Arkansas Senate passes religion bill seen as targeting gays

[cbayer]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/27/us-usa-arkansas-bill-idUSKBN0MN2JP20150327

Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:56pm EDT Related: U.S., POLITICS

BY JON HERSKOVITZ

(Reuters) - The Arkansas Senate overwhelmingly approved on Friday a Republican-backed bill whose authors say is intended to protect religious freedoms but critics contend could allow businesses to refuse service to gay people.

The Republican governor of Indiana signed into law a similar "religious freedom" bill on Thursday, prompting protests from human rights groups and criticism from some business leaders.

The bill advancing in the Republican-led Arkansas legislature says "governments should not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without compelling justification."

Supporters say a business should not be forced to, for example, cater a same-sex wedding if doing so would violate the religious beliefs of the owner.

more at link

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Maybe a moment of silence is in order.

Coming soon to a state near you. Produced, directed and brought to you by ALEC the makers of dominionist legislation everywhere.

[cbayer]

2. Yep, it's going to be a full on assault before SCOTUS can rule.

Sickening.

[edhopper]

3. Do not count

on this SCOTUS to overturn these laws.


you could be very disappointed.

[cbayer]

4. I stopped counting on SCOTUS doing the right thing some time ago, but

I do think (hope, wish, pray) that they rule on positively on GLBT marriage equality.

Honestly, I don't think this laws supporting bigotry are even going to make it to SCOTUS and will be soundly defeated at much lower court levels.

But I could indeed be very disappointed.

[edhopper]

5. Hobby Lobby, Voting Rights

nuff said

[cbayer]

6. The analyses I have read tend to indicate that they won't have any choice here, because civil rights

are civil rights.

[edhopper]

7. Voting Rights

not a problem any more, ask Roberts.

And their ruling won't result in discriminatory laws, ask Roberts.

They don't care about Civil Rights.

[cbayer]

10. Some of them do, to be fair.

But they do care about their legacy. I'm not betting on it, but I'm hopeful.

[edhopper]

15. One would hope

but I've seen to many GD post that seem to think it's a done deal that it would be over turned.

[stone space]

8. SCOTUS doesn't have the final say.

Not unless they rule correctly.

[edhopper]

9. Of course the do

if they don't overturn, it's the law.

If you are holding your breath for voters in these States to elect people who will, you have a looong wait.

[stone space]

11. If the Supremes uphold this, will you join me on their steps?

We are the court of last resort, not the Supremes.

[edhopper]

12. Do you think they care

about protesters on the steps.

[stone space]

13. We've done it before, and we can do it again.

Will you join me?

Let's show them a little militant atheism.

[edhopper]

16. When was it done before?

[stone space]

17. After Bowers v Hardwick, 481 of us were arrested on the steps of the Supreme Court.

That case was overturned in Lawrence v Texas.

[edhopper]

20. I don't think your protests did much

I think having Republican moderates still on the Court did.

[stone space]

22. So you won't join me if the uphold this?

OK.

Nobody is going to try to force you.

[edhopper]

23. Join you in a protest in Wash?

probably not.

I will oppose it in other ways.

[stone space]

24. That's OK. Not trying to inconvenience you.

DC is a long drive for me, too.

[edhopper]

25. I just think there are

other places for me to put my effort on this.

[stone space]

26. There were some folks out in downtown Indianapolis yesterday.

[edhopper]

27. That's great

I would protest here if they talked about passing such a law.

And perhaps Wash, if it was Congress.

I just don't think Robert's et al gives two fucks.

[stone space]

28. Militant Nonviolence is not fundamentally about persuasion, although it's nice when that happens.

I just don't think Robert's et al gives two fucks.

Militant Nonviolence is fundamentally about coercion.

[edhopper]

29. How would a protest on the SCOTUS steps

coerce these assholes to do anything.

[stone space]

30. How many? How long? How determined and resolute?

A decision upholding these laws would be a huge step backwards.

I can see no reason in that case not to confront them directly and militantly, were such an unlikely event to occur.

One can always find reasons that a struggle might fail.

[edhopper]

31. It's more about

Where the struggle is.
I don't see anything swaying them but their corporate overloads.
The fgjt should be in the States that are doing this.

[stone space]

32. Are we talking now?

Or after a hypothetical (and unlikely) Supreme Court ruling?

In the latter event, I would see a rather wide ranging struggle that would include the precipitating Institution that actually made the ruling nationally.

I can see no reason to let them off the hook.

[edhopper]

35. I just don't see

protest on the steps swaying any of these Justices.

I also don't see it as unlikely that they would rule in favor of these laws.

[LiberalAndProud]

33. Do you think the protest coerced the court

to reverse the decision 17 years later?

[stone space]

34. I think it was the right thing to do. (nt)

[LiberalAndProud]

36. That's a good reason to do a thing.

[cbayer]

14. Oh, if you turn up the volume loud enough, people do start to care.

We stopped a war.

[edhopper]

18. I think we can change this

Economic sanctions against these States is a start.

I just don't think any of it will affect Scotus.

[cbayer]

19. Economic sanctions could be powerful and I'm willing to participate

in any way possible.

SCOTUS is going to be a problem for awhile, particularly if the repubs get the WH.

[edhopper]

21. Shudder

I can't think about it.