• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: Anticipating Nationwide Gay Marriage, States Weigh Religious Exemption Bills

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ivysaur12

Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/anticipating-nationwide-right-to-same-sex-marriage-states-weigh-religious-exemption-bills.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Some of these quotes though.

ATLANTA — As it looks increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage later this year, state legislatures across the country are taking up bills that would make it easier for businesses and individuals to opt out of serving gay couples on religious grounds.

Many states are now reliving a version of events that embroiled Arizona in February 2014, when Jan Brewer, then the Republican governor, vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to use their religious beliefs as a legal justification for refusing to serve gay customers.

The resurgent controversy is fueled in part by a deep anxiety among many evangelicals and other conservatives that the Supreme Court will make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states after it takes up the matter in April.

“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. “And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”

As in Arizona last year, some of the new bills are already experiencing pushback from businesses and prominent conservatives who are concerned that they might lead to boycotts or harm their states’ reputations. And gay-rights groups say the bills would enshrine discrimination.

In Arkansas, a so-called conscience protection bill was scuttled in the Judiciary Committee of the State Senate on Feb. 25, a day after homegrown retail giant Walmart released a statement arguing that the bill would send “the wrong message about Arkansas, as well as the diverse environment which exists in the state.”

Supporters of the proposal, which the State House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved, said they might introduce a new version this session.

In Georgia, powerful business interests helped kill similar legislation last year. Opposition to two similar bills remains strong among a portion of the state’s elite, who are sensitive to the perceptions that Southern states, in particular, can be havens of intolerance.

“What you have to be careful about is making sure you don’t conform to those perceptions,” said former Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat. “That’s the reason this bill is so dangerous.”

Similar bills have been introduced in Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Bills in South Dakota and Wyoming recently failed. In Texas, which already has such a law, lawmakers are considering a constitutional amendment that would make it even easier for religious people who feel aggrieved by government policy to win their cases in court.

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia. Its status in a 37th state, Alabama, is unclear because of conflicting state and federal court orders.

Concern over the expansion, which has accelerated in the last year with a flurry of federal court decisions, is driving a good deal of support for the bills.

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”
Click to expand...

In general, the bills would make it easier to win court cases brought by individuals who claim their exercise of religion was infringed by government policy.

Many of the bills contain language that the government may not “burden,” or in some states “substantially burden,” the practice of religion, and may do so only if it can both demonstrate a “compelling” interest, and show that it is doing so by the least restrictive means.

Their model is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or R.F.R.A., which was signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, and which enjoyed overwhelming support from both liberal and conservative members of Congress.

The act was an effort to restore the rights of religious practitioners that had been curtailed by the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in the case Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the court upheld Oregon’s denial of unemployment benefits to employees fired for using peyote in a religious ritual.

In 1997, however, a Supreme Court ruling effectively limited the law’s application to the federal government. In response, a number of states began passing and putting together their own laws similar to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Today, the laws exist in 19 states, and courts in a number of other states apply the act’s legal standards in determining relevant cases.
Click to expand...

Supporters of the bills say such fears are overblown, noting that in many states that already have Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws, judges have taken care to balance the religious liberty claims of aggrieved believers against existing nondiscrimination laws, or the general principle that discrimination is harmful to society.

“R.F.R.A. doesn’t guarantee the result in any case,” said Thomas Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. Instead, he said, it merely establishes the standard that must be met, and gives an individual the right to require that the government prove a “compelling interest.”

“That doesn’t mean that R.F.R.A. claims are always going to prevail over gay rights statutes,” he said. “It gives the objector the chance to make the argument.”

Christopher Lund, an associate law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, has compiled a number of instances in which state Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws have protected religious minorities, including a Native-American student who won the right to wear his hair long at a Texas school, and Santeria practitioners who were allowed to continue sacrificing animals in religious rituals.

Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, said that her group fully supported the idea of protecting religious rights. But she said she would like to see even the existing laws amended “to clarify that they should not be used to undermine nondiscrimination principles, or to engage in harm against others.”
Click to expand...
 
R

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. “And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”
Click to expand...

LMAO
 
M

Mauricio_Magus

Banned
I always wonder if these people know that they will clearly be viewed as hateful and ignorant in the future, as in "what, there were hateful people like that in the past?"

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people.
Click to expand...

What kind of stupid fuck do you have to be to say this kind of crap? seriously.
 
A

Aquamarine

Member
“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. “And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”
Click to expand...

It's things like this that make me loathe religion sometimes.

Imagine what kind of world we would live in if we weren't fueled by hatred originally propagated by bronze-age tribesmen.

"Religious liberties." What a bunch of nonsense. If God really does exist, he would be shaking his head at people who possess such a predisposition towards discrimination and hatred.
 
N

number47

Member
Aquamarine said:
It's things like this that make me loathe religion sometimes.

Imagine what kind of world we would live in if we weren't fueled by hatred originally propagated by bronze-age tribesmen.

"Religious convictions." What a bunch of nonsense. If God really does exist, he would be shaking his head at people who possess such a predisposition towards discrimination and hatred.
Click to expand...
Just to go in a funny direction . its like 3000 years of us and religion. Let's not pretend we got here all by ourselves.
 
H

HariKari

Member
You can exercise your 'religious rights' right up until the point they infringe upon the rights of others. We've been through this whole argument before as a nation. Are the people proposing these exemption bills somehow unaware of this?
 
P

Pyrokai

Member
In Arkansas, a so-called conscience protection bill was scuttled in the Judiciary Committee of the State Senate on Feb. 25, a day after homegrown retail giant Walmart released a statement arguing that the bill would send “the wrong message about Arkansas, as well as the diverse environment which exists in the state.”
Click to expand...

Oh, Walmart. It will actually enforce exactly what everyone already thinks. So no harm done, really.
Just so everyone is clear, I think this is a damn shame

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”
Click to expand...

Holy shit. Like wow. I suppose if there were a religion that was "against" black people, a business-owning member of that religion would be allowed to not serve a black person? Completely unreal. How can these people not see that it's flat out, plain old-fashioned discrimination?
 
R

ReplacementPelican

Member
Some people are insane. I can't even fathom why these people hate and fear homosexuality so much that they feel the need to legislatively protect their right to discriminate against them.
 
M

Miles Quaritch

Member
“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. “And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Fucking seriously?
 
S

sn00zer

Member
I always wonder about this stuff...because if you cant refuse service, couldnt companies be sued if they wouldnt print posters or make cakes or whatever for hate groups?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
"And I say that sensitively, because I found out one of my son's classmates at his high school is a homosexual and that makes me the authority here"
 
M

massoluk

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. “And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”
Click to expand...

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”
Click to expand...
God damn. This whole thing is just really repeating the footsteps of the entire Black Civil Right Movement
 
C

Crayons

Banned
“The L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions,” said State Senator Joseph Silk, an Oklahoma Republican and the sponsor of a bill in that state. “And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”
Click to expand...

STOP STOP STOP STOP
 
E

esms

Member
Don't worry, bros. He's got gay friends. Heads out to gay bars all the time. Attends pride parades and all that.

But when it comes to their rights? Fuck 'em.
 
K

Korigama

Member
“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”
Click to expand...
Such putrid bile.
 
A

Aquamarine

Member
“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people.
Click to expand...

But now just change one little detail around, and all of a sudden it goes from acceptable to abhorrent for them:

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to black people.
Click to expand...

“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to Jewish people.
Click to expand...


Their sheer hypocrisy astounds me.
 
P

Penguin

Member
I don't know the exact wording, but couldn't this just lead to everyone not doing anything on the grounds of their religious freedoms?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
By their logic, they could also refuse to serve divorced people correct? Nonsense.

The SC will simply strike down whatever law they pass.
 
G

Gentleman Jack

Member
Penguin said:
I don't know the exact wording, but couldn't this just lead to everyone not doing anything on the grounds of their religious freedoms?
Click to expand...

Theoretically yes, but in practice this is only meant to deprive the LGBT community of participation in society. Few businesses would turn away divorced people, single mothers, people who wear clothes from two different fabrics, etc.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I know folks will claim basically #NotAllRepublicans on this, but even the so-called "moderates" will appoint judges who will uphold these laws when challenged in court. Claiming that you don't agree or that you're working on the party doesn't negate the fact that you're enabling and voting for second-class citizenship.

The party needs one or two more electoral curbstompings to get the message.
 
A

Acinixys

Member
This has always confused me about all this hate:

Why do they hate on LGBT people so specifically? What is it about dicks in butts that is so abhorrent to them?
 
G

gcubed

Member
Penguin said:
I don't know the exact wording, but couldn't this just lead to everyone not doing anything on the grounds of their religious freedoms?
Click to expand...

well yes, its an immense waste of taxpayers dollars from fiscal conservatives. How much money does it cost the state to pass these laws, defend them in a losing battle agaist any federal court, then roll them back
 
A

Aquamarine

Member
Acinixys said:
This has always confused me about all this hate:

Why do they hate on LGBT people so specifically? What is it about dicks in butts that is so abhorrent to them?
Click to expand...

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)

"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:21-22)

"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:25-27)

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:8-10)


When you adore the Bible, it's hard to shake off the constant anti-homosexuality references.
 
H

Henchmen21

Banned
HylianTom said:
I know folks will claim basically #NotAllRepublicans on this, but even the so-called "moderates" will appoint judges who will uphold these laws when challenged in court. Claiming that you don't agree or that you're working on the party doesn't negate the fact that you're enabling and voting for second-class citizenship.

The party needs one or two more electoral curbstompings to get the message.
Click to expand...

Recent midterms emboldened them.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
"And I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends.”
Click to expand...
No you don't. You know gay people that refrain from punching you in your disgusting bigoted face because they're much better people than you.

Also, thoughts, Republicans?
 
A

Acinixys

Member
Aquamarine said:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)

"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:21-22)

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26-27)

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:8-10)


When you adore the Bible, it's hard to shake off the constant anti-homosexuality references.
Click to expand...

This begs the question for me

How much insanely blatant homosexuality was there in biblical times that such specific and prolific anti gay stuff had to be written? Seems crazy to me that they would add this in just in case.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Oh we're back to "you're intolerant for not tolerating my intolerance" again? Nice. Let me know when these states join in on the "Federal Government can't tell me what to do!" train.

Let me know when I can not serve Christian fundamentalists because my religious beliefs say not to associate with shitlords.
 
K

Korigama

Member
Aquamarine said:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)

"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:21-22)

"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:25-27)

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." (1 Timothy 1:8-10)


When you adore the Bible, it's hard to shake off the constant anti-homosexuality references.
Click to expand...
Leviticus was also the same book that forbade eating shellfish and wearing clothes of two different fabrics, yet they conveniently pay no nevermind to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
4K
ManaByte replied
  • Locked
Politics... be always careful what you wish for.
4
922
TehDark replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Australia plans to ban children from social media
2 3 4
160
7K
Cyberpunkd replied
The Duke lacrosse accuser, 18 years later, admits she made it up
2
73
4K
Jsisto replied
Top Bottom