![]() |
Rep. Charles Macheers |
Macheers' bill declares that no individual, business or religious group with “sincerely held religious beliefs” could be required by “any governmental entity” to provide services, facilities, goods, employment or employment benefits related to any same-sex marriage or domestic partnership. The measure would effectively bar anti-discrimination complaints and legal actions
![]() |
Sen. Ernie Otten |
Otten's bill would prevent clergy or businesses from being forced to perform or supply goods or services to anything related to same-sex marriages. It would permit a business to refuse to host a reception for a same-sex couple legally married in another state. Of course clergy need no such protections. It's an added bit of demagoguery.
“We don't serve your kind here.”
In both of these states there is reliance on numerous myths about the purposes for, and the obligations of, public accommodations:
- As a matter of public policy we have clearly defined what constitutes a public accommodation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 relies upon that irrefutable understanding.
- Customers neither seek nor require the approval of merchants. Public accommodations are obligated to serve all customers. These politicians are trying to subvert the very purpose of non-discrimination laws.
- Religious liberty is clearly defined in the First Amendment to the United State Constitution. It is understood to mean what people do in their homes and their houses of worship. Indeed, there is no such thing as a “Christian business.” There are businesses that happen to be owned or run by Christians.
- A business license is a privilege — not a right. Public accommodations cannot succeed without a considerable amount of infrastructure provided by the state. That infrastructure is paid for by all citizens, not just conservative Christians.
- Such laws insult the Establishment Clause contained in the First Amendment.
- The United States Supreme Court has already weighed in on this issue. Writing the majority opinion in Employment Division v Smith, Justice Scalia (of all people) makes it perfectly clear that religious exemptions make otherwise valid laws entirely unenforceable.
By the way, who's next? Who else might these same people disapprove of? Fairness and equality are at the very core of American culture and society. Do we really want to start chipping away at something that important?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.