(Photo: Rep. Neil Abramson)
The legislation that gave Governor Bobby Jindal a platform in the New York Times, Iowa and New Hampshire died in the legislature, via a procedure device which returned it back to the calendar, which for most part, is the legislative elephant graveyard.
The bill claimed to protect businesses from certain state action or discrimination if the business objected to marriage--not between a man and a woman (or otherwise, same sex marriages).
As Democrat Rep. Jon Bel Edwards pointed out in questioning the bill author, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Bossier City), a doctor working at a state institution could not be fired by the state if the doctor refused to treat a same-sex couple.
Or, the state could not take action against a teacher who refused to visit with the same-sex parents of their son or daughter.
As Johnson retorted, there would be other remedies afforded to the patient and the student’s parents but this legislation would prevent the state from acting against those types of behavior in terms of yanking licenses, etc.
However, not only did the bill prevent the state from “acting against” those who prefer not to serve or offer services to same sex couples, but, arguably, it would hurt innocent people such as the children or loved ones of those denied services.
Although Jindal and Johnson have insisted the bill was only about religion, think again.
The law specifically would prevent the state from acting in four specific areas against a business (person) who conscientiously objected to same-sex marriage on “moral” grounds, not just religious.
That type of grant would have opened the door to all types of “moral” objections, even if religion were not involved. Thus, arguably, an athiest, who did not approve of same-sex marriage could withhold service to the couple on the basis or the athiest's sense of morality, not religion.
What would stop the next bill that purportedly prevented the state from denying licenses or other permissions to a doctor who morally didn’t like a person’s lifestyle? Or a teacher stopping a student from attending class because the teacher “morally” did not agree with the students’ parents’ behavior?
As one mother of a gay person testified today, we know what this bill is about, we know what this bill is about.
Yes, we did and we do. It was about using the cloak of religion to keep gays from having the same rights as straights.
This is not an easy issue and I understand how many people feel who approve this legislation.
Our society is not the way I thought it would be or should be. I don’t like the fact that our society is now accepting gay lifestyles to the extent that it is doing. When I grew up, gays were called “queers” and ridicule of their human frailties was a sport.
However, whether i like it or not, it is time for me and others to grow up.
I, for one, cannot say with any certainty whatsoever that gays choose that behavior or lifestyle out of choice. My common sense and life-observations compel me to believe that while there might be exceptions, gays were born this way or pre-disposed by birth.
Despite our governor wanting another social-conservative arrow and more campaign funds to back his political arsenal for his outrageous presidential run, this legislative body, led by Rep. Neil Abramson either opposed the legislation or felt a state in the time of exigent budgetary circumstances, could not afford this type of assault upon its waning reputation.
This committee’s decision might make Duck Dynasty angry and might embarrass Governor Jindal.
Sorry. The members of this committee by a 10-2 margin were not persuaded that this bill, at this time, was right for Louisiana.
To which, I respectfully say, Amen.
Gov. Bobby Jindal plans to issue executive order enforcing intent of religious freedom bill
Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:37Written by A media source
Gov. Bobby Jindal issued a statement Tuesday (May 19) saying he plans to issue an executive order to enact the intent of a religious freedom bill that effectively died about two hours earlier, in the House Civil Law and Procedure