Iowa governor signs 'religious freedom restoration act' into law at Christian conservative event

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Iowa governor signs 'religious freedom restoration act' into law at Christian conservative event

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Tuesday evening that supporters say will prevent state and local government from infringing on Iowans’ religious freedom. Opponents of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have said it opens the door to discrimination, especially against LGBTQ Iowans.

www.iowapublicradio.org

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Tuesday evening that supporters say will prevent state and local government from infringing on Iowans’ religious freedom.​

​

Opponents of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have said it opens the door to discrimination, especially against LGBTQ Iowans.​

​

Rep. Lindsay James, D-Dubuque, said the law is about weaponizing religion to justify discrimination.​

​

“This bill opens the door for a business to deny services to an LGBTQ+ patron, a landlord to evict a single mom because she’s not married, for a pharmacist to deny a birth control prescription on religious grounds,” she said. “It’s no surprise the governor signed the bill behind closed doors with the biggest special interest group in Iowa, an organization that wants to ban all abortions, ban gay marriage, and ban books.”​

The battle against LGBTQ+ folks continues to ramp up unabated in Red States. Uganda would be proud!

 

[esmith]

So how about explaing how this will adversley affect the LGBTQ+ community. Please be specific.
In, addition what unabated attacks in "Red States" are occuring. Please be specific. Oh, by the way when you say "Red States" what are your parameters to labeling a state a "Red State" and do you mean all states that meet your parameters?

 

[The Hammer]

So how about explaing how this will adversley affect the LGBTQ+ community. Please be specific.
In, addition what unabated attacks in "Red States" are occuring. Please be specific.

Tell us how it's not.

The signed bill expressly states "free exercise of religion", includes the ability to refuse anything on religious grounds.

The bill is short you should read it.

 

[Laniakea]

Tell us how it's not.

The signed bill expressly states "free exercise of religion", includes the ability to refuse anything on religious grounds.

The bill is short you should read it.

Shouldn't people be able to exercise their religion freely? Or should they have to stay in the closet about their beliefs, lest they be harassed, threatened, or even fired from a job based on their beliefs?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So how about explaing how this will adversley affect the LGBTQ+ community. Please be specific.
In, addition what unabated attacks in "Red States" are occuring. Please be specific. Oh, by the way when you say "Red States" what are your parameters to labeling a state a "Red State" and do you mean all states that meet your parameters?

There was a proposed amendment to the bill to prevent discrimination, which was voted down by the bill's supporters. The bill therefore gives tacit permission to discriminate against others for purely religious reasons. So, for example, it would allow a landlord to refuse to rent accomodations to same-sex partners, even if married. It would permit a drug store owner to refuse to sell contraceptives just because because their Catholic faith admonishes against. (I remember when condoms had to be labeled "For the Prevention of Disease Only" in order to be legally sold in drug stores in Ontario.)

The whole purpose of such discrimination is, by the way, to try to control (or at least encourage) others into behaving according to your own religious precepts. Nobody should have any right whatsoever to do such a thing when running businesses that serve the general public.

Regarding "red states," perhaps you are unaware that there are states that vote iin large numbers for one party or the other. From the 2016 presidential election to the 2020 presidential election, only five states changed "color"; and as of 2020, 35 out of 50 states have voted for the same party in every presidential election since the red-blue terminology was popularized in 2000, with only 15 having swung between the 2000 presidential election and the 2020 election.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Iowa governor signs 'religious freedom restoration act' into law at Christian conservative event

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Tuesday evening that supporters say will prevent state and local government from infringing on Iowans’ religious freedom. Opponents of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have said it opens the door to discrimination, especially against LGBTQ Iowans.

www.iowapublicradio.org

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Tuesday evening that supporters say will prevent state and local government from infringing on Iowans’ religious freedom.​

​

Opponents of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have said it opens the door to discrimination, especially against LGBTQ Iowans.​

​

Rep. Lindsay James, D-Dubuque, said the law is about weaponizing religion to justify discrimination.​

​

“This bill opens the door for a business to deny services to an LGBTQ+ patron, a landlord to evict a single mom because she’s not married, for a pharmacist to deny a birth control prescription on religious grounds,” she said. “It’s no surprise the governor signed the bill behind closed doors with the biggest special interest group in Iowa, an organization that wants to ban all abortions, ban gay marriage, and ban books.”​

The battle against LGBTQ+ folks continues to ramp up unabated in Red States. Uganda would be proud!

Why does it always mean freedom for their religion only?

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Shouldn't people be able to exercise their religion freely? Or should they have to stay in the closet about their beliefs, lest they be harassed, threatened, or even fired from a job based on their beliefs?

Your freedom ends, where another's begins. So no, it's not alright when it infringes on another. And in this country we have this little thing called separation of Church and State which protects everyone from protection from discrimination. Hopefully Iowans will take these rotten politicians to task.

 

[Laniakea]

Your freedom ends, where another's begins. So no, it's not alright when it infringes on another. And in this country we have this little thing called separation of Church and State which protects everyone from protection from discrimination. Hopefully Iowans will take these rotten politicians to task.

The definition of "where another's begins" changes depending on who is making the argument.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Discrimination based on sexual identity violates Federal law.

Protected Class | Practical Law

Protected Class

content.next.westlaw.com

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The definition of "where another's begins" changes depending on who is making the argument.

And do you think it should? What does your reason tell you?

 

[esmith]

There was a proposed amendment to the bill to prevent discrimination, which was voted down by the bill's supporters. The bill therefore gives tacit permission to discriminate against others for purely religious reasons. So, for example, it would allow a landlord to refuse to rent accomodations to same-sex partners, even if married. It would permit a drug store owner to refuse to sell contraceptives just because because their Catholic faith admonishes against. (I remember when condoms had to be labeled "For the Prevention of Disease Only" in order to be legally sold in drug stores in Ontario.)

