http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/mississippi-anti-gay-bill_n_5087483.html http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/mississippi-approves-religious-freedom-bill-governor-expecte Haven't seen this posted in the forum... Is this as harmless as legally presented, or is it as harmful as publically perceived...? If it merely echoes a law already established in this country.... why was it deemed necessary to pass by the state senate...?
Agreed - this seems fairly confusing. These articles are excellent examples of terrible journalism, never explaining what, specificially, is controversial about the bill.
It depends on how crazy Mississippi judges are feeling, though it's unlikely that it will do much. The 1996 federal law mentioned was found unconstitutional as applied to states, so states that wanted such laws had to pass them on their own. I think Texas has one of these laws. If it is really is based on similar laws, all it does is modify the standards by which religious freedom cases are judged in state courts, and even if Mississippi judges are huge bigots, they'll still be reigned in by their supreme court or the US federal system. As far as I know, these types of law have disproportionately benefited less mainstream religious views and has not led to mass discrimination against gays anywhere.
Can't be outraged until someone gives a cogent explanation of why I should be. Though I don't really understand, either, why we need additional religious freedoms. We're up to our ears in religious freedom as it is.
Agreed need more info. Anyway I do find it ironic that a bill about religious freedom does this: [rquoter]The bill, called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will become law July 1. It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.[/rquoter] officially sanctions a belief in a monotheistic deity.
I read both articles waiting for the part that said "supporters argue the bill is good because......... Opponents argue the bill is bad because......." but it never came. I wonder if the author(s) even understand the bill....
Of course HuffPo will use this as a chance to take a shot at religion, which is becoming more and more popular with the liberal crowd these days. I'm not aware of any religion that doesn't advocate love for gay people.
Umm, my religion says I can't pay taxes, nor am I allowed to be restrained for eliminating infadels. Thanks for everything government.
As a good Christian would say: "We hate the faggotry act not the f***** himself. Just ignore the part where we believe he/she deserves eternal hell fire. That doesn't make us hate homosexuals. We love EVERYONE".
I am claiming that there is a religious group that hates gay people. They would call themselves Christian, but most others would not. I don't think they speak for Christians at all. But that doesn't change that they are practice their own brand of religion. If you (and bigtexxx, apparently) knew anything about the concept of religion, you'd know that's there are more religions than the Big 5 or whatever you're choosing to include. Westboro is one of them. They have a theology they believe in and followers that practice it. And they hate gay people. This isn't complicated stuff.
Sometimes I wish that once, the Mormons, Scientology or Islam is able to pass a law in the US that is based on their religious beliefs. Only then, being in the short end of the stick will these people understand the logic behind separation of church and state.