employment, housing and has not commented on the bill that passed. Or at least, I can't find anything on it.
This bill is fundamentally similar to similar bills, such as the one in Arizona, that ended up getting vetoed, or the one signed in Mississippi.
Now, for the inevitable poster who will say, well, if the bill was really going to discriminate against anyone, why wouldn't they just say that they were discriminating them in the bill itself? This is an absurd argument because animus can no longer be codified in law by a brazenness that says that "anyone can refuse to serve gay people because they're icky." We're already seeing the demise of gay marriage bills -- which never actually explicitly mention gay people in their text -- even though they exclusive target gay people. Laws such as the Poll Tax never actually mentioned black people -- and while that is a far more nefarious bill than the one in this OP, it's an example of animus being applied in a way that doesn't include mustache-twirling evil of saying "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" in the text of the law.
Similarly here, this is not to protect Muslims other unliked religious minorities. This is specifically happening now, at this time, because bakeries, wedding photographers, and venues that serve everyone else are turning away gay couples. While Michigan's public accommodation law to protect LGBT people failed (the Elliott Larsen bill in the OP), this would create a situation where anyone could refuse service to a gay couple or gay person and cite religious beliefs. Imagine if you owned a restaurant and were able to turn away black people because you didn't like them. We decided in the 1960s that this was not okay, and I'm of the opinion that the same laws should apply to gay people. We shouldn't deny service to gay people because they're gay or in a gay relationship.
Similarly, trying to make a semantic argument that refusing to serve a "gay marriage" is somehow different than serving "gay people" is problematic. Refusing to bake a cake for an interracial marriage because you're against black people marrying white people is an animus rooted in racism, just as these arguments have an animus rooted in homophobia.
That's why I called this bill what its true purpose is in the title. This isn't about religious freedom -- it's about animus in the guise of religious freedom and treating some different than others on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The MI House passed this 59-50. The MI Senate is 26 Republicans, 12 Democrats. The governor, a Republican, said he would've signed the LGBT rights bill for employment, housing and has not commented on the bill that passed. Or at least, I can't find anything on it.