The whole purpose of such discrimination is, by the way, to try to control (or at least encourage) others into behaving according to your own religious precepts. Nobody should have any right whatsoever to do such a thing when running businesses that serve the general public.

Regarding "red states," perhaps you are unaware that there are states that vote iin large numbers for one party or the other. From the 2016 presidential election to the 2020 presidential election, only five states changed "color"; and as of 2020, 35 out of 50 states have voted for the same party in every presidential election since the red-blue terminology was popularized in 2000, with only 15 having swung between the 2000 presidential election and the 2020 election.

You still haven't produced facts that all religions or members of a religion will discirminate against all those in the LBGQT+ society

You still haven't given explicite examples of a "red state" or is it any state that does not agree with your political views?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You still haven't produced facts that all religions or members of a religion will discirminate against all those in the LBGQT+ society

Where did I ever even suggest that "all religions" or "all members of a religion" would do anything at all? The point is, whether this law gives license to any religion, or any member of a religion, to cause harm to others through discrimination on religious grounds.

You still haven't given explicite examples of a "red state" or is it any state that does not agree with your political views?

I gave you the Wikipedia definition of a widely used term, and you can read the entire article here.

Your unfamiliarity with an extremely common term and its usage is not on me.

 

[JustGeorge]

Why does it always mean freedom for their religion only?

Any why is it always about "freedom to separate myself from people I don't like"? I'd expect most religious people to be above that. If they're not, I couldn't consider them religious. They're just wearing a tribalistic mask and pretending its religious, imo.

Freedom of religion in my mind is to be able to practice your religion without outside interference. You don't 'practice' a religion by hating on others...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Shouldn't people be able to exercise their religion freely? Or should they have to stay in the closet about their beliefs, lest they be harassed, threatened, or even fired from a job based on their beliefs?

I'll ask you: should a parent have the right to condemn their child to death because they believe that a blood transfusion is the same as "eating blood?" Children have, in fact, died because of this. Now, if an adult dies because of it, that's on him and his belief -- he's old enough to decide for himself (although indoctrinated so not, in my view, totally mentally fit to). The estimate is, by the way, that about 1,000 JWs die each year because of this bizarre interpretation. (source, National Library of Medicine)

There have been killings of family members (usually females) of Muslim families because they have "dishonored" their families religiously. The state generally lays charges -- but would not your suggestion that they be able to freely exercise their religion mean that they should get away with it completely?

Does baking a wedding cake with 2 female or 2 male figurines mean that you have committed a homosexual act? So why should you be free to deny your publicly offered service to someone else on that basis?

If a municipal worker disagrees with same-sex marriage, in a jurisdiction where such is legal, should they have a religious right to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple? Or does their obligation to perform their job for everyone supercede that religious right? Those are the kinds of things this law is aiming at.

 

[fantome profane]

Any why is it always about "freedom to separate myself from people I don't like"? I'd expect most religious people to be above that. If they're not, I couldn't consider them religious. They're just wearing a tribalistic mask and pretending its religious, imo.

Freedom of religion in my mind is to be able to practice your religion without outside interference. You don't 'practice' a religion by hating on others...

Absolutely right. When people in the U.S. talk about freedom of religion, why are they never fighting for their right to love their neighbour? Or the freedom to turn the other cheek or do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Sometimes I have heard about people fighting for their religious right to feed the poor, but usually it is the religious right that they are fighting for their right to do that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Iowa governor signs 'religious freedom restoration act' into law at Christian conservative event

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Tuesday evening that supporters say will prevent state and local government from infringing on Iowans’ religious freedom. Opponents of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have said it opens the door to discrimination, especially against LGBTQ Iowans.

www.iowapublicradio.org

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill into law Tuesday evening that supporters say will prevent state and local government from infringing on Iowans’ religious freedom.​

​

Opponents of the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have said it opens the door to discrimination, especially against LGBTQ Iowans.​

​

Rep. Lindsay James, D-Dubuque, said the law is about weaponizing religion to justify discrimination.​

​

“This bill opens the door for a business to deny services to an LGBTQ+ patron, a landlord to evict a single mom because she’s not married, for a pharmacist to deny a birth control prescription on religious grounds,” she said. “It’s no surprise the governor signed the bill behind closed doors with the biggest special interest group in Iowa, an organization that wants to ban all abortions, ban gay marriage, and ban books.”​

The battle against LGBTQ+ folks continues to ramp up unabated in Red States. Uganda would be proud!

Did you read the bill? Or just posted skewed news 'reports'?

 

[The Hammer]

Any why is it always about "freedom to separate myself from people I don't like"? I'd expect most religious people to be above that. If they're not, I couldn't consider them religious. They're just wearing a tribalistic mask and pretending its religious, imo.

Freedom of religion in my mind is to be able to practice your religion without outside interference. You don't 'practice' a religion by hating on others...

Bingo! Spot on!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Did you read the bill? Or just posted skewed news 'reports'?

Yes, I read it. Especially this:

"Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion. "Exercise of religion" includes but is not limited to the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.​

Now imagine a lawyer defending a landlord who has acted (evicted) or a dressmaker who has refused to act (refused to make a dress) for someone they disapprove of for religious reasons. At very minimum, this increases the burden on minorities being refused goods or services for nothing but the religious beliefs of the refuser.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Did you read the bill? Or just posted skewed news 'reports'?

And for the record, the source I gave was Iowa Public Radio, which has been rated by Allsides as "Center."

Iowa Public Radio Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Iowa Public Radio. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

 

[The Hammer]

Discrimination based on sexual identity violates Federal law.

Protected Class | Practical Law

Protected Class

content.next.westlaw.com

Only if you can prove that that was the actual reason.