Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Governor won't sign religious freedom bill...


H132

Recommended Posts

LITTLE ROCK, AR, April 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has insisted that the state legislature revise a religious freedom bill it passed earlier this week, apparently hoping to minimize backlash from homosexual activists. Had the legislature refused to act, the bill would have become law without Hutchinson’s signature in just a few more days, but as of late Wednesday night, the Senate had altered the bill to his specifications and sent it to the House for a possible Thursday vote.

Arkansas’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was based on a Clinton-era federal law of the same name, and passed Tuesday amid a firestorm of criticism over a similar law passed in Indiana and signed by Republican Gov. Mike Pence. Gay activists are calling both bills “anti-gay discrimination bills,” despite the fact that their wording differs only slightly from the federal RFRA.

The RFRA is designed to allow religious believers exemptions from certain laws that compel actions that violate their religious beliefs. The federal version was passed to protect a group of Native Americans who smoked peyote as part of their religious rituals from federal drug laws prohibiting the use of the substance. Since then, it has applied to numerous other situations, including Muslim prisoners who objected to rules requiring their faces to be clean-shaven, and Catholic pharmacists who refused to dispense abortifacients and contraceptives. More recently, the Supreme Court ruled in its Hobby Lobby decision that closely-held for-profit corporations owned by Christians could not be forced by the Obama administration to provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-causing drugs.

The federal RFRA is so vaguely written that different federal courts have come to different conclusions about who can use it for legal protection against whom. Some federal courts have ruled that the federal RFRA applies only to individuals who believe their religious rights have been infringed by the federal government. Others – including the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby decision – have interpreted the law to apply to any entity – individual, church, or corporation – that believes its religious rights are being violated.

Arkansas’ RFRA was written in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision to make clear that it is intended to protect both individuals’ and corporations’ religious freedom rights from infringement by governments and private citizens alike. The proposed law would also allow entities to sue in the event legislation is enacted that is likely to infringe on their religious freedom, whether or not any violation has yet occurred.

According to homosexual activists, these clarifications give far too much deference to religious believers, especially owners of for-profit corporations. They say updated RFRAs like Arkansas’ would enable any business to refuse service to gays and lesbians on religious grounds.

Meanwhile, the bill’s supporters say it was never intended to unleash a free-for-all of discrimination against any group.

"What my bill was focused on was to let somebody believe what they want to believe, carry out that belief and not have the state interfere with it,” the bill’s House sponsor, Republican Rep. Bob Ballinger, told CNN.

“If it’s a butcher who is a Muslim and doesn’t deal in pork, you can’t make him deal in pork ... If it’s a Christian who is against same-sex marriage, you can’t make him perform a same-sex marriage,” Ballinger told his colleagues in a Feb. 10 committee meeting.

Read More... lifesitenews.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm disappointed in Asa Hutchinson. I never considered him a political coward before now. These laws discriminate against no one. They simply protect the religious speech and choice of people of faith. ALL FAITHS.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how do we define an "organised religion" ?

Hey, I'm an observing member of the Church of Elevated Horticulture. My scriptures require that I carry a belt-fed fully-automatic machine gun wherever I go, along with a quantity of explosives. So thats OK, yes ?

No. Not really.

In my opinion, the law is the law, for everybody. In the case of the Native Americans, then they can be allowed to smoke Peote (or whatever you do with it) only at specific religious gatherings, which have to be supervised by a sanctioned Priest (or whatever they have), and such events to be licensed on a case-by-case basis by the FBI and the local State.

The Order of the Elevated Horticulturalists would only be able to handle belt-fed machine guns during its annual gathering, in the middle of the desert, licensed by the relevant state, and supervised by the FBI... as already is the case with machine gun collectors .

They could handle explosives during similarly managed and licensed events called "Firework parties" ... as is already the case in the USA with Class 1.3G fireworks, or in the UK with Category 4 fireworks ... both commonly known as "display" fireworks).

The point I'm aiming towards is that it is possible to accomodate specific religious ceremonies with the general Law, WITHOUT creating a "free-for-all".

In the case of the Muslim prisoners: they would have to be clean shaven, BUT the authorities would issue them with false beards to be worn during - and only during - prayer. (perhaps in tandem with attached "googly-eye" spectacles, which would be hilarious as they bend down in prayer, and give all the other prisoners a source of well-needed humour)

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting article :

https://www.lifesite...t-a-human-right

It seems that these types of bills are vote losers even in Republican states. No Governor is going to make a decision that loses him votes.

Br Cornelius

Hence my opinion of their cowardice, but I agree that this issue is a loser for any candidate who stands against it. I have no problem with same sex marriage so long as pastors who dissent are not forced to solemnize them. There are plenty who will gladly do so.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Hence my opinion of their cowardice, but I agree that this issue is a loser for any candidate who stands against it. I have no problem with same sex marriage so long as pastors who dissent are not forced to solemnize them. There are plenty who will gladly do so.

As far as I am aware there has not been any pressure placed on any Pastor to marry any gay couple. I could be wrong but I doubt it since why would anyone indulge in bull baiting after the fight is already won. When its made clear to you that you are not welcome in a particular church why would you even consider asking that priest to sodomize the most important day of your life - especially when there are Pastors who will happily marry you.

I find it difficult to understand how any gay person could remain a Christian in such a toxic environment.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists and LGBT community are increasingly being targeted as of lately. Oklahoma recently passed a law barring Atheists and LGBT community from being married which is completely against the constitution. Being an Atheist, the mindset of America today is very freighting indeed. Majority of Americans don't understand United States isn't an Christian Nation, but an Secular Nation designed to respect all religions, while keeping separation between church and state. Hell the currency and pledge never had god in them until the height of the cold war against Soviet Russia, they made changes to make United States seem to be the exact opposite of Soviet Union. I am not an conspiracy theorist in all sense, but I notice that Christians are pushing hard to place their religion on state level and make it the official religion of United States which is sad. The ignorance is really astonishing, those who are not Christian are watching United States' constitution being trampled by those who are in power, which will sooner or later will reach the breaking point where our discriminated groups and minorities will stand up.

