Skip to comments.Sen. Kelsey introduces ‘Turn The Gays Away’ Bill (TN)
Posted on 02/12/2014 10:25:08 PM PST by Olog-hai
A new bill was recently introduced in the Tennessee State Legislature that, if passed, would allow people and businesses to refuse to provide goods and services to homosexuals.
It was filed by State Sen. Brian Kelsey, who represents Memphis and Germantown.
The bill notes that businesses can refuse services and goods only if it furthers a civil union, domestic partnership, or same-sex marriage. The person or business would just have to say it was against their religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxmemphis.com ...
He better get some muslim support, because Christian support won’t mean anything to the lying, screaming, evil attacking sodomites.
If we had the national divorce, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I would support one.
Nice objective headline.
“Bigot” ... 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. 2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person.
No bias in that headline, lol
Not 100% sure I understand the Bill, but there needs to be great care here. I once taught a Sunday School class about prayer in school and everyone was 100% for it ... until I talked about the fact that it might not be a (insert religion here) prayer. Then they were 100% against it.
While not at ALL advocating ANYTHING resembling gay marriage, civil unions, etc etc etc you’ve gotta be very careful about permitting people to not serve, etc others just because they don’t like them. History is loaded with examples of that coming back to bite those people in the a**.
We shouldn’t need a law for this, since we have a RIGHT to refuse to do engage in any practice, business or otherwise, that violates our conscience.
Marraige is the age old social institution where a man and a woman form a union to procreate, have offspring, and raise the next generation. It is not about deviants having butt-sex, no matter how normal they tell us it is.
No one should be required to service nor support individuals that demand their service and support to the benefit of the individuals’ immoral behavior. It shouldn’t require the context of religion to justify the denial of service/support.
Nope, you wouldn't want to allow that freedom. It's a slippery slope.
I kind of wonder if this is a false flag operation here, but again one couldn’t trust the media to describe it accurately.
This might be inspired by the cases in other states where bakeries that designed custom cakes were being bludgeoned into furnishing “gay marriage” cakes or else fined. It would be better to make this into a First Amendment buttressing law, whereby anything involving First Amendment protected expression could not be forced. Cakes, invitations, etc. with inscriptions for events considered immoral by the provider need not be provided by the provider. This is both wider and narrower than what appears to be proposed, and better targeted. IMHO of course.
“While not at ALL advocating ANYTHING resembling gay marriage, civil unions, etc etc etc youve gotta be very careful about permitting people to not serve, etc others just because they dont like them. History is loaded with examples of that coming back to bite those people in the a**.”
Sure, there’s a price to pay for freedom sometimes. If I can refuse service to someone, they can refuse service to me. Obviously, that can cause problems, we only need to go back a few decades to see that.
However, what is the alternative? Since we surrendered our right to do business with whomever we choose, we have been subjected to an ever-expanding list of groups we must do business with. So, we see the coercive force of the government is using this new found power to grant special privileges to certain groups over others. Arming politicians seeking votes with that magic wand of favoritism is a dangerous thing. They won’t ever restrain themselves from using it if they find it is to their own advantage.
Even setting that quibble aside, there’s a fundamental rights issue that needs to be addressed. First, we should establish: do we have a right to refuse service, and conversely, do we have a right to expect to receive service? For the sake of argument, let’s say that we have both of those rights. Now, how would we determine which right takes precedence, when they are in conflict? For that answer, you have to turn to the foundations of liberalism (real classical liberalism, not progressivism), since those questions were answered centuries ago by guys like Locke and Hobbes.
It turns out that not all rights are equal. If a right derives from natural law, it automatically takes precedence over a right that is conferred by some sovereign or legal authority. I’d argue that the right to refuse service is a natural right, while the right to receive service cannot be anything other than a conferred right. The reason is that, in order to have a right to receive service, I must be able to force another to perform an action, possibly against their will. This violates the principle of liberty, which is the highest principle of all in natural law. On the other hand, the right to refuse services forces noone to do anything against their will, it is simply an assertion of liberty itself. So, when these two rights come into conflict, the natural one, the right to refuse service, must take precedence.
If I'm free to associate with whomever I choose, then I'm also free to reject association with whomever I choose to reject!!!
That's about as "natural" a right there is as "birds of a feather, flock together" and in nature they do it without restraint!!!
Yes, I thought about whether this falls under that right, but I don’t think it does. Freedom of association is specifically about joining groups and associating with others, socially, religiously, or politically. It doesn’t really apply to business transactions between individuals.
Some right is in play here, no doubt, but I don’t think that is the one. I think this simply is a manifestation of the natural principle of liberty, explained by Hobbes in Leviathan thusly:
“LIBERTY, or freedom, signifieth properly the absence of opposition (by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion); and may be applied no less to irrational and inanimate creatures than to rational. For whatsoever is so tied, or environed, as it cannot move but within a certain space, which space is determined by the opposition of some external body, we say it hath not liberty to go further. And so of all living creatures, whilst they are imprisoned, or restrained with walls or chains; and of the water whilst it is kept in by banks or vessels that otherwise would spread itself into a larger space; we use to say they are not at liberty to move in such manner as without those external impediments they would. But when the impediment of motion is in the constitution of the thing itself, we use not to say it wants the liberty, but the power, to move; as when a stone lieth still, or a man is fastened to his bed by sickness.
And according to this proper and generally received meaning of the word, a freeman is he that, in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to.”
So, clearly, if someone wishes not to do business with another, but they are not able to refuse, then they are hindered from doing their own will, and cannot be called a “freeman”. Their liberty has been curtailed.
Local media isn’t calling it the Religious Freedom bill!
They report the usual drama queens but not the small business owners punished by the govt for envoking the 1st amendment
Great idea, and misleading title written by libs.
Its the ‘religious freedom’ bill.
Not just misleading, but mendacious.
That is how the libs/gay activists won.
They reframed the argument such that gays are another persecuted minority, such as the blacks in 1970s Roots, making them sympathetic victims.
That is what the title did..
So-cons (and conservatives in general) need to learn how to do that.
I think the bill needs to be more broadly based in order to avoid charges of animus. Rather than focus on just same sex marriage, make it directed at any immoral behavior. So a small inn could refuse service to an unmarried couple, or businesses that are providing goods or services directed at couples could refuse service if it is determined that the parties are unmarried and unchaste.
All businesses and services should have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or with no reason at all. When anyone objects to such a decision, all individuals should have an absolute right to refuse to do business with that particular business or person for any reason or with no reason at all. There should be no government involvement in such choices/squabbles.
I've been "preaching" that message for years. There's absolutely nothing stopping kids now from praying in school. Do we really want government approved prayer in schools? That's a rhetorical question.
Do we want prayer from principals and teachers of (name that religion) leading our children in prayer?
Teach your children how to pray wherever they want to.
I don't want my children/grand childre n learning to be "diverse" in their prayers.
Exactly correct. That is freedom of association.
I cannot be legally forced to associate with anyone I choose not to associate with.
Therefore all anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional.
Discrimination may be stupid (it greatly decreases your customer base for one thing) but it is a constitutional right.
This is already what the law is supposed to be, as the government has no constitutional authority to compel anyone to sell anything, but to codify it in state law isn’t a bad idea.
“If I can refuse service to someone, they can refuse service to me. Obviously, that can cause problems...”
What problems? If someone didn’t want to serve me, I’d walk away. I’d sacrifice being served in that situation for having the Constitution observed and respected. We’re all (supposed to be) free to associate with whomever we wish. Sad that a FReeper doesn’t understand that concept.
Nice try but ain’t gonna fly.
Still... our country began its dramatic downhill slide when Christian prayer was banned from schools.
Sure, prayer would be disgustingly “diverse” now, but if it hadn’t been banned in the first place, I expect the rise of political correctness would either not exist now, or not be as insidious as it is now. When God becomes illegal, ya gotta expect that bad things will happen.
Yeah great. F*** freedom of association, and while we're at it, f*** a free country. Government should be used to force me to interact and do business with people the state demands.
Even on FR people don't have a clue.
Indeed it is.
I retract my earlier statement about cynicism.
Creating a story that is completely out of context is an outright lie.
These guys should be called on the carpet for it.
The title of the bill is indeed religious freedom, supporting the excercise thereof, under our 1st amendment.
The story was a couple fraud with it’s own narrative:
Problems like when the majority of citizens decide to get together and deny services en masse to a minority of citizens, like, you know, happened in our country just a few decades ago. If you don’t see that as a pragmatic problem that comes along with certain freedoms, then I don’t know what to tell you.
“Were all (supposed to be) free to associate with whomever we wish. Sad that a FReeper doesnt understand that concept.”
This isn’t a matter that falls under freedom of association. Maybe you should learn what that freedom is before you try to condescendingly lecture others about it.
The marketplace should be the final arbiter. Not overbearing government. I should be able to sell goods and services to whomever I choose. The marketplace will ultimately give a thumbs up or thumbs down to my firm’s policies. Government should have no role and no right in the matter. Period.
People forget that in God’s eyes, homosexuality is indistinguishable from murder. He prescribed the same punishment for both offenses.
“The marketplace should be the final arbiter. Not overbearing government. I should be able to sell goods and services to whomever I choose.”
I agree. For example, there was a story the other day about a gentleman with a custom made car, who ended up donating it to Jay Leno, because he didn’t want it to be scavenged for parts after he died. Now, there are plenty of people who sell something and “want it to go to a good home”, like that gentleman. They’re doing nothing different than someone denying a service to a homosexual. Either way it’s discrimination, but one is termed lawful discrimination, and the other unlawful.
So, we’ve set up a system where a perfectly lawful choice becomes unlawful if exercised against certain groups. That makes the rest of us, who aren’t in those groups second class citizens, with lesser legal protection under the law. It also leaves the government in the position of criminalizing motives rather than actions. Just like “hate speech” laws, that is dancing dangerously close to “thoughtcrime”.
This so-called right to refuse service is not a constitutionally enumerated right.
Not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, but consider the following. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making laws which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, the 1st Amendment right to religious expression therefore trumping laws which protect constitutionally unprotected gay rights.
So state laws which protect gay rights may be in violation of Section 1 of 14A with respect to abridging religious expression.
These wedding cake bakers need to craft a policy such that they don’t turn anyone specific away, but they don’t provide the specific service that gays want.
Like no same sex related markings on the cake,
If gays want a opposite sex couple cake then sell them one,
Otherwise these bakers will always lose in court, at least in states like mine and many others.
Is refusing to sell rap CDs racist? More-so is it illegal?
That is how to reframe an argument, Dems fight to win,
“This so-called right to refuse service is not a constitutionally enumerated right.”
True, but, in the US, a right shouldn’t have to be enumerated in order to be asserted. That’s what we are supposed have the 10th amendment for, even if it mostly neutered at this point.
“Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making laws which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, the 1st Amendment right to religious expression therefore trumping laws which protect constitutionally unprotected gay rights.”
Good catch, seems like a solid argument.
Jim Crow was LEGISLATED. It was governmentally COERCED.
This had nothing to do with individual white bigots not wanting to serve a black clientele. Such bigots would soon get punished by the market. They’d lose customers... DUH!
Do you think the bus company really wanted to force Rosa Parks out of her seat. I say no. That was an evil they were put up to by a government... and that of DEMOCRATS, by the way.
“This had nothing to do with individual white bigots not wanting to serve a black clientele. Such bigots would soon get punished by the market. Theyd lose customers... DUH!”
So how do you explain exclusive real estate covenants that were entered into voluntarily by private parties, with no legislation or government coercion, for the sole purpose of perpetuating segregation? Or the systematic segregation in other areas that were not mandated by law, such as professional sports?
The system was put in place by the majority of the people, voluntarily, and the legislation was just formalizing and giving legal sanction to it
They would eventually end up punishing themselves too, and those who dared to break would be rewarded.
Sounds like a fitting way to address the issue. The free market addresses a plethora of problems quite well.
I believe that these are not the majority of the cases of actual discrimination. I’d say the government has been far worse a bane than boon in this picture. It should be wrong to bind a real estate owner NOT to deal with a certain class of people. But that’s different than REQUIRING him to deal with that class. If dealing with gays brings blessings, those who don’t deal with gays will be cursed. Logical?
And anyhow you can’t really outlaw free choice. It will keep on exercising itself, but under the table. Excuses will be made. Much better that “discrimination” that is voluntary be expected to show its face. If you don’t inscribe cakes for “gay marriages” fine. Say so. Let the market sort out what is good or bad discrimination. Not the government.
Ultimately, Boogie... the market system contains its own incentives for people to behave decently. Money talks, and black money talks as loud as white money does. That will soon get people to forget any negative ideas about black people if those ideas are, in fact, false. If black people band together to do evil things in the name of blackness, that is going to make them less attractive. A color blind market with free choice would probably encourage black people to act better.
Also why are you whining about sports. For most sports, black athletes have almost stolen the show, and out of merit, and that’s how it ought to be!
You sound like a lame liberal.
“They would eventually end up punishing themselves too, and those who dared to break would be rewarded.”
Yes, eventually maybe, but humans can resist market forces for quite a while, simply because we don’t always act in our rational self-interest.
“And anyhow you cant really outlaw free choice.”
I don’t think we should outlaw free choice. However, we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the problems that can arise when free choice is exercised, that’s all.
“Also why are you whining about sports.”
Whining? Offering a counter-example to your flawed argument is not whining.
“You sound like a lame liberal.”
If you can’t have a civil conversation, then we’re done. Throwing out insults means you have conceded.