Posted on Apr 5, 2016
9
9
0
Christianity is about love, I find this bill offensive, anti-American, anti-Christian and just a bad move for our nation.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signs ‘religious freedom’ bill
Posted from wreg.com
Religion
Politics
LGBTQ+
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
10
10
0
LTC Stephen F. SSG Ed Mikus MSgt (Join to see)
Here is the actual text of the bill as it was when signed by the MS Governor and a link to the bill itself. In reading this, should be called the "KKK Homosexual Hate Protection Bill." I get it you don't believe as a Christian that Homosexuals should marry. Fine, what you believe in your home is what you believe in your home. If you work in a government job, you leave that religious belief at the door. Why because your religious views have no bearing on performing your job. Further more, if a person wanted to keep marriage biblical, then why is a license issued by the state to begin with? The answer is that marriage is not a union before god, gods, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever divinity one honors. Marriage is a legally binding contract governed by the state. It has nothing to do with love, honor cherish. It has to do with division of property, child support, and mutual responsibility under the law.
Amendment one to the United States Constitution states:
House Bill 1523
(As Sent to Governor)
AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO REQUIRE A PERSON BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THIS ACT TO DO SO NOT LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTION WAS TAKEN; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act."
SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523SG.htm
Here is the actual text of the bill as it was when signed by the MS Governor and a link to the bill itself. In reading this, should be called the "KKK Homosexual Hate Protection Bill." I get it you don't believe as a Christian that Homosexuals should marry. Fine, what you believe in your home is what you believe in your home. If you work in a government job, you leave that religious belief at the door. Why because your religious views have no bearing on performing your job. Further more, if a person wanted to keep marriage biblical, then why is a license issued by the state to begin with? The answer is that marriage is not a union before god, gods, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever divinity one honors. Marriage is a legally binding contract governed by the state. It has nothing to do with love, honor cherish. It has to do with division of property, child support, and mutual responsibility under the law.
Amendment one to the United States Constitution states:
House Bill 1523
(As Sent to Governor)
AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO REQUIRE A PERSON BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THIS ACT TO DO SO NOT LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTION WAS TAKEN; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act."
SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523SG.htm
HB1523 (As Sent to Governor) - 2016 Regular Session
AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO REQUIRE A...
(10)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Capt Gregory Prickett - Careful. Sharia demands honor killings, stoning, chopping of hands and heads. This law says you don't have a right to be served at a particular private business. You may not like it, OK. But it's not Sharia.
(2)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
Col Joseph Lenertz - That is a rather extreme simplification of Sharia law. You could argue that Mosaic Law is no different and many Christians call on it heavily when defending their moral positions. Heck, the recent Ugandan anti-homosexuality law that carried a death penalty (though now it's "only" 14 years in prison) was attributed largely to three American missionaries. Fun stuff.
(1)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
Capt Gregory Prickett - Absolutely. This is religious law, that's my assessment as an old Middle East hand and lawyer. It's American Sharia. There are tons of Taliban in America, they just go by different names. We've got them all over rural Idaho. Fundamentalist, low information consumers, xenophobic, crazy.
(4)
(0)
SPC Anna Larson
In one already documented case, A gay couple was already a long time customer of a business and that business had no problem serving them until they wanted to get married and then suddenly were told "we can't serve you because it's against our religion." So it was ok to take their money until the issue of marriage came up. That right there is plain and simple discrimination.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
SSG Ed Mikus My gut reaction without having read the bill is that anything that is called a <insert item here> Freedom Bill, it is about limiting freedom. The legislators give them these names so that when they come to a vote, their colleagues who have also not read the legislation will see the word Freedom, and vote it up.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
This bill is a disaster for 2016.
"The measure’s intention is to protect those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only take place inside such marriages, and that male and female genders are unchangeable."
"The measure’s intention is to protect those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only take place inside such marriages, and that male and female genders are unchangeable."
(5)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
MSgt (Join to see) you are so right. By the actual text of the bill, a pregnant woman and the father of her baby could be denied a marriage license because while they are a man and a woman, the sexual relations occurred outside of a marriage, and therefore the denial of a marriage license would be protected under this bill.
(3)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
PO3 Steven Sherrill - No, it only covers persons, religious organizations, and private associations. Marriage licenses are provided by government agencies, which are not protected under this law.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Col Joseph Lenertz - It protects individuals. The clerk of courts who issues the marriage licenses is an individual. The bill would protect that individual from repercussions if they elected not to issue a marriage license because they are exercising their beliefs. Now realistically, until this law hits its first legal challenge, we can speculate all we want as to how the law will be applied. It will definitely be interesting to see how far up the legal ladder this law goes. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see it argued in SCOTUS
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google