Missouri

[hnumpah]

Missouri's so-called religious freedom bill may be dead for this year. The amendment to the state Constitution would have protected people who didn't want to provide services related to same-sex marriages, including clerks, clergy and businesses.

Wednesday's 6-6 vote by a House committee stopped the measure from advancing, The Associated Press reports. Three Republicans joined three Democrats in opposition, the AP says.

The bill, which had drawn criticism from LGBT-rights advocates and the business community, could technically be revived. But Marshall Griffin of St. Louis Public Radio says that is very unlikely this year, given that a lawmaker who voted "no" would have to be part of pushing the legislation forward again.

The bill has been so controversial, in part, because it specifically is aimed at protecting people who believe "marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman," rather broadly protecting religious freedom for all, as The Two-Way has explained. In addition, the bill guarantees that the state wouldn't punish someone for actions taken with certain beliefs in mind.

Before the Senate passed the legislation last month, Democrats filibustered for more than 36 hours, as The Two-Way reported. Senate Democrat Jason Holsman, among those who started the filibuster, said:

"I represent a very large contingent of citizens who self-identify as either gay, or bi[sexual], or lesbian, or transgender. ... I look at this bill and I read it through their eyes, and when I read it through their eyes, I see a mean-spirited attempt to try and make the laws apply differently to me than they [do] for you."

Wednesday, Democratic House Minority Leader Jacob Hummel said the committee vote "will be remembered as being on the right side of history," according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

On the conservative side, the Missouri Alliance for Freedom called the defeat "the opening salvo in a long war," in a statement posted online. "We are not finished. While today's results are not optimal we are not going anywhere. Religious freedom is not negotiable."

Copyright 2016 NPR. To see more, visit NPR.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Religious freedom should not include the right to refuse to impose your religious beliefs on people in business deals. If your business deals with the public, it's an all or nothing deal: you have to cater to everyone, or no one.

You are free to set up a private club arrangement so you can cater only to those with all the prejudices you might have,

[Plane]

Religious freedom should not include the right to refuse to impose your religious beliefs on people in business deals. If your business deals with the public, it's an all or nothing deal: you have to cater to everyone, or no one.

You are free to set up a private club arrangement so you can cater only to those with all the prejudices you might have,

Should religious freedom include Quakers supporting escaped slaves?
There was a time when Congress did not think so.

If a person can be forced to do work as his religion forbids , then his religious freedom is damaged , a little or a lot , is a matter of degree not kind.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Arresting Quaker abolitionists is no longer an issue.

[Plane]

Arresting Quaker abolitionists is no longer an issue.

Yes , we finally did come round right , but that runaways should be turned in spent some time as settled law.

[sirs]

Exactly......which is why its intellectually lazy to simply proclaim "the court has ruled...now move along", based soly on that its a ruling one agrees with.  Laws have been wrong before....as have court decisions.  How many think the Supremes got it wrong on the Citizens United ruling??

So yes, some can smile and be giddy about the ruling against the free speech of the Baker, or the tabling of such a support to free speech in the state of Missouri.....doesn't make those decisions the right one.  In time, hopefully both legislative and executive branches at all levels, will come to correct the wave of political correctness, that's progessivly eating our Constitutional rights, just as they stopped arresting Quakers, when at one time it was supposed "settled law"

[Xavier_Onassis]

They stopped arresting Quakers because Quakers stopped helping slaves escape. After the 13th and 14th Amendments there were no slaves, Not legal ones, anyway.

[sirs]

In other words....what was "settled law", was no longer the case, with subsequent rulings that corrected a bad law/decision

[hnumpah]

The law, like society, evolves. 'Good law' or 'bad law' is a matter of perspective.

[Plane]

The law, like society, evolves. 'Good law' or 'bad law' is a matter of perspective.

You mean that the present progress of the progressive is very likely temporary?

Eventually people will want their freedom back?

[sirs]

The law, like society, evolves. 'Good law' or 'bad law' is a matter of perspective.

as in...it's an opinion if a particular law/ruling is good vs bad.  Yes, that's the point I was making

[hnumpah]

Okay, I was going to let it pass, but noooooo......

Look back at what I said about opinions.

Did I say my arguments were not opinions? MY damned opinions? No.

Problem? Get off it.

[sirs]

Settle down....I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or cast false aspersions upon you.  sheeesh.      I think we're saying the same thing here....aren't we??  That while rulings can be "factual" in what they're concluding, the ruling itself on whether its good or bad, is an opinion.  You're of the opinion that what they did in Missouri & Colorado was the right call.  I'm of the opinion that they got it wrong.  There's no validation to either of our opinions, since as you say, its a matter of perspective