Iowa House proposes sweeping Jim Crow style law discriminating against a wide spectrum of people, including but not limited to homosexuals
Following is an excerpt from House Study Bill 50.
"This bill creates the religious conscience protection Act. The bill provides exemptions for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, societies, charities, and fraternal organizations, and individuals employed by such entities while acting in the scope of employment, from any requirement to solemnize a marriage, treat a marriage as valid, or provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for purposes related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage, if by doing so would cause such entity to violate the sincerely held religious beliefs to which the entity subscribes or the individual to violate the individual's sincerely held religious beliefs..."
Read the full bill - H.S. 50
Copyright (c)2007-2011 TheSacNews.com Inc. All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Top 10 Posts
- Minutes of the July 6, 2010 Sac County Supervisors Meeting
- Minutes of the December 22, 2011 Sac Community Center Board Meeting
- Passed Away - Luke Schleisman
- June, 2011 Sac City Library Department Head Report
- Passed Away - Duane Herrig
- Raiders Wrestle Above Expectations
- Sac County criminal court activity between the dates of April 14, 2011 and April 20, 2011
- Sac County Supervisors appropriate $3,694,700.00 for secondary roads
- State Fair Announces First Grandstand Show - KCCI Des Moines
- November 29, 2010 ESC Boys and Girls Junior Varsity Basketball Photo Collection Complete
Actually its not discriminating necessarily as much as it is protecting the right of say, the baptist church, from having to recognize and provide for something that is very clearly against its beliefs.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't reading it deeply enough.
ReplyDeleteNo church is currently required to perform a marriage ceremony that is against its beliefs. If that's what they're trying to do, it's an unnecessary law. But there's clearly more going on here, so not only is it unnecessary, it's also quite likely unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete