Suppose a
bunch of religious extremist lawmaker Neanderthals decided to pass laws
permitting state licensed agencies, organizations and businesses to refuse
services to mixed race couples, or mandating that a separate category of marriage
license be issued to them.
If you
thought that kind of treatment is unconstitutional you would be one-hundred-percent
correct. The government can’t get away with making laws which deny equal
protection of the laws to mixed race couples.
Never-mind
all that, declare the Holy Homophobes. Yes, the Holy Homophobes are back in
Georgia and Kentucky! And when it comes to the matter of gay couples their
religious beliefs inform them that they have a perfect right to deny gays their
Fourteenth Amendment fundamental rights to equal protection of the law.
Georgia's
governor indicated that a bill is in the works allowing faith-based
organizations which are licensed by and receive financial grants and other
generous benefits from the state to refuse service to gay couples without
repercussion.
The
legislation is intended to prevent religious adoption agencies, schools and
other organizations from losing licenses, state grants, or other government
benefits on account of exercising their religious beliefs about same-sex
marriage. The measure as approved by the Senate allows individuals and
faith-based organizations to decline service to couples based on religious
beliefs about marriage.
Of course,
if faith-based organizations and individuals want to continue their
discrimination practices against gays, there is a perfect solution – stop taking
state money.
Meanwhile,
Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill that
creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, because,
as one homophobe senator explained: any form that does not include the words
"bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional
families.
The original
purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from
marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk
Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But
the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their
support for traditional marriage. "Quite frankly… That has nothing to
do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination,” deadpanned Republican
state Sen. John Schickel.
The
American Civil Liberties Union observed that the Senate was "setting a
dangerous slippery slope precedent by catering to one specific religious belief
and privileging that over others… Separate forms for gay and lesbian
Kentuckians constitute unequal treatment under the law… Pure and simple,
this bill is motivated by the desire to accommodate discrimination against
same-sex couples."
Democratic
Sen. Gerald Neal of Louisville said creating two marriage licenses is taking
the state "down a path that has already been paved in this commonwealth
that has a tendency to reinforce bigotry… Separate has never been equal,"
he said.
One must
understand what we’re dealing with here – a bunch of religious bigots who’ve
yet to learn their lessons about the United States Constitution Fourteenth
Amendment and the guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Holy
Homophobes!
Regarding licensing:
ReplyDeleteThe state requires a license to perform Activity X.
The state then asserts that applying for a license to perform Activity X constitutes surrender of the applicant's rights to freedom of religion and association.
You consider that reasonable?
My point is mainly directed at faith based organization that take state money whether licensed or not.
DeleteAs far as I know, the state would only require a license for an adoption agency because it has an interest in the welfare of children. The children have a rights which the state is obligated to protect.
Religious schools do not require a license and can discriminate.
Other faith based organizations are free to discriminate as long as they are not public accommodations. I consider that reasonable, yes.
Well, you were fine with that first sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe following two paragraphs contradict each other.
And then in the final paragraph you go back to the old "public accommodation" dodge where anyone who interacts with anyone else has to do so in accordance with your beliefs rather than with their own.
It's not so much that you're wrong, although you are at least partially wrong, is that your position is completely incoherent.
First sentence, check.Thanks.
DeletePublic accommodations dodge? you believe that a hotel open to the public ought to be free to discriminate based on race and sexual orientation. You paint with a wide brush, Tom.
Explain incoherent. Should a faith based adoption agency be free to discriminate against fat people. Gluttony is a sin you know. How about other businesses open to the public? Should they be free to discriminate based on any "sin?" Should they be free to deny service to blacks? If you believe that then, once again, we must agree to disagree.
I believe that if someone owns a room or rooms and rents them, that person is entitled to rent or not rent that room to any person for any reason.
ReplyDelete"Open to the public" is the same thing as the "public accommodation" dodge -- an attempt to turn private property into government property so as to forcibly impose one group's morality on everyone while pretending that's not what's being done.