Discussion for article #234987
That was awfully fast.
I think the original bill was like the Obamacare repeal bill. It was for show. Hey, bigots we’re with you but those mean ol’ liberals made us change it.
2 Likes
They still object just the same, they just are more politically correct about it.
Well, everybody get back in your cars and head back towards Arkansas for your Easter vacay.
Arkansas, now with improved discrimination that overlaps their old discrimination, federal non-discrimination and the constitution, because, they just gotta make sure.
Religious freedom smacks of bigotry and homophobic tendency but its really neo-Christians making sure that they never face the same treatment that they put others through.
That’s the obligatory clarification so please now shut the hell up!
3 Likes
But it’s going to be awfully difficult for any LGBT person or couple or group subjected to criticism to claim this Arkansas act is meaningless.
There’s a principle in interpreting legislation that the legislature doesn’t just pass laws for no reason. It pretty much requires a judge to search out and find that purpose, and then allows the judge to in essence breath life into it by interpreting the words in it to serve that purpose.
But [you say], then what’s up with Moops?
Simple, Jane: there’s a fundamental difference between how red sees the world and how blue sees the world. To red, legislation is either like Underdog finding his glasses or else a rabid Kenyan dog with Ebola that needs putting down to save Jesus.
And blue? [you ask] How’s it different for blue?
It just is, Jane. And it’s not a double standard, it’s just red is different from blue.
So this bill allows business to refuse to serve gays and lesbians?
Wow… zero actual reporting on what the law as it is worded actually allows and doesn’t. Way to not inform AP/TPM.
3 Likes
Who knows… certainly not AP or TPM given this reportage.
1 Like
What exactly is a “compelling interest”? I’m guessing Christian bigotry towards gays wouldn’t raise an eyebrow, but if a local mosque wanted to play the muslim call to prayer it would be a gov’t enforced “compelling interest”.
The law prohibits state and local government from infringing on someone’s religious beliefs without a compelling interest.
Small alterations but stays the same .
So it seems. And does nothing for private businesses. Seems this is really a nothing burger of a change.
Well, that’s sort of an improvement on the AP article on the Indiana law where they reported it wrong (saying the revised law not only prohibits using the RFRA law as a defense against discrimination claims but also prohibits discrimination against gays, when it actually only does the former).
And yes, in a sense it’s a nothingburger of a change, but the entire passage of the law is nothing from how things were before the it was passed, period. The previous version of the law would have meant big changes.