A naked attempt to repeal religious rights

Monday, March 26, 2018
 | 
Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)

First Amendment (Bill of Rights)A liberal legislator in Massachusetts is pushing an anti-discrimination bill that openly pushes back against a landmark religious rights ruling.

House Bill 767, introduced by Rep. Michael Day, is attempting to strip businesses and corporations, and thus their owners, from First Amendment protection.

"Some Democratic lawmakers in Massachusetts are taking a stand to stop corporations from using religious objections to discriminate," begins a celebratory story about the bill at the website lgbtqnation.com.

Andrew Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, says Americans don't lose their religious freedom when they open a family business.

Hobby Lobby store"Like the Green family in the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case," says Beckwith, referring to the 2014 landmark ruling. "That court ruling affirmed that all Americans, including business owners, must be free to live and work consistently with their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government."

The landmark Hobby Lobby ruling, in fact, is one motivation behind House Bill 767, Day, an attorney, told the homosexual-rights web site. 

“This bill is not a symbolic filing,” Day told the website. “H.767 takes a targeted and narrow approach to this problem by simply preventing for-profit business corporations from claiming moral convictions or religious beliefs to abuse a corporate exemption and violate our civil-rights laws.”

Day, meanwhile, claims in his legislative biography that he is a leading advocate of "civil rights and civil liberties issues." 

Beckwith

Beckwith points out that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide the case of Jack Phillips (pictured below), the Colorado baker who ran afoul of his state's anti-discrimination law when he refused to take a wedding cake order for a homosexual wedding. 

Day, in fact, mentions that coming decision, too, and says his legislation "shuts the door" to "discriminatory acts" in the state of Massachusetts.

"What Rep. Day's bill would say is that if Jack Phillips were in Massachusetts and this law were passed, he wouldn't even have his day in court, (because) it says that people of faith always lose," Beckwith warns.

Jack Phillips making cake"And not only do they lose if they try and use their faith as a defense against discrimination claims," Beckwith continues, "this law would pierce the corporate veil. So not only would they possibly lose their business, they could lose their homes in the lawsuits and the penalties and fines that come with them."

The LGBT-friendly story goes on to insist that Day's bill applies only to for-profit corporations, not non-profits that would presumably include churches.

Yet OneNewsNow reported in a 2016 story that four Massachusetts churches filed a federal lawsuit after the state said a "public accomodations" law includes churches. The same law barred churches from making any statements - presumably including sermons - that are considered discrimination by the state.

The then-new law spawned a commentary by Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio, who warned at the time that the state's attorney general confirmed "houses of worship" are considered public accomodations. 

Starnes also pointed out that the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination issued a document on transgenders' rights that also stated a church is open to the public and must allow "full accomodation" of transgenders.

 


Editor's Note: Op-ed comments from Todd Starnes, writing about the 2016 non-discrimination law, have been added. 

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

Why is ‘drag queen story hour’ being defended even after convicted sex offenders participated? (Choose up to two)

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

  Trump vows response to China tariff threat
  Special prosecutor named to look into Jussie Smollett case
  ACLU forces school district to adopt leftist ideology
  Danish leader speaks with Trump amid Greenland dispute
Democrats pessimistic about "Medicare for All' plan
US officials confirm Israeli strike in Iraq

LATEST FROM THE WEB

How 'bout 'National Family Month'? Ideas for 2020
'I AM NOT SUICIDAL,' says man who exposed Hillary's ties to Google
Todd Starnes: Beauty queen in combat boots takes on Trump Derangement Syndrome
Why victimhood and fear won’t preserve liberty
Good grief: University banned beef because a fashion expert declared a ‘climate emergency’

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day
NEXT STORY
Mayor to Calif. AG: Do your state a favor and reprioritize

California sanctuary stateA California mayor suggests the state's attorney general needs to concentrate more on prosecuting dangerous illegal alien criminals – and less on defending the state's sanctuary policy.