It is very heart breaking... we are watching power hungry individuals who don't care about the constitution being empowered by uneducated Christians who want to transform this nation.

Edited by Uncle Sam
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists and LGBT community are increasingly being targeted as of lately. Oklahoma recently passed a law barring Atheists and LGBT community from being married which is completely against the constitution. Being an Atheist, the mindset of America today is very freighting indeed. Majority of Americans don't understand United States isn't an Christian Nation, but an Secular Nation designed to respect all religions, while keeping separation between church and state. Hell the currency and pledge never had god in them until the height of the cold war against Soviet Russia, they made changes to make United States seem to be the exact opposite of Soviet Union. I am not an conspiracy theorist in all sense, but I notice that Christians are pushing hard to place their religion on state level and make it the official religion of United States which is sad. The ignorance is really astonishing, those who are not Christian are watching United States' constitution being trampled by those who are in power, which will sooner or later will reach the breaking point where our discriminated groups and minorities will stand up.

It is very heart breaking... we are watching power hungry individuals who don't care about the constitution being empowered by uneducated Christians who want to transform this nation.

Unfortunately the constitution is a barrage of loopholes, vague statements and cliches. It's all about how one person interprets something as apposed to another. I mean think about it...

Are you really free to own a gun? (yes if you get a permit).

Does anyone really own land? (the constitution prevent the government from owning land but How is that holding up?)

Do you have a right to hold a public protest? (sure.. in certain location after purchasing your permit).

Where in this country can you just walk up to a fruit tree and pick a fruit off of it and eat it without being called a thief?

etc...

Technically you have no rights at all... you have to purchase them as you need them and they expire. If so... try being homeless... you are either on public property or private property and if you don't have at least a dollar on you you are also guilty of vagrancy... then you're a criminal.

In reference to what you were saying, the states sometimes use these loopholes when they (state officials) decide it is beneficial to their votes or wallets. But when that is no longer benefitial tehy use alternate interpretations to reverse the meanings and laws. This country is not so much "for the people by the people" as it is "for rich people by political people". It's just an open ended statement is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equating the requirement for a permit to having no rights at all is pointless drama. Nor, for that matter, are all permits required to be purchased.

The point at which rights begin to be violated is not when they are regulated. Regulation is what distinguishes freedom from anarchy. Rights are violated when the regulations are unreasonable, unconstitutional, or unobtainable. Unless you can prove any of those three, then the only complaint left is that you don't like paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware there has not been any pressure placed on any Pastor to marry any gay couple. I could be wrong but I doubt it since why would anyone indulge in bull baiting after the fight is already won. When its made clear to you that you are not welcome in a particular church why would you even consider asking that priest to sodomize the most important day of your life - especially when there are Pastors who will happily marry you.

I find it difficult to understand how any gay person could remain a Christian in such a toxic environment.

Br Cornelius

You deem a person's closely held non violent values to be toxic and I disagree. But I think you will find the exact situation I mention becoming a reality soon enough. As I said, I have no problem with two people who love each other being given the right to be partnered in a way that makes them feel accepted in the community - because have no doubt, that's what the Gay marriage issue is really about. If it weren't then civil partnership would achieve all the rights that exist legally between husband and wife. No... I believe the issue is much deeper and it's about forcing everyone to truly accept the lifestyle as being normal and every bit as acceptable as traditional marriage. Like it or not there is a significant number of people who do not and will not accept it as such but will also not attempt to hinder what the majority in the nation decide to do - so long as it does not cross the line of compelling religious leaders to solemnize such unions against their will. When you see those cases appearing you will have to admit it is wrong for them to bring them OR make an excuse as to why Christians (not Muslims) will be vilified for refusing them. If you are correct then I will gladly admit I am wrong. Time will tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed in Asa Hutchinson. I never considered him a political coward before now. These laws discriminate against no one. They simply protect the religious speech and choice of people of faith. ALL FAITHS.

There's a limit, though, to religious (or any other type of) freedom. I've tried for years and still been unable to get a permit for human sacrifice. I'm being oppressed!!

I don't personally think it should be illegal to do business with anyone regardless of your reason (unless you work for or a vendor to the government). If I hang a sign on my building that says I don't serve gay, straight, Muslim or Christian (or anyone else), I believe that should be legal. I'm deliberately choosing to forgo the profit from that demographic in exchange for sticking to whatever convictions I have in that area.

That said, these laws are not about that kind of freedom. They're usually about trying to enforce your moral code on someone else. If the government mandates that employers pay for abortions for all employees, doing so is one of the prices of doing business. If you don't agree with the concept of abortion, don't abort babies. If you can't stomach the concept of being forced to pay for abortions, don't have employees. What the government mandates employers must do is what they must do.

If you feel that the government is overstepping, you try to change the regulations, not try to pass laws that allow everyone to ignore regulations. (Note: I'm not saying the government is making anyone pay for abortions, that was just an example I threw out).

No one's trying to force clerics to marry people in circumstances their religion doesn't condone ('cause, after all, who the hell wants to be married by a hostile cleric?). No one's trying to force cake bakers to supply cakes for gay weddings ('cause, after all, isn't that just the equivalent of ordering extra bodily fluids in your cake?). In situations like that, the outcry is just about publicizing these people's opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.