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
- New information released in Earl Ealey death investigation
- Mary Higgins' testimony at the Tracey Richter trial
- Dr. John Pitman III's testimony at the Tracey Richter trial - Part 2
- Iowa Natural Resource Educators Attend National Conference in St. Paul
- Sac County criminal court activity between the dates of March 17, 2011 and March 23, 2011
- Passed Away - Duane Herrig
- Dentist: Tracey Richter tried to extort him
- Minutes of the July 18, 2011 East Sac County School Board Meeting
- Joel, Zach, Jake and Wade Williams granted permission to bow hunt inside Sac City limits
- Passed Away - Dorothy Kruskop
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