HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
My understanding is that this bill wouldn't specifically alter any laws, but it includes a general provision that says something like...
"the government shall not place a substantial burden on the exercise of someone's religious belief, and if it does it has to demonstrate a compelling government interest and that it is imposing the burden in the least intrusive way".
It's very general, so it's hard to spell out exactly what that means (what's a substantial burden? what's a compelling government interest? how do you demonstrate 'least intrusive'?). But the concern is that it will enable discrimination against certain groups of people - particularly LGBT people, given the other provisions of the bill (eg - no one shall be forced to attend a same sex marriage against their will, as though that's a serious concern which requires a law to prevent it) - and opens cans of worms everywere (eg can a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for a morning after pill based on a religious objection? can they refuse to stock contraceptives in their store for the same reason? can a state or city official refuse to issue a same sex marriage licence? what about a marriage licence for an inter-racial couple? etc)
I don't believe GA includes sexuality as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws, and this is one of the reasons why the GA bill has received so much attention - there would be legal protection for those who want to discriminate, and less legal recourse for those who would be discriminated against.
Absolute garbage if one can discriminate against or fire for some supposed "sincerely held beliefs". Period. {nm} Mar 28, 09:39
I don't agree with the firing aspect; however, are you saying businesses should never be able to refuse services to another? Mar 28, 09:51
I agree with your very well-written points. On that level, I do see how people would abuse the real intent of the Bill. Mar 28, 10:16
if they are a public business, the law is clear that they can't discriminate {nm} Mar 28, 11:07
Apologies everyone, busy at work! Trying to read thread now :) {nm} Mar 28, 13:31
My issue is with the bill because its a bad bill that could lead to worse bills. Mar 28, 14:13
All sincerely held beliefs, or only the ones you disagree with? Mar 28, 10:06
By "you can discriminate based on content", I mean "discriminating based on content is not OK either" {nm} Mar 28, 13:10
My understanding is that this bill wouldn't specifically alter any laws, but it includes a general provision that says something like... Mar 28, 16:49
That is not a correct comparison Mar 28, 10:26
Thankfully, that percentage is declining annually. {nm} Mar 28, 10:50
Europe exorcised all that by shipping the puritanical religious types to North America. Mar 28, 12:53
Even setting aside agreement/disagreement with others' sexuality, there is a more fundamental problem with the bill. Mar 28, 13:06
Now, if we could only get all those religions and churches to start paying taxes... {nm} Mar 29, 14:25
