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
- Nick Sippel of Schaller, Iowa Shot by Law Enforcement in Sac County, Iowa
- UPDATED: Sac County Sheriff's Department looking for anyone with information about man found dead in car in Early, Iowa
- Sac City Council approves resolution of support for Loring Hospital
- Notice of Death - Edward Pickhinke
- Sen. Grassley Roundup
- Sac County Small Claims Court – May 24, 2011 to May 30, 2011
- February 14, 2011 Sac City Council Agenda
- Minutes of the March 8, 2011 Odebolt City Council Meeting
- East Sac County Schools will not be having school today, Feb. 2.
- VIDEO - Voters unhappy with Mediacom
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