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. 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?  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?
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