Iowa: No gay couple need apply

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 5:35 AM GMT

    http://iowaindependent.com/52135/gop-bill-would-allow-organizations-to-deny-services-to-gay-couples
    An Iowa House subcommittee will consider legislation Wednesday that would allow businesses and organizations to deny services to people whose marriage violates their personal religious beliefs.

    The bill, which is aimed squarely at legally married same-sex couples in Iowa, mirrors legislative efforts in other states and has been characterized as “legalized discrimination” by civil rights advocates and legal scholars.

    House Study Bill 50, also called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would give religious institutions, including charities and schools, exemptions from performing, recognizing or providing services to couples in regards to celebrating their marriage, if the couple violates the institution’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would create the same exemptions to small businesses from providing goods and services pertaining to a marriage for the same reason.
    ...
    “This Marriage Discrimination Bill is another shameful and hurtful attack on the institution of marriage by members of the House Judiciary committee,” said Troy Price, political director of One Iowa. “This bill would not just affect LGBT couples, but opens the door to discrimination against interracial and interfaith couples.”

    State Rep. Vicki Lensing (D-Iowa City) a member of the Standing Judiciary Committee, said the bill directly violates the Iowa Civil Rights Code, and will also have a damaging effect on heterosexual couples who maybe interfaith or interracial.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Feb 22, 2011 6:59 AM GMT
    So how many jobs will this create?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 7:18 AM GMT
    creature saidSo how many jobs will this create?

    ......sadly, only jobs for attorneys...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 2:51 PM GMT
    "House Study Bill 50, also called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would give religious institutions, including charities and schools, exemptions from performing, recognizing or providing services to couples in regards to celebrating their marriage, if the couple violates the institution’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would create the same exemptions to small businesses from providing goods and services pertaining to a marriage for the same reason."


    Rofl Pentecostals can refuse services to Catholics, Muslim businesses can refuse services to infidels, or christians, or any other group that may fall into that category, and vice versa. Man, have they opened Pandora's box. Atheists can refuse service to any of the religious. Watch businesses leave, because they will be unable to make their employees serve huge rich customers that may be of an opposing belief. Daggerhawk's Dagger, indeed.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:00 PM GMT
    I bet the public restrooms there are full of glory holes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:00 PM GMT
    this is one of the saddest things originating from our government i've ever read. i can't believe this is even being entertained. it is so clearly unconstitutional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:02 PM GMT
    In what other countries do the politicians spend so much time trying to narrow the scope of "human rights" as these people in the U.S?

  • gallus81

    Posts: 350

    Feb 22, 2011 3:03 PM GMT
    you silly kids in your whacked-out country creating laws like these ... if the enlightened world thought you weren't dumb already, they surely do now.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Feb 22, 2011 3:07 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://iowaindependent.com/52135/gop-bill-would-allow-organizations-to-deny-services-to-gay-couples
    An Iowa House subcommittee will consider legislation Wednesday that would allow businesses and organizations to deny services to people whose marriage violates their personal religious beliefs.

    The bill, which is aimed squarely at legally married same-sex couples in Iowa, mirrors legislative efforts in other states and has been characterized as “legalized discrimination” by civil rights advocates and legal scholars.

    House Study Bill 50, also called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would give religious institutions, including charities and schools, exemptions from performing, recognizing or providing services to couples in regards to celebrating their marriage, if the couple violates the institution’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would create the same exemptions to small businesses from providing goods and services pertaining to a marriage for the same reason.
    ...
    “This Marriage Discrimination Bill is another shameful and hurtful attack on the institution of marriage by members of the House Judiciary committee,” said Troy Price, political director of One Iowa. “This bill would not just affect LGBT couples, but opens the door to discrimination against interracial and interfaith couples.”

    State Rep. Vicki Lensing (D-Iowa City) a member of the Standing Judiciary Committee, said the bill directly violates the Iowa Civil Rights Code, and will also have a damaging effect on heterosexual couples who maybe interfaith or interracial.




