Of course he does ~ ~ there are a few "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Bush expresses support for the right to discriminate
03/20/15 12:59 PM
By Steve Benen

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments fairly soon on marriage equality, and civil-right proponents are cautiously optimistic that the court majority will endorse equal marriage rights for all. Depending on the shape and scope of the ruling, the practical effect of a court victory will likely mean same-sex couples will be able to get legally married, as is already the case in most states.

But how the right responds to this scenario is another matter entirely. Some, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have pointed to a possible effort to change the U.S. Constitution. At the state level, meanwhile, Republican policymakers in places like Georgia, Arkansas, and Oklahoma are taking up bills “that would make it easier for businesses and individuals to opt out of serving gay couples on religious grounds.”

It’s not an entirely new fight. Last year, then-Gov. Jan Brewer (R) of Arizona vetoed a related right-to-discriminate measure. But with the high court weighing in, and several states scurrying to act, the fight is taking on additional salience.

Complicating matters, of course, is that this is unfolding in the midst of a burgeoning presidential campaign, with several Republican candidates trying to convince a far-right GOP base that they’re the right’s standard bearer. Yesterday, Jeb Bush weighed in on the subject for the first time.


If the former governor is looking for a way to present himself as a forward-thinking candidate, this is the wrong way to go.

The audio quality isn’t ideal, but to my ear, Jeb Bush told reporters, when asked about the pending proposal in Georgia, “I don’t know about the law, but religious freedom is a serious issue, and it’s increasingly so, and I think people that act on their conscience shouldn’t be discriminated against, for sure. And there should be protections, and so, as it relates to marriage equality – that may change, the Supreme Court may change that – that automatically then shifts the focus to people of conscience, and out of their faith make – they want to, um, act on their faith, and may not be able to be employed for example.”

That said, he reportedly added, “People have a right to do that, just as we need to be respectful for people who are in long-term committed relationships. Sorting that out is important.”

Admittedly, the awkwardness of Bush’s syntax makes this more difficult than it should be. It sounded like the Florida Republican wants “protections” for “people of conscience” who want to discriminate. Indeed, he said people who “act on their conscience shouldn’t be discriminated against” – as if prohibitions on discrimination is itself a form of discrimination.

This doesn’t have to be complicated. If marriage equality becomes the law of the land, should businesses legally be able to put a sign in the window that says, “We don’t serve gay couples”? Can employers legally announce a job opening and declare, “Only straight people need apply”?

It should make for an interesting debate among GOP presidential hopefuls.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bush-expresses-support-the-right-discriminate

It should make for an interesting debate among GOP presidential hopefuls.

The problem for any Republican running for national office today - and they created the problem - is that they have to walk a line between appealing to their far-right base and appealing to everybody else.

With some issues, it seems easier to that. I'm not certain that gay marriage is one of them.



The far-right-Christians seem to have succeeded in steering the discussion as gay marriage vs. religious freedom, with the implication that they are the ones suffering persecution.

Of course that is total BS.

We didn't stand for Mormons having multiple wives. Non-Mormon Christians have never argued that Mormons have this religious right.

Our rights as citizens are never concrete. For example, a citizen has the right to free speech, but not to the exclusion of all other considerations (as in the old "fire" in a theater).

So they take a stand against gays, wanting things like store owners to be able to refuse service.

First of all, if you want the so-called religious freedom to refuse to serve gay customers, are you going to apply this concept totally? Or are you only singling out gays?

Will you refuse to serve the man who is cheating on his wife?
Will you refuse to serve the woman who had an abortion?
Will you refuse to serve an atheist?

Secondly, how will you apply this fairly? Will you ask every customer about their sexuality?

Obviously this is just lot of whining by people that cannot let others live their lives without having some say about it. Jesus accepted a prostitute, can't you accept a gay person?

But the sad and scary thing is that these people are not on the fringes of society, they are now in our state and federal government.

Excellent post, John ~ ~ I'm very "anti" granting any "exception" or "accommodation" of federal/state law to any business needing/holding a public license to operate ~

Sooz

I agree, Sooz. A business can apply things equally (like requiring a shirt and shoes to enter), but not single out certain groups.

But corporations are people too.

One of your points John, is exactly how do I know against whom to discriminate? What if I think you are gay but you say you are not? What kind of proof do I have to accept in order to do business with you?

