Okay, I totally don’t get this.  So in Iowa, where gay marriage is legal (because all seven Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed it was a civil right), the Iowa House is investigating a bill that would allow discrimination against gay people who are married.  I understand the basis.  If you hold religious beliefs, that’s fine.  Everyone should, in one way or another.  Or you don’t have to.  See, religion is a very, very personal thing.  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.  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.  Like if a Christian married an Atheist.  Or if two Muslims got married.  Or – surprise, surprise, even a mixed race marriage.  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.  How is this right?

What’s worse than this?  People would be up in arms if a gay person refused services to a Christian couple.  The gay person would be, in effect, burned in effigy by the media and these politicians.  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?

By walterh

One thought on “If the tables were turned…”
  1. Dear Proud Liberal,nnnMy name is Barbara Ou2019Brien and I am a political blogger. Just had a question about your blog and couldnu2019t find an emailu2014please get back to me as soon as you can (barbaraobrien(at)maacenter.org)nnThanks,nBarbaran

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *