Monday, February 24, 2014

More On Freedom Of Religon Over Gay "Rights" Bills Around The Country


In order to see how low liberals are willing to go to destroy religion look at how Evan Hurst how mischaracterizes these bills to Mother Jones (famous for publicizing the Romney 47% statement) .

Inside the Conservative Campaign to Launch "Jim Crow-Style" Bills Against Gay Americans

"In this new up-is-down world, anti-gay religious folks are 'practicing their faith' when they're baking cakes or renting out hotel rooms to travelers."

| Thu Feb. 20, 2014 3:00 AM GM
Kansas set off a national firestorm last week when the GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would have allowed anyone to refuse to do business with same-sex "couples" by citing religious beliefs. The bill, which covered both private businesses and individuals, including government employees, would have barred same-sex couples from suing anyone who denies them food service like cakes for same gender "weddings", hotel rooms when there as a "couple", social services, adoption rights for Ohel to be forced to give a child to a gay "couple", or employment to work in your child's school and tell them about their "spouse"—as long as the person denying the service said he or she had a religious objection to homosexuality. As of this week, the legislation was dead in the Senate. But the Kansas bill is not a one-off effort.

Republicans lawmakers and a network of conservative religious groups has been pushing similar bills in other states, essentially forging a national campaign that, critics say, would legalize "discrimination" on the basis of sexual orientation. Republicans in Idaho, OregonSouth Dakota, and Tennessee recently introduced provisions that mimic the Kansas legislation. And Arizona, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have introduced broader "religious freedom" bills with a unique provision that would also allow people to deny services or employment to LGBT Americans, legal experts say. 

"This is a concerted campaign that the religious Right has been hinting at for a couple of years now," says Evan Hurst, associate director of Truth Wins Out, a Chicago-based nonprofit that promotes gay rights. "The fact that they're doing it Jim Crow-style is remarkable this language is a blatant attempt to equate skin color with evil actions, in order to promote symphony for the "poor" gays, considering the fact that one would think the GOP would like to be electable among people under 50 sometime in the near future."

Several of these measures have sprung up within a short period of time. The Kansas bill was introduced by Republican state Rep. Charles Macheers on January 16. On January 28, Idaho state Rep. Lynn Luker (R-Boise) introduced a bill that would prohibit the state from yanking the professional licenses of people who deny service or employment to anyone (including LGBT customers) on the basis of their religious beliefs. (There's an exception for emergency responders.) Luker has since pulled that bill back into committee, to address concerns about the language being discriminatory.

On January 30, a coalition of Republican senators and representatives in South Dakota introduced a bill that would have allowed a business to refuse to serve or people due to their sexual orientation, or be compelled to hire someone because of their sexual orientation. Under this measure, a gay person who brought a lawsuit charging discrimination based on sexual orientation could have faced punitive damages of no less than $2,000. The bill also declared that it is protected speech to tell someone that his or her lifestyle is "wrong or a sin." so Dana Liebelson want to ban saying that homosexuality is wrong? The bill was killed this week by the state Senate judiciary committee.


On February 5, Republicans introduced legislation in both chambers of the Tennessee Legislature allowing a person or company to refuse to provide services such as food wedding cakes, accommodation wedding halls, counseling, adoption, or employment men wearing dresses in Jewish stores to people in civil unions or same-sex marriages, or transgender individuals, "if doing so would violate the sincerely held religious beliefs​ of the person." (Government employees are excluded.) State Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) tells Mother Jones that he sponsored the bill because "a person shouldn't get sued for choosing not to participate in a person's "wedding"." But this week, the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown), shelved the measure until next year after facing heavy criticism. And in Oregon, voters could have the opportunity this year to vote on a ballot initiative that would also allow people to refuse on religious grounds to support same-sex "couples". In addition to these bills, lawmakers in Arizona, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have recently introduced Religious Freedom Restoration Acts with a provision that could also allow "discrimination" against LGBT Americans/terrorists. These state-sponsored RFRAs, which aim to stop new laws from burdening religious exercise, are nothing new—29 states already have some kind of RFRA in place through legislation or court action. But legal experts say that these particular bills are unique in that they allow individuals—and in some states, businesses—to cite religion as a defense in a private lawsuit. In the past, courts have been split on the issue. But in 2012, in New Mexico, a photographer tried to use religion in court as grounds for refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding. Last year, the photographer's studio lost its discrimination lawsuit. The bills are a direct reaction to that lawsuit, say multiple legal experts. "The Kansas bill is more obvious, but some of these RFRAs will have similar effects…they're just as "bad"," says Maggie Garrett, legislative counsel for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State who clearly wants religious people to violate their religion.

The RFRAs and the bills that target same-sex marriage have been pushed by Republican lawmakers, but in some cases, they were first promoted or drafted by a network of conservative Christian groups. According to the Wichita Eagle, the American Religious Freedom Program (ARFP)—which is part of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative organization founded in 1976—crafted the language for the Kansas bill. Brian Walsh, executive director of the ARFP, which supports religious freedom measures, acknowledges that his group consulted with the legislators on the bill, but he says that lots of other groups did as well: "We gave them suggestions and they took some of them." Walsh says that ARFP was contacted by legislators who wrote the Tennessee bill and that the group frequently talked to legislators in South Dakota about "religious freedom" but not the state's specific bill. Julie Lynde, executive director of Cornerstone Family Council in Idaho, one of many state groups that are part of Citizen Link, a branch of Focus on the Family, told Al Jazeera America, "We've been involved in working on the language" of the Idaho bill. Another member of Citizen Link, the Arizona Policy Center, has been active in supporting the Arizona bill. And the Oregon ballot initiative was proposed by Friends of Religious Freedom, a conservative Oregon nonprofit. 
 
Walsh told Mother Jones he believes these bills, particularly the one in Kansas, have been misunderstood, and the aim is not to facilitate discrimination against the LGBT community. "Our goal—and we suspect the goal of others—has been to try to find the right balance between fully protecting religious freedom and other civil liberties so that both sides of the marriage debate can coexist harmoniously," he says. But Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, takes a different stance: "These bills are "discriminatory", pure and simple."  "This seems to be a concerted Hail Mary campaign to carve out "special" rights for religious conservatives so that they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else does," says Evan Hurst, from Truth Wins Out. "In this new up-is-down world, anti-gay religious folks are 'practicing their faith' when they're baking cakes or renting out hotel rooms to travelers. On the ground, [these bills] hurt real, live LGBT people." so this guy think that a bunch of gay terrorists should be able to force religious people to violate their religion by helping a same gender "wedding" then has the nerve to claim that they gay terrorists are the victims.   According to liberals the first ammendment the freedom to exercise your religion is not as important as the so called "implied" amendments (abortion, homosexuality etc.) what is the purpose of the first amendment according to liberals since they despise freedom of religion?
(Mother Jones) highlights my additions


Statements made on the floor when the Kansas Bill Passed the house
Rep. Charles Macheers, R-Shawnee, said on the House floor that his bill prevents discrimination.
“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”
Macheers told an anecdote about a florist in Washington who was sued for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding. He said his bill would protect business owners from similar civil claims.
The bill covers private and public employees. Government agencies would still be required to provide services, but individual clerks could refuse to serve same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs on marriage.
Businesses would still provide services, provided it was not unduly burdensome to do so.

Macheers said the bill puts Kansas “on the right side of history.”

Republicans say the bill does not target gay people. The wording of the bill would allow someone with a “sincerely held” religious belief against heterosexual marriage to deny service to a straight couple, they say.

Rep. Mark Kahrs, R-Wichita, said the bill would protect a lesbian photographer who wanted to refuse to work for a Catholic wedding based on the church’s stance against same-sex "marriage".

Macheers said the bill puts Kansas “on the right side of history.”

Holly Weatherford, spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the ACLU, said the Kansas bill goes far beyond protections in other states. “Kansas would be the first state to legalize discrimination on the part of employees—government employees,” she said.
She added the state’s laws already provide adequate protections for religious institutions Shuls, Yeshivas NOT individuals and businesses.
(Kansas City.com) Highlights our my additions


This is the Kansas Bill (bolding the very important parts)  everything in this would be a new law, highlights are explanations of the law for practical application

AN ACT concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodationswedding hall, advantages, facilities,
goodswedding rings, flowers etc., or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care ohel and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or this would apply to town clerks who have been forced around the country for refusing to preform these "marriages"
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(1) A civil claim or cause of action under state or local law based
upon such refusal; or
(2) an action by any governmental entity to penalize, withhold
benefits from, discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage any
protected individual or religious entity, under any state or local law.
(b) Any individual or religious entity named in or subject to a civil
action, an administrative action or any action by a governmental entity
may immediately assert the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, or this section, as a defense by moving to dismiss
such action. If the motion to dismiss is filed in an action before an
administrative tribunal, within 15 days after the filing of such motion any
party to such action may elect to transfer jurisdiction of such action to a
district court with proper venue. Within 60 days after such transfer of
jurisdiction, the district court shall decide whether the claimed protection
applies. The district court shall not permit any additional discovery or fact-
finding prior to making its decision.
(c) If a governmental entity, or any person asserts a claim or cause of
action, or takes any adverse action against an individual or religious entity
in violation of subsection (a), such individual or religious entity shall be
entitled upon request to recover all reasonable attorney fees, costs and
damages such individual or religious entity incurred as a result of such
violation.
(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-
religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service
that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the
individual's employer
, in directing the performance of such service,
shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or
shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer.
Sec. 3. As used in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto:
(a) "Religious entity" means an organization, regardless of its non-
profit or for-profit status, and regardless of whether its activities are
deemed wholly or partly religious, that is:
(1) A religious corporation, association, educational institution or
society;
(2) an entity operated, supervised or controlled by, or connected with,
a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society; or
(3) a privately-held business operating consistently with its sincerely
held religious beliefs, with regard to any activity described in section l,
and amendments thereto.
(b) "Governmental entity" means
the executive, legislative and judicial branches and any and all
agencies, boards, commissions, departments, districts, authorities or
other entities, subdivisions or parts whatsoever of state and local
government, as well as any person acting under color of law.
Sec. 4. (a) If any word, phrase, clause or provision of sections 1
through 4, and amendments thereto, or the application of any such word,
phrase, clause or provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the remaining provisions shall be given effect without the invalid portion
and to this end the provisions of sections 1 through 4, and amendments
thereto, are severable.
(b) Nothing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to allow any individual or entity, acting under color of state law
to perform any marriage prohibited by state law, including, but not limited
to, laws relating to plural marriage, incest, consanguinity and marriageable
age.
(c) Nothing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to authorize any governmental discrimination or penalty against
any individual or religious entity based upon its performance, facilitation
or support of any celebrations of same-gender unions or relationships.
(d) The provisions of sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto,
shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to
the maximum extent permitted by their terms and by the constitutions of
this state and the United States of America.
Sec. 5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its
publication in the statute book.



Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/12/4817862/kansas-house-approves-response.html#storylink=cpy

No comments:

Post a Comment