So the brave culture warriors of Georgia’s GOP are trying again to protect the poor, persecuted Christians who may have to - gasp - encounter a Muslim, atheist, or even, the horror, a hommasex-shul. The Georgia Senate today passed SB129, which allows incorporated businesses to claim a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Sen. Josh McKoon, that valiant protector of decent (that is, Christian) folks all over Georgia, got the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Sen. Vincent Fort tabled it.
On March 2, after several hours of deliberations, Sen. Fort asked the committee to pause while he went to the men’s room. As soon as he had left, the fat Jesus-loving fuck from Columbus raised the bill, and the rest of the committee - Republicans to a pasty white man - passed it.
Nice.
Josh McKoon, you are a hypocritical, sleazy, Christo-fascist fuckstick. Do Georgia a favor and slide back under whatever rock you slithered out from, you miserable turd-fucker. Better yet, go to Alabama to have a prayer meeting with Roy Moore. You two can read the Bible and congratulate each other on how much God loves you and hates homos. Leave the rest of us alone.
Is there anything in the bible that says you shouldn’t serve or provide a service to sinners or heathens? I’m thinking that people go a bit far in what exactly you can do because of what a religion or what God says.
“Effects religious rights??” This is America, Joshy-boy. That means on my property you keep your religious crap in your mouth, in your home, all the damn time. You hate gays? Then just say it. Don’t back your racist hoedown with a religious reason. We have to be beyond this shit. (Vaccinations too)
Like I’ve said before, Neotards like this one shouldn’t be allowed to vote, let alone run for office. Let 'me pray to their imaginary, illiterate savior in a hole. I’d gladly supply the ammo and the banjo strings.
Doubtful. It’s modeled on the federal Restoration of Religious Freedom Act, and 20 or so other states have passed similar legislation. The way it’s worded is unobjectional: it merely says the state government cannot override a person’s right to freely exercise her religion without compelling governmental interest. The devil is in the details; legally, an incorporated business is a person. So a corporation - a la Hobby Lobby - can claim a right to practice a religion. McKoon insists that his bill wil not remove antidiscrimination protections, but attempts to add wording that makes preventing discrimination a compelling governmental interest, or to limit the bill to natural persons, were shot down.
I’m pretty sure that discrimination in public accommodations based on the religion of the customer is against federal civil rights laws. I don’t know how conflicts between those and the RRFA are resolved, but I suppose that the protection of civil rights could be considered a compelling governmental interest on the federal level regardless of whether or not the state regards it as such.
I’ve stated repeatedly on these boards that I am not religious at all, and practice no religion. And from that standpoint I don’t see what is objectionable about having a law that protects someone’s right to not go against his faith. It’s a founding principle of the country. And exemptions for religious practice goes back to the beginning. During the Revolutionary War, George Washington delivered an edict stating that all people in Westchester County (NY) would have to swear an allegiance to the cause. But since coding such a thing goes against the the Quaker faith, he allowed them to simply affirm their allegiance.
I’m really astounded that people are so quick to dispense with that protection. Sure the imbecile rabid atheists who want to erase all religion for the country except for the hour someone might spend inside a church or the like will carry that flag into battle. But other than the most rabid among them, YEESH!
The problem is that such religious principles were used, historically, to oppress. That’s how we got sundown towns, among many other extremely ugly things. Before it was illegal to turn away patrons based on race or religion, it became a nightmare just for a black family to try and drive a few hundred miles. Where could they get gas? Where could they get a meal, or a room for the night?
I don’t see this sort of thing as ancient history – it’s within living memory of millions. I think these laws are necessary to prevent such things from happening again.
While the oppression was certainly real I don’t think it was religion that was used in this case to justify it. It was simply basic racial discrimination, which I don’t believe gets a pass under this new law.
My point was that this could potentially create a whole new swath of “sundown towns”, except for gay couples, based on “religious principles” (I could have phrased it better, considering that it was not usually religious principles that were cited for past segregation).
Hey Carl and George… you want to drive from Houston to Raleigh, NC? Better not stop for a meal in towns A, B, C, D, E… better not run out of gas in towns F, G, H… better not get tired for the night in towns I, J, K…
It wasn’t just religion. But Jim Crow proponents certainly beat Biblical drums.
[QUOTE=Judge Leon Bazile]
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gov. Theodore Bilbo]
[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.
[/QUOTE]
How the heck is anybody gonna know? What, a couple of guys driving a mauve Honda Civic with Broadway show tunes blaring out of the CD player? OK, maybe a twelve pack of Coors in the back seat, that’s a dead giveaway, but other than that…
Which raises an interesting question: What if a person discriminates mistakenly based on their religious beliefs? Even better, what if they discriminate for other reasons but claim it was because of their religious beliefs?
Example, two black men attempt to do business and are told “we don’t do business with your kind”. They then attempt to bring civil rights charges against the business. The owner’s religion is not against blacks (at least not explicitly) but is explicitly against homosexuals. As a defense against the charges, the owner claims that he believed the two men to be a homosexual couple and therefore was within his rights according to the beliefs of his religion.
“Gay? Well, no, we aren’t. But, you know, now that you mention it, sounds like a pretty good idea! Hey, Fred, check your I-phone, see if you can find us a motel where we can go try out this being gay stuff!”