"All Men Are Created Equal" Do we take that, literally, at face value and accept that only men are equal? Do we exclude women - are we supposed to? If we are being Constitutional Literalists where does it end? Only Christians have rights? Ship all the Muslims back where they came from? Blacks back to the back of the bus? It doesn't say "white only" but at our country's inception that's what it was - do we return to that? Is it really a black and white issue(or should I say white?) Or do we stay with gray - include EVERYONE - make no distinction for race, skin color, religion(or none), sexual orientation, gender, disability or whatever other difference that makes us this great melting pot. If we go gray then we must admit that we ALL have the same "inalienable rights". That we cannot allow discrimination of one people by another. We have made special accommodation thru law during the years for specific groups but only to make them "equal under the law." Blacks, women and gays were not afforded the same opportunities as white men in these United States, that is a fact, for many years.
And now in 2016 we have this -
"A Kentucky Senate committee has passed a bill that would allow store owners and other providers of services to refuse to serve interracial couples, interracial families, or couples of different faiths. In addition, the bill would prevent the refused couples from seeking redress through the courts.
...
What is the point of this, the worst-written bill in the history of legislation? To allow persons to refuse service to anyone, at any time, as long as they can say that the persons requesting the services offend their religious beliefs.
...
...
Think we’re exaggerating? It took only ten minutes with The Google to find churches in Kentucky who oppose interracial marriage. Think their members would like to be able to refuse service to interracial couples?"
"In a one-day specially convened session Wednesday, North Carolina’s legislature passed a sweeping law that reverses a Charlotte ordinance that had extended some rights to people who are gay or transgender.
The law passed by the General Assembly and signed that same night by Gov. Pat McCrory goes further than a narrow elimination of Charlotte’s ordinance, which had generated the most controversy by a change that protected transgender people who use public restrooms based on their gender identity. The new law also nullified local ordinances around the state that would have expanded protections for the LGBT community."
...
Here's Section 2, in its entirety: The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
...
Some groups have also noted that because an opposition to extramarital sex is also a protected belief, the proposed Mississippi bill could also impact unmarried couples and single mothers.
...
"Freshman Sen. Jennifer Branning, a Republican from Philadelphia [Miss.], presented the bill. She said it only has one goal: 'This bill in no way allows for discrimination by one person against another. What it does is it prohibits your government from discriminating against you with regard to your religious beliefs. That's the bottom line.' "In all, debate lasted a little more than three hours, with many Democrats arguing the bill was discriminatory against the LGBT community in Mississippi. Many drew distinct parallels between this bill and Jim Crow laws. Sen. John Horne of Jackson says Mississippi's history does not need to repeat itself. ... 'We don't need to put another stain on Mississippi.' "
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/01/472669895/heres-why-mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-is-so-controversial
America is taking a step backwards due to the beliefs of a small but dangerous group of Christian extremists. These are people who believe they are persecuted and in turn are seeking to legislate their narrow religious beliefs to oppress those they do not like or agree with. In the majority of these states, trying and also succeeding to enact this discriminatory legislation, the General Assembly and the Governor are not acting at the behest of their constituents. In Georgia the Governor just vetoed similar legislation after an outcry from citizens and local businesses and also a threatened boycott and withdrawal of business from large outside corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment