Breaking News - We'll return to the SA LGBT Series on Feb 21
FREEDOM OF RELIGION or PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION?
Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to Refuse Service to Gays Based on Religious Beliefs
FREEDOM OF RELIGION or PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION?
Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to Refuse Service to Gays Based on Religious Beliefs
BY LEONARDO BLAIR , CP REPORTER
February 20, 2014|11:10 am
State senators in Arizona voted heavily along
partisan lines Wednesday in passing a bill that allows business owners to
refuse service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
With Republicans in the majority, the bill, SB
1062, passed with a 17-13 vote. It defeated attempts to expand existing
employment laws which protect against racial and religious discrimination to
include sexual orientation, according to the Arizona Daily Star.
A companion bill is also expected to pass in the House shortly.Republican Sen.
Steve Yarbrough explained that the decision to support the measure is more
about protecting people of faith from discrimination rather that discriminating
against homosexuals.
"This bill is not about
discrimination," said Yarbrough who is a sponsor of the bill. "It's
about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their
faith."
The Arizona Senate Democratic Caucus responded
in a statement that the group opposes the bill because
it "conflates discrimination with religious freedom."
"SB 1062 permits discrimination under the
guise of religious freedom," said Senate Democratic Leader Anna Tovar in
the statement. "With the express consent of Republicans in this
Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and
unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may
also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion,
sex, national origin, age or disability."
Democratic Sen. Steve Gallardo who represents
Phoenix said while everyone has the right to their religious beliefs he doesn't
agree with the premise of SB 1062.
"I do not agree that we have the right to
discriminate because of our religious beliefs," said Gallardo. "I do
not believe we have to throw our religious beliefs to others that don't share
our same beliefs."
Arizona currently has laws protecting
individuals and businesses from any state action which substantially interferes
with their right to exercise their religion. SB 1062 bolsters that protection
by extending coverage to private transactions as well.
Contact: leonardo.blair@christianpost.com;
follow me on Twitter @leoblair
11 comments:
Good for Arizona, I say. It's about time someone stood up for religious freedom. At the moment the human rights of the majority is muzzled just to cater for the human rights of the minority, and that can't be right. Unfortunately, the civil rights of LGBT people are spilling over into religious sensitivities, and I believe all people should be able to live by their particular Christian/religious code, without falling foul of a civil legality. It would seem to cater for the difference between orientation and behaviours.
I am 100% in favor of LGBT rights, but I find myself taking a fairly libertarian approach to this kind of thing. If a privately owned shop wants to turn away gays, so be it, if a privately owned restaurant wants to ban black folk, go for it. Don't want Jews or Muslims in your gym? Have at it... It's your business, and you'll be the one answering to God for your sinful actions. You'll also be answering to some pretty scathing Yelp reviews.
OK..... Let's get something straight here. Being told you're not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and being prosecuted because you refuse to serve LGBT people in your business is NOT discrimination against people of faith. Being told you have to extend the same benefits and entitlements to LGBT employees and their families as you do to heterosexuals is NOT discrimination against people of faith.
The LGBT campaign for equality has not sought to discriminate against people of faith. Discriminating against people of faith would be denying people of faith access to services, shops, restaurants, etc. It would be saying that they do not have the right to go to church as it might cause offence to others. The LGBT groups are not about denying people their faith. There are MANY LGBT people who themselves are people of faith. What we are saying is that no-one has the right to force others to live the way they do. At times, it seems we must be forced to treat others the way we would like to be treated, but we do not have the right to force them to live the way we do.
To my knowledge, no LGBT group has ever launched a campaign to force people of faith to divorce their spouses and marry someone of the same sex.
You can have your beliefs, but no-one has the right to force their beliefs on others. LGBT people don't care if you don't agree with Same-Sex marriage, or if you even agree with equality etc. All they care about is that you don't deny them the same rights and privileges you have.
This bill DOES discriminate in the name of religion. People of faith already had all their religious freedoms protected in America, Australia, the UK, Europe etc. What it does is allow them to discriminate against others. Denying someone access to a service etc. is NOT expressing your religious beliefs - it is discrimination. Being told you're not allowed to force your beliefs on someone else is NOT discrimination, and it is NOT forcing the LGBT 'agenda' onto conservatives, and it is NOT forcing them to accept something they don't accept.
Please, my conservative brothers and sisters, get off your high horses and stop saying you are being persecuted and discriminated against because of your beliefs - because you are not. Most Western Christians today don't know what discrimination is.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London
'The LGBT campaign for equality has not sought to discriminate against people of faith.'. Get real, Mr Randall - I know of many instances where people of faith have been on the wrong end of the law just because they don't feel able to 'accommodate' the behaviours of LGBT people - and why should they? Convictions are convictions, whatever the orientation. Maybe if a minority of LGBT people didn't try to force their orientation behaviours down people's throats it might have played out differently. I don't discriminate AT ALL on matters of orientation - but to experience 'behaviours' - now that's another matter entirely. LGBT 'behaviour' doesn't feature in my world - why should the law force it on me? Live and let live.
Graeme- your post is right on the money as Arizona's right there in high horse country… If I were the CO/DC or a SA Board member, I'd immediately 'employ' some homeless persons with bakery training, rent the necessary baking equipment, ask Pillsbury, Nestles, etc to donate the necessary ingredients, and begin baking cakes with SS themes, and give them away with the proviso; donations gladly accepted.
The printed message and press release? The SA as a Christian organisation supports all loving unions, although we believe marriage was designed by God to join heterosexual union only. None-the-less we do not discriminate and wish to assist all persons in providing the dignity, respect and assistance without prejudice. May God bless you.
Please visit our website or call to select the wedding cake of your choice, the wording, delivery time and address.
YOUR PARDNER-
THE SALVATION ARMY
HIGH HORSE COUNTRY
USA
In response to a private email question I received from USA Central: I would not support making a SA site available for a SS wedding or reception. No need to anger the traditional or more conservative SA members. Should we offer counselling? Yes, in how persons can grow in faith and love- Include in corps sections? Only if SA soldiers and adhering to SA standards- Bless SS unions? Requires discussion, clarification and expectation if Salvationist…
The SA neither promotes nor does it endorse the various expressions of LG life styles. Neither do we act out any disagreements we may have with reference to their lifestyle decisions unless it's within our own fellowships.
The above questions are all essential concerns in the remaining posts in my series.
Blessings, Sven
Response to The Pardner - Former Salvation Army Officers Fellowship (I'm not sure if it's Sven or not!)
I truly hear your heart in the comment above. However, your proposed action could be critiqued as being inconsistent with one aspect of your belief (. . . we believe marriage was designed by God to join heterosexual union only).
Of course, you may not feel that your proposed action is inconsistent with your belief. However, I think that in this fallen and imperfect world in which we strive to live for God, we can all at times experience the tension of accepting varying measures of inconsistency between our beliefs and actions. But perhaps the area we hopefully can all agree on is that of our attitude, which should be to love our neighbour whatever their sexual orientation or experience of same sex attraction.
If this is the case however, it then follows that though we can have the same attitude, and there may well be variation in our beliefs, there is a likelihood that we may differ in how we each feel we should express our beliefs in actions. Therefore, there may well exist a CO/DC/SA board member with the same attitude and belief as you, but feel conscience bound to disagree with your proposed action.
Perhaps this indicates that foundational to moving forward in this complex situation with which we are faced, is the need to examine our own attitudes to ensure they are what they should be, but also accept the validity of others, even though their beliefs/actions differ to ours.
Regards
Bernard - Former UKT
The Salvation Army and other churches should absolutely NOT be forced to host SS weddings - and frankly, no one's arguing they should as far as I can tell.
However, let's be blunt here: refusing SS weddings is no different, theologically, socially or practically, than refusing to marry interracial couples.
Read these stories. Do they make you cringe? Embarrassed these people claim to be 'Christians'?
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577
40 years ago their viewpoints were the sincerely held, Biblically justified majority opinion. I'm confident our grandkids will look back at us in 40 year's time with the same sense of astonishment at our naiveté.
Allow me to clarify my position, this based on my experience and activities as an officer- I have officiated in SA forms of sacramental communion in 4 different territories, with a General present, and in other settings with TCs and other leaders, None objected ever.
I have dedicated children of unmarried non-Salvationist parents using SA texts.
I enrolled two recruits, persons that came to live and earn their GED at our Mid-Manhattan corps, only to learn a few months later that both were HIV positive. I later transported one to Belleview Hospital where he was diagnosed with full blown AIDs and given only months to live. He listed me as his father- a singular honour. I shared in all honesty with him that I had no words that I thought might bring him peace - He looked up from his bed and said in essence- "I never needed your words- it was you presence among us that we needed."
I have baptised Christians from various denominations when requested to do so - conducted Christian funerals for strangers when asked to so - On SA premises.
I would not hesitate to extend the Army's helping hand to people in need especially if ostracised or discriminated against unfairly.
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html
This was in 2011, and Pike County church voted the following week to reverse the decision. The headline says:
Members of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted 16-0 Sunday to make clear that everyone is welcome, "regardless of race, creed or color," and that the church wants to move forward in unity.
We voted as a church that we all get back in peace and love and harmony," the pastor said.
The person instigating this 'vote' has left the church.
I agree it wasn't a Christian thing to do, but this website always goes on about looking at things in a cultural setting. Kentucky is in the top ten of the most racist states in the US, so maybe we should give these people the same license as is given to LGBT in their particular 'cultural' pursuits. The 'they can't help it' scenario.
Incidentally, I don't agree with that, it's my view that no-one should be discriminated against at all, but if you apply an argument to one, you have to apply it to all.
Just want to state that I honour your Doings and Statements!
We are longing after to be like Jesus and to reach out to others like He did.
God bless you!
Post a Comment