Oklahoma Dem amendment: Christian businesses must post notice of anti-gay discrimination

[pinto]

Cross post from LBN forum. to DonViejo

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141037902

Oklahoma Dem amendment: Christian businesses must post notice of anti-gay discrimination

Source: RawStory

Oklahoma Democratic state Rep. Emily Virgin wants Christian businesses to post a public notice of discrimination if they intend to claim that they have a religious right to refuse service to LGBT people.

State Rep. Chuck Strohm (R) introduced a bill, the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, earlier this year that would allow businesses like wedding cake bakers and photographers to deny services if it was “against the person’s religious beliefs.”

State Sen. Joseph Silk (R), who introduced a similar bill in the Oklahoma Senate, told The New York Times recently that new laws were necessary because the LGBT movement was “challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions.”

The amendment to HB1371 introduced by Virgin on Tuesday would require religious businesses to come out of the closet.

“Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites,” the amendment states.

-snip-

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/oklahoma-dem-amendment-christian-businesses-must-post-notice-of-anti-gay-discrimination/

[cbayer]

1. Love it. If they are going to allow discrimination then the bigots should be clearly identified.

This is how you fight fire with fire.

[pinto]

4. Yeah. It's an interesting counter. "OK, you want to go for it, be up front about it."

I see an echo, intended or unintended, of the "No Blacks Served" or similar notices at businesses in the not too distant past. The parallel is cutting. Good move.

[cbayer]

6. If this passes, there are going to be a lot of people who boycott these businesses

I know I would.

At the very least, I hope the amendment leads to the defeat of the primary bill.

[Goblinmonger]

7. This is not about outing bigots, as I see it.

It's about letting people be bigots. They get to declare their religious freedom.

Why do I think my interpretation is correct? Both bills were submitted by (R).

On edit: I see the amendment was by (D). Does anyone think that these places are going to be shy about saying they don't want to serve gays?

[Thinkingabout]

2. This would be good to have a list so all could boycott the businesses who

Choose not to serve some people. I was in business and all money was green to me.

[immoderate]

3. Kick

--imm

[okasha]

5. Perfect.

Too bad this is necessary, though. One would think the issue was settled at the Woolworth's lunch counter fifty years ago.

[Goblinmonger]

8. This is returning to Woolworth's.

They get to legally post a "Heterosexuals Only" sign and be protected by the law.

[Politicalboi]

9. This is a different world

I think more will boycott than give them business. I most certainly would like to know who my money is supporting. I don't want to support a family of bigots. It goes both ways here.

[Goblinmonger]

14. One would hope, but I've lived in Wisconsin for 22 years

and the reality of what people actually think and do is often quite fucking ugly. I know many communities in Wisconsin (I would venture to say the majority) where a sign on the door saying they hold the right to refuse service to gays would get them more business. In Madison it would be a problem. In several suburbs of Madison, it would not be a problem.

[okasha]

12. Woolworth's before the sit-ins, you mean.

The Greensboro Four and other protesters, accompanied by an effective boycott, broke segregation policies at Woolworth, Kress and other businesses four years before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Right. To the separate business and entrance

and all that for blacks.

Why is it OK that we are going to allow businesses to post a sign that says, in effect, "No gays allowed"? That's not a victory. That's a sign we are on the road to being a shit hole. If I were younger, I would be leaving to become a Canadian citizen. Even now I'm considering seeing if I can get a teaching job up there.

[Iggo]

10. Fuck yeah! Wear it, motherfuckers!

[Warren Stupidity]

11. There should be no such thing as a religious business.

Religions can worship in any fucked up hateful way they choose, but as soon as they step out into the secular world, for example to engage in public commerce, they need to obey all the rules and regulations that any other commercial venture must abide by.

Hobby lobby was a fucking dreadful decision. The move to encode religious privilege in law is taking us back to the segregation era, and papering it over with this sort of bullshit is beside the point.

[pinto]

13. Yeah, Hobby Lobby was a cluster f*** dicision, imo.

Hopefully this counter move may help derail the bill in OK. We'll see.

[Fumesucker]

16. Refusing service to atheists however will still not require a sign...

Could these people be any more transparent?