Will businesses be protected from the LGBT agenda?
The Missouri State Senate has passed Senate Joint Resolution (SJR39) that will put to the voters a Constitutional amendment protecting those of us who want to live out the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman in Missouri.
I don't need to tell you that our First Freedom is under attack.
As we've seen across the country Christians who stand for marriage have been under attack, even being sued for not using their talents to support same-sex "marriage". The far-left media is losing it over this bill. Here's the NY Times article. The other side will be aggressively lobbying to stop this bill.
NY Times article below:
A bill to give some of the nation’s broadest legal protections to opponents of same-sex marriage took a crucial step forward in Missouri on Wednesday, winning approval in the State Senate after Republicans used a rare procedural move to break a 39-hour filibuster by Democrats.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in June legalizing gay marriage, legislators in many states have introduced bills that they say would protect religious freedom and that opponents say would permit discrimination. In some respects, the Missouri bill would go beyond any law now in place, prompting challenges that could keep the issue before the courts for years.
The bill, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would shield religious groups and businesses from having to facilitate same-sex weddings. Opponents contended that the bill was probably unconstitutional, and that the wording could lead to much broader consequences, like denying social services, education, employment or housing to married gay people.
Democrats began a filibuster on Monday, but with Republicans holding an overwhelming Senate majority, it was clear that opponents could only delay the bill. The General Assembly allows lawmakers to cut off a debate by submitting a letter signed by a simple majority of the members; the rule is often invoked in the House, but rarely in the Senate.
On Wednesday, entering the third day of debate, 21 Republicans signed such a letter. The vote was called, and the bill passed, 23 to 9. The Senate must pass the bill again before sending it to the House, which is also controlled by Republicans. If both chambers approve it, the measure willgo on the ballot this year.
“To stand up for people who’ve been discriminated against and disenfranchised, of course it was worth it,” said Senator Maria Chapelle-Nadal, a Democrat. She predicted “a very difficult session” for Republicans, saying that Democrats would keep using stalling tactics.
Each side accused the other of being unwilling to compromise.
Senator Ron Richard, the Republican president pro tem, said the majority had no choice but to force a vote. “We rarely use it, but we couldn’t come to a negotiated settlement that was fair to the sponsor and to our caucus,” he said, “and we had to move on.”
The long debate veered from same-sex marriage, to unrelated bills, to topics far removed from public policy, like which shoes were best for afilibuster. Sleep-deprived Democrats appeared in shifts, holding the floor while others took breaks to nap, shower or change clothes.
Twenty-one states have what backers call religious freedom laws, which do not mention same-sex couples but make it harder to win a lawsuit for discrimination based on religious belief.
The Missouri bill is part of a new batch of measures that explicitly addresssame-sex marriage and attempt to pre-empt such lawsuits entirely. None of the measures have become law so far. The Missouri bill states that clergy members and religious groups would not have to facilitate gay weddings and celebrations, a widely agreed-upon principle. But it also would give businesses like caterers and florists the right to refuse services.
What troubles opponents most is a passage that does not mention weddings; in fact, it does not limit what actions it would apply to. The passage would shield religious groups from being penalized for acting “in accordance with a sincere religious belief” about same-sex marriage, and lists many things that could qualify as religious organizations, including schools, charities and retirement homes.
Critics said that could mean denying married gay people housing, employment, social services and schooling.
The Missouri law does not ban discrimination against gay or transgender people, but a handful of local ordinances do; the proposed amendment would supersede elements of those.
Such laws “in some states have been used as weapons against people of religious faith,” said Senator Bob Onder, the Republican sponsor of the bill. “My bill, on the other hand, is a shield, not a sword.”
Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, said, “This reckless legislation has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with enabling discrimination against L.G.B.T. Missourians and their families.”
A bill to give some of the nation’s broadest legal protections to opponents of same-sex marriage took a crucial step forward in Missouri on Wednesday, winning approval in the State Senate after Republicans used a rare procedural move to break a 39-hour filibuster by Democrats.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in June legalizing gay marriage, legislators in many states have introduced bills that they say would protect religious freedom and that opponents say would permit discrimination. In some respects, the Missouri bill would go beyond any law now in place, prompting challenges that could keep the issue before the courts for years.
The bill, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would shield religious groups and businesses from having to facilitate same-sex weddings. Opponents contended that the bill was probably unconstitutional, and that the wording could lead to much broader consequences, like denying social services, education, employment or housing to married gay people.
Democrats began a filibuster on Monday, but with Republicans holding an overwhelming Senate majority, it was clear that opponents could only delay the bill. The General Assembly allows lawmakers to cut off a debate by submitting a letter signed by a simple majority of the members; the rule is often invoked in the House, but rarely in the Senate.
On Wednesday, entering the third day of debate, 21 Republicans signed such a letter. The vote was called, and the bill passed, 23 to 9. The Senate must pass the bill again before sending it to the House, which is also controlled by Republicans. If both chambers approve it, the measure willgo on the ballot this year.
“To stand up for people who’ve been discriminated against and disenfranchised, of course it was worth it,” said Senator Maria Chapelle-Nadal, a Democrat. She predicted “a very difficult session” for Republicans, saying that Democrats would keep using stalling tactics.
Each side accused the other of being unwilling to compromise.
Senator Ron Richard, the Republican president pro tem, said the majority had no choice but to force a vote. “We rarely use it, but we couldn’t come to a negotiated settlement that was fair to the sponsor and to our caucus,” he said, “and we had to move on.”
The long debate veered from same-sex marriage, to unrelated bills, to topics far removed from public policy, like which shoes were best for afilibuster. Sleep-deprived Democrats appeared in shifts, holding the floor while others took breaks to nap, shower or change clothes.
Twenty-one states have what backers call religious freedom laws, which do not mention same-sex couples but make it harder to win a lawsuit for discrimination based on religious belief.
The Missouri bill is part of a new batch of measures that explicitly addresssame-sex marriage and attempt to pre-empt such lawsuits entirely. None of the measures have become law so far. The Missouri bill states that clergy members and religious groups would not have to facilitate gay weddings and celebrations, a widely agreed-upon principle. But it also would give businesses like caterers and florists the right to refuse services.
What troubles opponents most is a passage that does not mention weddings; in fact, it does not limit what actions it would apply to. The passage would shield religious groups from being penalized for acting “in accordance with a sincere religious belief” about same-sex marriage, and lists many things that could qualify as religious organizations, including schools, charities and retirement homes.
Critics said that could mean denying married gay people housing, employment, social services and schooling.
The Missouri law does not ban discrimination against gay or transgender people, but a handful of local ordinances do; the proposed amendment would supersede elements of those.
Such laws “in some states have been used as weapons against people of religious faith,” said Senator Bob Onder, the Republican sponsor of the bill. “My bill, on the other hand, is a shield, not a sword.”
Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, said, “This reckless legislation has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with enabling discrimination against L.G.B.T. Missourians and their families.”
