No, the President of the United States can’t veto state laws. The Governor did, much to everybody’s surprise, because she’s absolutely horrible, but a pragmatist it seems. The courts can invalidate the law too.
4 Likes
Here’s how you defeat this bill. Just get some conservative Islamists excited about this bill. Then, take some of their lobbying efforts and bring it to the conservative Christians: “You’re going to pass a bill that enforces sharia law! Do you really want that?”
10 Likes
What happens when somebody decides that paying interest on their mortgage is usuary and therefore religiously impremissable…
7 Likes
Does this mean all the Christian police officers will refuse to use violence now (turn the other cheek)?
5 Likes
What an oddly un-Christlike approach for them to take. Also, unAmerican. Give us your sick, your tired, your Samaritans yearning to breath free, and whatnot. Right?
Off the top of my head, the only non-inclusive thing I remember Jesus saying was, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles.”
1 Like
I keep a Snopes window open when reading BoingBoing: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/michiganmedical.asp
That would be soooo awesome!
(though I suspect that Muslims in Michigan are probably a lot more even headed and reasonable than the conservative Christians, and would want no part of said shenanigans.)
2 Likes
That works until you realize that the biggest protected class in the USA is “big money”, and said little guy gets forced out of his house by the police (with a bank foreclosure agent present), and lacks the money to force the issue through the court system.
1 Like
How the hell does 911 know who’s gay? Professional codes of ethics deal with that canard.
Moreover, the law specifically says: “©
Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.”
In other words, Public Accommodation laws, which by definition are based on compelling interest, are exempt.
This law is specifically modeled on and references the RFRA.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/htm/2014-HEBH-5958.htm
So is that what needs to happen? Bill passed, sound of backfire, consider the consequence, back off?
Fun fact, when speaking to gentiles directly, Jesus refers to them as dogs. Specifically Mark 7:25-30
He didn’t like associating with gentiles, or women, or both most of the time. Or maybe he had a specific racism toward Syrophenicians.
Just providing an example. Jesus is a pretty schizophrenic character if you want to take all the gospels to be written about the same guy. In my opinion, he most probably never existed, or was a composite of the many itinerant faith healers who were wandering around at the time.
Good point. Here’s my counterpoint, to bring this full circle: in your passage (Mark 7:25-30), Jesus provides service to the Gentile. This stands in contrast to his Gentile followers in Michigan.
3 Likes
I suppose so. I have the urge to argue some finer points, but we could do that forever since the bible wasn’t written concisely or even with self-consistency, so I’ll just wrap up and say, those Michigan Republicans are assholes, and don’t deserve to be in office with their dominionist policy-making agenda.
4 Likes
I am sure the bill will be tossed out long before that. Part of me wants to see that happen just to show people that a law like that can go both ways, not one way like the religious right wants.
As Ghandi said: ‘I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ’
6 Likes
Unless you’re the only pharmacist in town. Then someone will break into you place to get the drugs they were happy to give you money for earlier.
4 Likes
I’m with you on everything you say here. This is the problem with Biblical debate–it’s based around cherry-picking verses from different books written by different people hundreds of years apart, but treating it all as if it’s the consistent Word of God, and trying to reconcile and find meaning in overtly contradictory passages. It could make for a fun hobby, but it’s a weird thing to structure your life around.
It’s an exceptionally weird thing to use as a basis for legislation. Especially when that legislation so clearly contradicts Jesus’ teachings (ha).
5 Likes
Well said. And probably sure to be a wildly unpopular opinion.
The GOP hacks pushing this law are most likely pushing it for religious nonsense reasons, but i’d be just as pleased to have the freedom to reject work orders coming in from a Nazi or a wife-abuser or someone who I just don’t like. Otherwise, it’s back to the threat of govt force to comply with a morality-based laws. And as we’re seeing, to the enforcers with hammers, everything looks like a nail.
What some of the replies to your post seem to miss is that if there’s not enough demand in an area for something, that’s how things are supposed to work. Allow those kinds of things to flourish in areas of high demand, or to be acquired by other means (online, etc.). It’s no different than allowing booze/pot to be sold across from blue-law state lines, or prostitution/drugs to be legal in Nevada.
IANAL, so I’d say there’s probably some restrictions on refusing life-saving care under a state law or hippocratic basis.
Maybe I’m way off base but this appears to be a law respecting an establishment of religion.
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another (emphasis mine)
-Hugo Lafayette Black
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
in the majority decision, Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
It seems that passing a law that aids any or all religion isn’t something legislators are allowed to do.
2 Likes
