SB 180 has been passed by a KY senate committee. It's under the guise of religious freedom. Came about after some instances where businesses didn't want to do business with gay couples.

 

Some say that the wording opens it up for really anyone to be refused service based simply on "religious beliefs."

 

So interracial couples, gays, Muslims, Catholics, really almost any group can be discriminated against.

 

Is this what we want? Is this what we get in trying to protect people's religious beliefs and how it impacts businesses?

 

This guy obviously thinks the wording is ambiguous.

 

http://progressky.com/2016/03/senate-blocks-interracial-interfaith-marriages-sb-180/

 

So does this bill open up almost any group to be discriminated against?

Clyde you should no better and so should this author. Every class you listed besides one is protected by Federal Law.

Clyde you should no better and so should this author. Every class you listed besides one is protected by Federal Law.

 

Let me be clear that I am not a legal expert. Can this law survive a SCOTUS challenge?

 

Didn't Georgia pass similar legislation?

SB 180 has been passed by a KY senate committee. It's under the guise of religious freedom. Came about after some instances where businesses didn't want to do business with gay couples.

 

Some say that the wording opens it up for really anyone to be refused service based simply on "religious beliefs."

 

So interracial couples, gays, Muslims, Catholics, really almost any group can be discriminated against.

 

Is this what we want? Is this what we get in trying to protect people's religious beliefs and how it impacts businesses?

 

This guy obviously thinks the wording is ambiguous.

 

http://progressky.com/2016/03/senate-blocks-interracial-interfaith-marriages-sb-180/

 

So does this bill open up almost any group to be discriminated against?

 

I posted this in another thread on the same topic, it comes down to: Personal Beliefs vs. Equality for All

For reference:

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/controversial-issues/kentucky-senate-panel-323873.html

Let me be clear that I am not a legal expert. Can this law survive a SCOTUS challenge?

 

Didn't Georgia pass similar legislation?

 

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thanks. I'd be curious to hear of cases where religious freedom was the reason.

Thanks. I'd be curious to hear of cases where religious freedom was the reason.

 

I am not qualified to go that deep. I'm not sure how much of this is a 10th Amendment issue.

Please sign and share! Tell your state legislators that Kentucky will not stand for discrimination.

 

MoveOn Petitions - Tell Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin to block SB 18

The senate passed SB 180 today.

After a tense debate on religion, the Kentucky Senate voted 22-16 Tuesday to approve a controversial bill that aims to legally protect businesses that, because of their owners’ religious beliefs, don’t want to serve gay customers.

 

The measure now goes to the House, where Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said Senate Bill 180 would languish.

 

“We took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not violate it,” Stumbo said late Tuesday.

 

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said his measure was “a common-sense, live-and-let-live” proposal designed to protect the religious liberties of everyone.

 

Critics said the proposal was a “license to discriminate” that would hurt economic development by sending the message that Kentuckians don’t want to do business with people who are different from them.

 

SB 180 would prohibit the government from compelling services or actions from anyone if doing so conflicted with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The bill expands the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act to clarify that businesses could not be punished in such cases for violating local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

Five Senate Republicans joined all 11 Senate Democrats in voting against the bill. Those five were Carroll Gibson of Leitchfield, Alice Forgy Kerr of Lexington, Christian McDaniel of Latonia, Julie Raque Adams of Louisville and Wil Schroder of Wilder.

 

The Senate debate featured a lively exchange between Robinson and Sen. Reginald Thomas, D-Lexington, who at one point asked Robinson if he believed that homosexuality and same-sex marriage were sinful. Robinson said that he did but that he also realized the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last year.

 

Some businesses could reject gay clients under bill approved by Kentucky Senate | Lexington Herald-Leader

Hopefully it will die in the House. Kudos to those on the R side of the aisle that voted against the bill.

I'm of the belief that a private business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't like the government saying you have to do something because it's the right thing to my to do.

 

Let the jerks that want to discriminate take the hit where it counts and that's in their wallet. This day and age I can't imagine too many companies doing well If they refuse to serve a Hispanic or gay couple etc. I feel they should absolutely have the right to make themselves look bad by doing so.

Edited March 16, 201610 yr by sportsfan41

I'm of the belief that a private business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't like the good ferment saying you have to do something because it's the right thing to my to do.

 

Let the jerks that want to discriminate take the hit where it counts and that's in their wallet. This day and age I can't imagine too many companies doing well If they refuse to serve a Hispanic or gay couple etc. I feel they should absolutely have the right to make themselves look bad by doing so.

 

Trump's popularity indicates to me that there are many in this country that are perfectly fine with that sort of thing.

Trump's popularity indicates to me that there are many in this country that are perfectly fine with that sort of thing.

 

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but if someone doesn't wish to take someone else's money for a service I don't see how or why the government should force them to. Do you really want something from someone that's being forced to give it to you? That alone is enough reason for me to go elsewhere.