Kentucky Lawmakers Override Veto to Pass Religious Freedom Bill


#1

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky lawmakers have voted to override the governor’s veto of a bill intended to better protect legal claims of religious freedom.The law will give stronger legal standing to people in court who claim the government burdened their ability to practice their religion. The legislation protects “sincerely held religious beliefs” from infringement unless there is “a compelling governmental interest.” The courts will still consider and rule on each matter.
Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear vetoed the bill Friday over concerns that someone’s claim of religious freedom could undermine civil rights protections for gays and lesbians and lead to costly lawsuits for taxpayers.
But bill sponsors said it would only provide a higher level of legal protection that already exists on the federal level and in at least 16 states. The debate pitted civil liberties groups like the ACLU against religious organizations such as the Catholic Conference of Kentucky. Lawmakers voted Tuesday to override.

Ky. lawmakers override religious freedom veto - Businessweek

Full text of the bill:

AN ACT relating to construction of the law. Create a new section of KRS Chapter 446 to specify that government shall not burden a person’s or religious organization’s freedom of religion; protect the right to act or refuse to act on religious grounds; specify that government shall prove by clear and convincing evidence prove a compelling governmental interest in establishing a burden on the freedom of religion; specify what constitutes a burden. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

The bill seems incredibly vague to me, and poses a danger of allowing people to discriminate however they want and for whatever reason under a guise of religious convictions, whether true or not.


#2

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:1, topic:38841”]
Ky. lawmakers override religious freedom veto - Businessweek

Full text of the bill:

The bill seems incredibly vague to me, and poses a danger of allowing people to discriminate however they want and for whatever reason under a guise of religious convictions, whether true or not.
[/quote] Well as long as the Christian religion isn’t being discriminated against…


#3

Did a Catholic Priest run over your dog or something? You always have to toss out some snarky comment in every thread that even remotely touches the church.


#4

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:1, topic:38841”]
Ky. lawmakers override religious freedom veto - Businessweek

Full text of the bill:

The bill seems incredibly vague to me, and poses a danger of allowing people to discriminate however they want and for whatever reason under a guise of religious convictions, whether true or not.
[/quote] Bingo.


#5

I hear that the Ground Zero mosque is now planned to be built in Kentucky because they now feel it is the safest state in the USA for the free practice of their religion. They plan on building their mosque and small arms training center on a plot of land in Peterburg KY right next to the Creation Museum.
[/sarc]


#6

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:1, topic:38841”]

The bill seems incredibly vague to me, and poses a danger of allowing people to discriminate however they want and for whatever reason under a guise of religious convictions, whether true or not.
[/quote]People should be able to discriminate for what reasons they choose, the government must not.


#7

Its more than just OSB, all of the anti-religious posters on the forum seem to have visceral hatred of religion, churches and anyone who believes in God.


#8

What we REALLY hate are the theocrats…not the religious. But you might have trouble seeing that.
The good news is that most of us hate the other big government crowd known as liberals too.


#9

Another victory for religious freedom!

(I can’t wait to be rid of Beshear)


#10

[quote=“Bigfoot_88, post:6, topic:38841”]
People should be able to discriminate for what reasons they choose, the government must not.
[/quote] Civil rights? You cant eat at this lunch counter, the colored one’s over there…


#11

Not civil rights, property rights.

Most people think that without these anti-discrimination laws it would revert back to Jim Crow, despite that Jim Crow was government mandated for “health reasons”.


#12

[quote=“Cam, post:8, topic:38841”]
What we REALLY hate are the theocrats…not the religious. But you might have trouble seeing that.
The good news is that most of us hate the other big government crowd known as liberals too.
[/quote] Bingo.


#13

[quote=“Bigfoot_88, post:11, topic:38841”]
Not civil rights, property rights.

Most people think that without these anti-discrimination laws it would revert back to Jim Crow, despite that Jim Crow was government mandated for “health reasons”.
[/quote] Huh? Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus and werent allowed to shop at certain stores for health reasons? Okie dokie then.