Exactly right, Queen.

Also, what happens when these people are shown discrimination by others? They already complain when a city bans Christian symbols on public property.

The bottom line is that these fundamentalist Christians seek special treatment. It ties into their view that the U.S. is a Christian nation, founded by Christians on Christian principles.

All of which is wrong, of course, but try explaining that to them.

Indiana Expected to Pass Bill That Could Legalize Discrimination Against LGBT Citizens
http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/23/indiana-expected-pass-bill-legalize-discrimination-lgbt-citizens/

The "arc of the moral universe" seems to be bending backward.

Based on the "Ark of the covenant"? which had some codicils added in the New Testament, namely this one which is conveniently ignored by many:

Mark 12:28-31

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

I mentioned above about refusing "to serve the woman who had an abortion", but it could get even worse.



In several states, Republican lawmakers are sponsoring bills that would allow employers to use “religious liberty” as an excuse to do whatever they want – including discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of religion.

Georgia's version of this religious liberty bill has already passed the state senate, but is running into trouble in the house, where even the speaker, a Republican, has expressed skepticism about the legislation.

Progressive activists in the state are leaving nothing to chance, realizing that if the bill passes, the state could see a new wave of discrimination similar to Jim Crow-style restrictions on African Americans. Some women's organizations are particularly concerned that right-wing employers could, for example, fire women who've had abortions.

more... http://www.alternet.org/gender/georgia-women-arrested-protesting-bill-would-let-employers-fire-women-whove-had-abortion

With more and more people moving away from organized religion and with many more people finding out they have gay members in their own families, this could backfire on them big time.

A rash of businesses refusing to serve anyone based on their religion, sexual orientation or any other "faith based" exclusions could generate enough publicity so that they lose customers from all quarters. We've seen how a boycott can work. Social media has power. I think that many more people than not are tired of this type of fundamentalism.

I agree 100%, roseanne ~ and these "good christians" [intentional lower case "c"] can't figure out why so many are turning away from religion ~

This kind of legislation will be an annuity for attorneys ~ and there also will be plenty of non-profits [ACLU for example] chomping at the bit to litigate ~

Sooz

What gets me is that these "people of conscience" are afraid to go loud and proud about their beliefs. They want to discriminate quietly under the table. They understand that their "principles" are abhorrent to many of their customers and that those customers would abandon them in a moment if they, the customers, understood how prejudiced they were. Because they want to hide their light under the basket so to speak, they are terrified of having to post signs in their window announcing how faithful they are to their religion. In short, they want to be able to discriminate but they don't want to be discriminated against.

Another stellar commentary from Gene Robinson ~ there are a few "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Gene Robinson / Call It What It Is / 03.25.15
Religious Freedom? Nope, Just Plain Old Discrimination

Conservatives can’t stop gay marriage. But they can stop laws that prevent discrimination. And in Indiana and elsewhere, they’re succeeding.

Religious conservatives have lost their battle over gay marriage. Most will even admit it. The clock is ticking down to April 28, when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for and against it—and by the end of June, they will have ruled on the right of every American to a civil marriage to the person of their choosing, regardless of gender. Although a “no gay marriage” ruling is possible, almost no one believes the Supreme Court will rule against the civil right to marriage.

Majority support for gay marriage is to be found in virtually every demographic in society. But the minority who still opposes it does so with vigor and conviction. The Roman Catholic hierarchy (not the people in the pews) and conservative Evangelicals continue to look for ways to express their disdain and condemnation for gay or lesbian couples who want to be married or who have been married. The new strategy is to do state-by-state what has been impossible nationally. Bills are popping up all over the country in state legislatures with what conservatives hope will be their effective (and legal) defense against the rising tide of acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

Indiana is a good case in point. On Monday, the Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill that would exempt individuals and companies from non-discrimination rulings by the courts—based on their religious beliefs. A similar bill was passed earlier by the Indiana Senate, and once the two are reconciled, Republican Governor Mike Pence has indicated he will sign it. This legislation, like its sister bills in other state legislatures, is based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) bill passed by the U.S. Congress in 1993. Many states have their own RFRAs, which, like the federal one, prevent any law which substantially burdens a person’s free expression of religion. (This legislation figured heavily into the Hobby Lobby case.)