    I think the operative words here are "An Iowa House subcommittee will consider legislation". They considered it and it is now dead.

    http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/02/09/marriage-bill-dead/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:22 PM GMT
    That one politician would even introduce it is bad enough -but that it would go ahead to any "consideration"suggests it was seconded etc) so kind of makes the above comment hollow. It is appalling. The persaon who introduced this motion was elected so their actions are a reflection of their constituency.
    In Canada it would have been political suicide to introduce such a motion. icon_eek.gif


    "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

    But if you look closely in the corner of the document, you can see one of the founders wrote "j/k"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:33 PM GMT
    First They came...
    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:42 PM GMT
    Yet another example of the "small government" they keep talking about. A government that does not intrude upon the lives of its citizens--except in terms of morality, emotions, sexuality, spirituality, philosophy, and equality. I am quite unsure why a "small, non-interfering" government is so deep up our butts, and watching us so closely. Perhaps, then, when they small, surely they mean dwarves or little people.. because any other definition of a small government has pretty much been abandoned by its own supporters. They claim to want it small, but they also want it stopping us from doing pretty much everything that we want.

    So, I guess if a "big" government is one that lets us do our own thing (Evil socialism!) and has the money to help us out, while a "small" government is one that will nag and complain but has no money to give us any decent services (Isn't that how it is now?).. give me big government any day. I am glad to welcome Big Brother, because it sounds like Little Brother is a vicious prude in comparison.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:49 PM GMT
    And how is this legislation a big deal? People SHOULD have the rights to deny anyone they want from doing business with them or being welcome into their home.

    The bigots will be out in the open and their businesses will be damaged from bad publicity. And contrary to popular misconception, gays won't be dying on the streets of starvation because all restaurants decided to bar gays from eating.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Feb 22, 2011 3:57 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd how is this legislation a big deal? People SHOULD have the rights to deny anyone they want from doing business with them or being welcome into their home.

    The bigots will be out in the open and their businesses will be damaged from bad publicity. And contrary to popular misconception, gays won't be dying on the streets of starvation because all restaurants decided to bar gays from eating.



    I think the problem is the precedent it sets. Where does it stop? Businesses could turn away blacks....bi-racial couples...unwed mothers...Divorced people...Muslims...Atheists. The biggest problem I have with all this is that, with all the major problems going on in the states, country, and the world, THIS is something a legislation is spending time on?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 3:58 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd how is this legislation a big deal? People SHOULD have the rights to deny anyone they want from doing business with them or being welcome into their home.

    The bigots will be out in the open and their businesses will be damaged from bad publicity. And contrary to popular misconception, gays won't be dying on the streets of starvation because all restaurants decided to bar gays from eating.



    "businesses will be damaged"

    Really?


    Those guns shows that don't do background checks, are thriving quite well...So the bad publicity of how people are killed from guns purchased from these gun shows hasn't hurt business...
    And actually the weekend after the Tucson shooting the gun show did AMAZING business.

    Those all white country/golf clubs have thrived quite well for decades....
    Those all male clubs have thrived quite well for decades...


  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 22, 2011 4:01 PM GMT
    Sounds like a group of bigots, I'm glad I'm not an Iowan (for that reason, only) and unfortunate. Iowa is a good state. I hope some of this goes away
    with time. Perhaps someday they will realize how ridiculous their efforts have been.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:17 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd how is this legislation a big deal? People SHOULD have the rights to deny anyone they want from doing business with them or being welcome into their home.

    The bigots will be out in the open and their businesses will be damaged from bad publicity. And contrary to popular misconception, gays won't be dying on the streets of starvation because all restaurants decided to bar gays from eating.



    I think the problem is the precedent it sets. Where does it stop? Businesses could turn away blacks....bi-racial couples...unwed mothers...Divorced people...Muslims...Atherists. The biggest problem I have with all this is that, with all the major problems going on in the states, country, and the world, THIS is something a legislation is spending time on?


    Doesn't bother me at all. It's really just legislating neutrality, not legislating TO discriminate. If someone wants to turn someone down from their business because they think their nose is too big, so be it.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Feb 22, 2011 4:26 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd how is this legislation a big deal? People SHOULD have the rights to deny anyone they want from doing business with them or being welcome into their home.

    The bigots will be out in the open and their businesses will be damaged from bad publicity. And contrary to popular misconception, gays won't be dying on the streets of starvation because all restaurants decided to bar gays from eating.



    I think the problem is the precedent it sets. Where does it stop? Businesses could turn away blacks....bi-racial couples...unwed mothers...Divorced people...Muslims...Atherists. The biggest problem I have with all this is that, with all the major problems going on in the states, country, and the world, THIS is something a legislation is spending time on?


    Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:27 PM GMT
    LeanathleticDC said
    mocktwinkie saidAnd how is this legislation a big deal? People SHOULD have the rights to deny anyone they want from doing business with them or being welcome into their home.

    The bigots will be out in the open and their businesses will be damaged from bad publicity. And contrary to popular misconception, gays won't be dying on the streets of starvation because all restaurants decided to bar gays from eating.



    "businesses will be damaged"

    Really?


    Those guns shows that don't do background checks, are thriving quite well...So the bad publicity of how people are killed from guns purchased from these gun shows hasn't hurt business...
    And actually the weekend after the Tucson shooting the gun show did AMAZING business.

    Those all white country/golf clubs have thrived quite well for decades....
    Those all male clubs have thrived quite well for decades...




    So what you're telling me if that if Mcdonald's one day decided that gays or some particular ethnicity is no longer welcome, it would NOT hurt them? What if any major business came out and barred a particular race from shopping there?

    And who cares if there are all white country/golf clubs, many times that is coincidental because membership is based on invitation only. There are all sorts of clubs where there are only native Americans or African Americans or an only children clubs or all Women clubs. How does that have anything to do with the topic at hand? Are you saying that we should take away the freedom from people having clubs? Maybe we should let everyone model, even the 500lb applicant! After all, anything different would be discrimination!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Feb 22, 2011 4:31 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Doesn't bother me at all. It's really just legislating neutrality, not legislating TO discriminate. If someone wants to turn someone down from their business because they think their nose is too big, so be it.



    Wow! I am really surprised you would take this sort of stance. I think businesses should be allowed to refuse service if say someone is drunk or unruly, or not wearing shoes or a shirt or something like that, but to just randomly refuse people because they don't like the way they look is just wrong and opens a Pandoras Box of all sorts of implications and problems
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Feb 22, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAre you saying that we should take away the freedom from people having clubs? Maybe we should let everyone model, even the 500lb applicant! After all, anything different would be discrimination!



    Private clubs are different than public businesses.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:35 PM GMT
    It hasn't even made it past a subcommittee, let alone the house. Stupid resolutions like this are bound to happen, but they go away on their own icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:37 PM GMT
    creature saidSo how many jobs will this create?


    Correct. Thanks for playing our game.
    Christians and Lesbians alike will be needed to man the hotlines.

    How now thy ballot box?

    When I think of modern, evil republican, political rat fucking; I laugh at their aplomb for a complete lack of creativity. How many times can you put a lampshade on your head?

    The average people in the the community outside my front door...all of 'em...the christians, the gays, the republicans (I know 2), the leftist lesbians, artists...all blended together...really really really don't care.

    I have been to Iowa - I know, that it knows, that it doesn't matter, as a state anymore - It is owned by 3 or 4 multi-nationals, and couldn't care less about christians, or faggots.

    Is that a barn raising party, or a lynch mob? Oh let's stop and take pictures!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Feb 22, 2011 4:38 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidMaybe we should let everyone model, even the 500lb applicant! After all, anything different would be discrimination!


    You're comparing apples and oranges (or in this case watermelons LOL) A 500lbs person cannot be hired as a model because they simply cannot fit into the clothes - period. It's not discrimination, it's lack of qualifications for the job. It's the same as not hiring someone for a secretary position because they cannot type or spell.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2011 4:47 PM GMT
    Hmmm this is an interesting idea. I agree that businesses should be allowed freedom for all the good and the bad that it brings. This does raise an interesting point though, because discrimination is wrong on any level. That being said, if a business owner does not want to offer his products or services to gay men on the basis of religion, I don't want to shop at his store. There is no reason to support that kind of bigotry, so it would be nice if they can let us know their stance on the issue. Gay men are still an economic force, it wouldn't be easy to fuck with us and not have it hurt their $$. Plus we have much more straight allies now a days who support our cause as well. If a big corporation were to practice this "right" they would see it in their bottom line.