#14

Do you understand paranthesis?


#15

Ah…The thought police have arrived.
Yanno, you liberals cannot police people’s thoughts, and demand that they accept others. I will never accept Muslims on my property, since I cannot tell the radical from the pious, on sight. That does not make me a bigot, just careful.
If someone hates you, because you are black, or gay, or religious, or liberal, you cannot force them to be any other way. As long as they don’t violate your Constitutional Rights, or commit a criminal act, ignore it. Why, on God’s Green Earth, would anyone want acceptance, that was forced? If I dislike you, and I have a doughnut shop, why would you want to force me to feed you? Why would you even ask? When people hate me, because I am large, or white, or religious, or blunt, I scrape them off, and continue. Sure, I could probably beat them into acceptance, but WHY?
Ever seen the sign at the local diner, “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE?” That is how it should be.
It reminds me of a couple of kids my Mother kept when I was young. “He got more than me.” or, “You like him better than me.” Childishness.

Now, the Gooberment is another matter. They must be fair to all. But, there is no Constitutional Right to be served. Private business should be allowed to choose with whom they do business.


#16

[quote=“Tiny1, post:15, topic:38841”]
Ah…The thought police have arrived.
Yanno, you liberals cannot police people’s thoughts, and demand that they accept others. I will never accept Muslims on my property, since I cannot tell the radical from the pious, on sight. That does not make me a bigot, just careful.
If someone hates you, because you are black, or gay, or religious, or liberal, you cannot force them to be any other way. As long as they don’t violate your Constitutional Rights, or commit a criminal act, ignore it. Why, on God’s Green Earth, would anyone want acceptance, that was forced? If I dislike you, and I have a doughnut shop, why would you want to force me to feed you? Why would you even ask? When people hate me, because I am large, or white, or religious, or blunt, I scrape them off, and continue. Sure, I could probably beat them into acceptance, but WHY?
Ever seen the sign at the local diner, “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE?” That is how it should be.
It reminds me of a couple of kids my Mother kept when I was young. “He got more than me.” or, “You like him better than me.” Childishness.

Now, the Gooberment is another matter. They must be fair to all. But, there is no Constitutional Right to be served. Private business should be allowed to choose with whom they do business.
[/quote] You obviously oppose civil rights. A business should NOT be allowed to refuse service based on Color or religion. Your wrong.


#17

Isn’t denying someone goods and services based on gender, race, or disability denying someone their rights? What if we deny them necessities for surviving, like food or shelter? At what point do we draw the line? When races are dying in the streets because they can’t buy property?

If there were a perfect free market, there would be no need for discrimination laws since the free market would service these people to make money. However, that isn’t where we live. The market is not dominated by perfectly rational beings, but rather by humans who will often deny people service based on hatred. Property rights or no, there comes a point when denying someone services under the guise of property rights infringes on that person’s civil rights, namely their rights to life and liberty.


#18

[quote=“OldStyleBlues, post:16, topic:38841”]
You obviously oppose civil rights.
[/quote]Nope, I do not. I would have to oppose most of my Grandchildren, to do that.
SO, why not go an try to instigate someone else. I taught my kids to judge people by their character, not their looks, or anything else. They married who they loved. Some of my kids in law are black, Hispanic, and Asian. But I also taught them not to expect acceptance from others. If someone doesn’t want them to frequent their shop, they have that right. YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO, LIKE EVERYONE.
But go ahead and spin, spin, spin like a top.


#19

Can a Klansmen in full sheet and hood be turned away from a restaurant owned by a black man?


#20

Clothing is not the same as race, first off, so the answer to this question is irrelevant. People can deny service to people who are naked or people who dress as the KKK, because if they want service, they can change their clothes. That is not the case with race. I cannot change my race.

I don’t deny property rights. If you have a house, ban whoever you want from your house. But when you open up your property to the public and start doing business, I don’t believe you have a right to arbitrarily deny service to certain people based on these innate characteristics. To do so opens up the possibility of denying people inalienable rights due to widespread discrimination and inequality.