If this legislation becomes law, anyone who disagrees with any non-discrimination legislation or court rulings would be allowed, based on their religious beliefs, to disregard the provisions of that non-discrimination protection.

The multiple ways in which such legislation is problematic are stunning. First, this would open the floodgates for citizens/corporations to exempt themselves from all kinds of laws, merely by claiming that it violates their religious beliefs. Now, we are presumably not just talking about your common, everyday, vanilla, mainstream religions (think Methodists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Reform and Conservative Jews). Such a law would, presumably, also protect members of the Westboro Baptist Church with its “God hates Fags” approach; the crazy, renegade Mormon man and his 25 wives; Satan worshippers; and Scientologists. Almost anything passes for “religion” in this country, and there would be no end to the appeals for exemption following certain laws based on the tenets of one’s religion, no matter how small and no matter how outside the mainstream that religion.

However, religionists don’t have to be crazy or on the fringes of society to wreak havoc on those they disdain. In debating the bill, Representative Bruce Borders (R-Jasonville) cited an anesthesiologist who refused to anesthetize a patient because the procedure for which his services were needed was an abortion—all due to his religious beliefs about the sinfulness of that procedure. A Roman Catholic pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for physician-prescribed birth control, citing her church’s objection to any kind of artificial birth control. A Southern Baptist pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription for Truvada, the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) drug used by gay men (and others) to lessen their risk for being infected with HIV, claiming his church condemns the “gay lifestyle,” by which he means, apparently, promiscuous and profligate sex.

It is difficult for me to understand how this is not akin to the fervently held religious beliefs that the races should not “mix” in marriage, and the anti-miscegenation laws that emanated from those beliefs. Of course, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws as unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. How is this any different from a 1960s lunch counter owner denying service to African Americans because of his religious beliefs (widely held at the time) that “Negroes” were lesser human beings and citizens than white folks?

Taken to their logical and extreme conclusion, such laws could allow someone to ask to be exempted from meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, if that person’s religion believed (as in much of the Old Testament) that physical infirmities were the result of the afflicted person’s sin (or that of his parents), and “my religion condemns sin rather than cooperating with it.”

But these debates and legislation are not fueled by the religious adherent’s condemnation of sin. Chances are, the florist who refuses to provide flowers for a gay wedding does not deny service to a bride who is on her second or third marriage. Jesus is silent about gay marriage, but roundly and emphatically condemns remarriage after divorce. The photographer who refuses to take pictures for a lesbian marriage (because it is against God’s will) should also decline to photograph a lavish and ostentatiously expensive wedding (Jesus talks a lot about the sinful nature of greed). If this were seriously about not serving sinful people, then obese people would be turned away from fast-food outlets as obviously living the sinful “lifestyle” of a glutton. If this were really about condemning sin, then service would be denied to all sinners, not just a particular sin among a particular, targeted group.

Make no mistake: These legislative bills, like the one about to become law in Indiana, are about exempting some people from having to comply with non-discrimination laws already in place for LGBT people, as well as pre-empting and forestalling any efforts to put such protections in place. This is old-fashioned discrimination all dressed up in ecclesiastical vestments and “religious freedom” language. But it is still discrimination, pure and simple, against a targeted group of fellow citizens. No amount of cloaking such legislation in the garb of “freedom of religion” is going to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse.

EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article indicated that anti-LGBT marriage bills were drafted with the help of ALEC (the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council). This was incorrect; ALEC says it does not have a position on LGBT marital issues. The Daily Beast regrets this error.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C., and the retired IX Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. ...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/25/no-gays-allowed-now-legal-in-indiana.html

Now a "done deal" in Indiana ~ I'm hoping [and reasonably confident] the 19 states plus Indiana will see a marked drop-off in profits ~ and I'm looking forward to watching this be litigated ~ ~ Sooz

Indiana Gov. Pence Signs Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Bill Into Law
By Daniel Strauss Published March 26, 2015, 11:13 AM EDT

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) did it. On Thursday, he signed a controversial religious freedom bill into law that protects business owners from being required to serve same-sex couples if they have religious objections.

Pence said signing the bill into law makes sure that "religious liberty" is completely protected in the state.

"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement.

A number of businesses strongly voiced opposition to the law. The large tabletop gaming convention Gen Con threatened to leave the state if Pence the bill, but is locked into a contract until 2020. Star Trek actor George Takei also warned that the law could result in a damaging boycott of the state.

On Wednesday, leaders from the Disciples of Christ church said that if the bill was signed into law the church could possibly move its planned 6,000 person General Assembly meeting in Indianapolis to another location.

Just a week before the NCAA's March Madness Final Four games in downtown Indianapolis, the NCAA released a statement saying it was "examining the details" of the bill." The statement did not condemn the legislation but it did say that it was for "an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events."

Nineteen other states have similar laws to Indiana's new religious freedom bill.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/pence-signs-gay-marriage-religious-freedom-bill

Hey, why didn't the lunch counter owners in Selma think of this? They missed the boat.

For God's sake, don't let the Indiana legislature hear about that nutty California ballot initiative.

Guess that means I could refuse to do business with christians. Being of an atheistic bent, it goes against my religious beliefs.

Pence was a GOP/TP robot in Congress and he's maintaining his GOP/TP robot status as a governor ~ I predict he's gonna pay a very BIG price and be very very very sorry for choosing this path since there are so many companies and people calling for boycotting events in Indiana ~ Sooz

TPM LIVEWIRE
Pence: No Real Justification for New Anti-Gay Law (AUDIO)
By Daniel Strauss Published March 26, 2015, 3:45 PM EDT

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) was pressed by conservative radio host if something happened in Indiana to justify signing an anti-gay religious freedom bill into law. Pence said he wasn't aware of any recent examples.

"I'm not aware of cases and controversies. I mean as I travel around the state one thing I know for sure —Hoosier hospitality is the greatest in the nation. Hoosiers are loving, caring, generous to a fault," Pence said in an interview with conservative radio host Greg Garrison on Thursday. "People that have strong hearts, strong values. But this isn't about any present controversy as much as some in the media want to make it about. It's about making sure that Hoosiers have the same protections in our state courts as they have in federal courts and as 30 other states have."

Pence, in that same interview, said the law was modeled after legislation passed by Congress in 1993 and that the idea was simply to make sure Indianans had the same protections as elsewhere in the country.

Earlier in the day Pence signed into law legislation barring the state from requiring businesses to serve gay and lesbian people if those businesses had religious objections.

"This is about restraining government action, Greg," Pence said.

A number of companies warned Pence that if he signed the law there could be blowback through businesses going elsewhere. Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, said his company would cancel all its programs in Indiana in response to Pence. NBA star Jason Collins, Star Trek Actor George Takei, and the Eli Lilly Company, have all criticized the law.

Listen to the audio below, via opposition research group American Bridge below: [audio accessible via end link]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-greg-garrison

Nice try, oskar ~ but "atheism" is not a "religion" ~

Sooz

In Alabama, the "Religious Liberty Bill" bit the dust when Democrats were able to insert non-discrimination amendment. And then the debate turned anti-Semitic.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015 ... ation.html.

Very nice example of giving the bigots enough rope to hang themselves, gramps ~

Sooz

According to the United States Supreme Court and, even more recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals atheism is a religion. There have been a number of other cases where that has been reaffirmed. Depending upon whose ox is getting gored, sometimes atheists like the definition and sometimes they don't. In short they are morally wishy washy on the subject.

http://www.atheist-community.org/librar ... php?id=742

An article I read this morning on another site said the Indiana law was just a reflection of a federal law on religious freedom that's been in place since 1993. All the Indiana law does is ensure it applies at the state level as well as the federal level. The jurisprudence surrounding the federal law, which would also apply to the Indiana law, doesn't mean that businesses can automatically discriminate against gays or anyone else. It would depend upon the "burden" of the law. I don't know exactly what that means or if what I read was true, but I understood it to mean if someone could get the service elsewhere moderately easily and if it placed an almost traumatizing burden on the provider they could refuse the service.

The example given was a strongly Christian family trying to raise their children along biblical lines refusing to rent a room to a gay couple. In a city the couple could fairly easily find other accommodation and renting the room to them would truly offend the Christian couple's moral code and how they were trying to raise their kids and so they could discriminate. In a small village the opposite might be true.

they are morally wishy washy on the subject.

Like religionists.