As noted earlier, Mississippi was considering its own “religious liberties” law, and, for those of us keeping score, that has now passed, according to Steve Benen:
As the MSNBC report noted, the new state law, set to go into effect in July, “prevents government agencies from taking action against state employees, individuals, organizations and private associations that deny services based on religious objections – usually interpreted to mean religious objections to same-sex marriage, transgender rights and even extramarital sexual relationships.”
NPR clarifies the new law:
The law is not a broad religious-protections law, such as many recent controversial state laws. As we reported last week, the Mississippi legislation protects only three beliefs or convictions: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sex is “properly reserved to such a marriage,” and that words like “male” and “female” are “objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.”
The law protects, among other things, state employees who refuse to license marriages, religious organizations who fire or discipline employees and individuals who decline to provide counseling or some medical services based on those oppositions.
On the corporate front NPR reports there is unrest:
LGBT advocates in Mississippi had been calling for Bryant, a Republican, to veto the legislation, as had members of the business community such as the Mississippi Manufacturers Association, Nissan North American and Tyson Foods.
The Family Research Council described business opposition to the measure as “economic blackmail” and celebrated Bryant’s signature. “No person should be punished by the government with crippling fines, or face disqualification for simply believing what President Obama believed just a few years ago, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” FRC President Tony Perkins said in a statement.
Evidently Mr. Perkins doesn’t believe in growth and evolution. Unfortunately, that part of the remark comes off as superficially sophisticated, but is really an admission of a certain rigidity of viewpoint, not to mention the implied argument is completely irrelevant.
In a secular nation such as ours, religions must accept curbs on their behaviors or we risk returning to the colonial, even pre-colonial days where ‘religious bigotry’ didn’t just mean someone calling you names, but you being burned at the stake. We are one nation, and whether or not you believe ‘under God’ should be appended to that statement, there is no doubt that laws such as this one are a direct contradiction in that they permit, they socially legitimize hatred of those elements of our society who are a little bit different – but are hurting no one, and in fact contribute substantially.
Stay tuned as we wait to see who else cannot stand their fellow law-abiding, good hearted Americans.
