Senator brings bill to deny service for religious reasons

[spuwho]

Missouri Republican senator introduces bill allowing the refusal of service for religious reasons

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/25/4848361/missouri-senator-introduces-religious.html



JEFFERSON CITY — A Republican state lawmaker filed legislation Monday that would allow Missouri business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for refusing to provide service.

Although it doesn't mention sexual orientation, the bill could provide legal cover for denial of services to same-sex couples.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Wallingford of Cape Girardeau, states that a governmental authority shall not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest.

To supporters of the idea — similar to legislation filed in several other states — the goal is to make it clear that private individuals can use religious beliefs as a defense in litigation.

"We're trying to protect Missourians from attacks on their religious freedom," Wallingford said.

Opponents contend bills like Wallingford's would allow businesses to discriminate against anyone they do not like, most notably gays and lesbians.

"It's a legislative attempt to legalize discrimination toward (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) individuals," said A.J. Bockelman, executive director of the LGBT rights organization PROMO.

Wallingford said he based the bill loosely on legislation that has been debated in other states, such as Kansas and Arizona. He pointed to instances that have cropped up in debate in those other states.

In Washington state, for example, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.

In both cases, the business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide services and were eventually sued.

"This is trying to provide a defense in those types of instances," Wallingford said.

He said the bill is also designed to protect businesses such as Hobby Lobby, which is engaged in a protracted legal fight to over the company's religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain types of contraception as mandated by the federal Affordable Care Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the Hobby Lobby lawsuit this year.

In the states where similar bills have been debated, controversy erupted.

In Kansas, the state House approved a bill to prohibit government fines and anti-discrimination lawsuits when people, groups or businesses cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

But that legislation has stalled in the Kansas Senate.

Gay-rights supporters planned to rally at the Kansas Statehouse in opposition to the bill Tuesday.

Wallingford was one of nine senate Republicans who joined with Democrats last year to pass a bill adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's Human Rights Act. State law currently prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender and age, among other categories, but not sexual orientation.

That bill died in the closing moments of the 2013 session when the House didn't bring it up for a vote.

Bockelman said Wallingford's bill sets up a situation where one Missouri law says certain people are protected from discrimination while another would essentially allow that discrimination if it were based on religious convictions.

"The Human Rights Act says there are protected classes, such as race and gender, with a history of facing discrimination," Bockelman said. "But this bill says a person's religious beliefs are more protected."

Wallingford said he still supports outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. He said his bill specifically states it would not apply to discrimination as it is defined in the Missouri Human Rights Act.

The Misssouri Human Rights Act only pertains to discrimination as it relates to "employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing."

"There should not be discrimination in the workplace," Wallingford said. "But businesses should be free to practice their religious beliefs."

Earlier this month, the House approved legislation sponsored by Speaker Tim Jones that would allow health care workers could refuse to take part in certain medical procedures that violate their ethical or religious beliefs.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/25/4848361/missouri-senator-introduces-religious.html#storylink=cpy

[spuwho]

Ariz. bill on refusing service: Furor, urgent appeals to Gov. Brewer

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-sh-arizona-anti-gay-bill-20140225,0,1829342.story#ixzz2uO3r8lvl

Arizonans are awaiting Gov. Jan Brewer's decision on whether she will approve or veto a law to bolster the rights of business owners to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of religion.
Pressure is mounting on both sides of the issue for her to act quickly. Those who oppose and those who support the state's latest high-profile law, SB1062, have taken to social media, big time, to express their opinions.
Some business owners — a pizzeria owner in Tucson as well as the chief executive of American Airlines — have decried the bill, saying it would be catastrophic to Arizona tourism if it were signed into law.
SB1062 EXPLAINED: Arizona business already can refuse gays
Other foes have threatened boycotts. Some big-name business and groups have urged Brewer to veto it, including Apple, Marriot and the 2015 Arizona Super Bowl Committee.
A few local business owners, however, have come out in support of the bill on Twitter. They believe the measure has been misrepresented as discriminatory when it is intended to protect religious freedom.

[carpnter]

While there are cases where a business owner's freedom of religion needs to be protected, this is not the way to do it. 
Also if someone is refused service for religious reasons, the person refused service should not be able to sue the business owner.  Can you imagine a Halal or Jewish butcher being sued for refusing to butcher a pig?

[BridgeTroll]

While there are cases where a business owner's freedom of religion needs to be protected, this is not the way to do it. 
Also if someone is refused service for religious reasons, the person refused service should not be able to sue the business owner.  Can you imagine a Halal or Jewish butcher being sued for refusing to butcher a pig?

I once thought that would be a silly thing to be sued for...

[Dog Walker]

I am sure that before the Public Accommodations Act was passed there were a lot of Southern business owners who had the sincere religious belief that black people were inferior and should not be allowed in the same business establishments as white people.

Strikes me that this is much the same and still stupid.

[Starbuck]

My religion teachs against adultery and gossips but I have not considered denying their right to business accommodation.

[duvaldude08]

If thats the case, they should deny services to all sinners so that said company can lose business and shut down. These so called "christains" kill me. No where in the bible does it state to demostrate such hate or treat anyone differently because they chose to live their life differently then you.

[Tacachale]

This bill is silly. Refusing to serve a whole category of people has nothing to do with religion.

[finehoe]

I think he's cunningly crafted an argument that appeals to people's sense of personal freedom, while supporting a law that allows unacceptable discrimination. The strength of one's feelings do not justify discrimination. Is it okay for a Christian florist to deny service for a Jewish wedding? Can a Muslim taxi driver refuse to pick up a single woman without a male escort? Part of the price of obtaining a business license and doing business in America is the agreement to provide services without discrimination. If your personal feelings are so strong that it is unacceptable to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then don't bake cakes for a living. That's the choice.