Okay, I totally don’t get this. Â So in Iowa, where gay marriage is legal (because all seven Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed it was a civil right), the Iowa House isÂ investigating a bill that would allow discrimination against gay people who are married. Â I understand the basis. Â If you hold religious beliefs, that’s fine. Â Everyone should, in one way or another. Â Or you don’t have to. Â See, religion is a very, very personal thing. Â But these people, led by Republican Representative Richard Anderson, says he’s put forth the bill to preserve religious liberty.
There’s just two things wrong with this. Â Okay, more than two things, but still.
First off, this “religious liberty” bill is so broadly written, that it can be used in just about any situation. Â Like if a Christian married an Atheist. Â Or if two Muslims got married. Â Or – surprise, surprise, even a mixed race marriage. Â According to this bill, if the provider of a service – housing, a restaurant, a car dealership – if the company representative is not comfortable or objects to the marriage, they have the right to refuse services. Â How is this right?
What’s worse than this? Â People would beÂ up in arms if a gay person refused services to a Christian couple. Â The gay person would be, in effect, burned in effigy by the media and these politicians. Â So how is it right that this discrimination is allowed one-way, but not the other?
Are we a country that’s moving forward, or are we going back to the puritanical days of the 1700s?