Appeals Court Denies Mississippi's Request To Enforce Anti-Gay Law During Appeal
- By
- Carlos Santoscoy
- | August 13, 2016
A
federal appeals court on Friday denied Mississippi's request to be
allowed to enforce its controversial “religious freedom” law while it
appeals a lower court's ruling blocking the measure from taking effect.After U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves denied Republican Governor Phil Bryant's request to stay his June 30 ruling blocking House Bill 1523 from taking effect, Bryant turned to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied Bryant's request along with a separate request to expedite the appeal, BuzzFeed News reported.
In dismissing the state's motion, Reeves suggested that the state was motivated by animus toward the LGBT community.
“[I]ssuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not like being forced into armed combat or to assist with an abortion. Matters of life and death are sui generis. If movants truly believe that providing services to LGBT citizens forces them to 'tinker with the machinery of death,' their animus exceeds anything seen in Romer, Windsor or the marriage equality cases,” Reeves wrote, referring to earlier gay rights cases argued before the Supreme Court.
When someone has problems with serving someone of a certain group of society based on "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions" one should not enter a business!
ReplyDeleteAlso, when one declares to have objections and or problems with serving people of a specific group of society, based on "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions" one should be checked on how "sincere" those held believes in fact are, in other words, put the actions by such a person against the religious rules and laws held "sincerely" by that person!
For instance, is the purpose of the business to make profit (which is normal I think), how stands that desire to the rule of one's faith to the rule (or practice) that Jesus disbanded the money-makers from the Temple, arguing that wanting to make profit was a bad thing?
Another argument against the proposed regulation: When based on "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions"certain people would be allowed to exclude members of a specific group of people in society from being served in and or by their business, how would (or do) these same people then being allowed to exclude specific people be reacting when they themselves would be excluded from services provided by other people who have and hold "sincerely held beliefs or moral convictions"?
When one group would be allowed to exclude people from other groups, it would automatically mean that people of other groups would be allowed to exclude them from their services, opening the path to for instance caucasian people excluding negroid people from their shops, or businesses!
Or, that red haired people would exclude black haired people from their shops, businesses!
Or, brown eyed people excluding blue eyed people from their sops. businesses!
Or, being more serious, when brown-skinned people excluding albino's from their shops, businesses, a practice that is "normal" in many African countries, because it is a religiously belief that albinos are partner of the devil!
And even more serious, what about a group of people being excluded from entering or doing business with when they are above a certain age? Or a Veteran? Or a handicapped individual?
All in all, when you have a faith, and are opposed to a certain moral, or a group of people who do not live according to your faith, or the rules of your faith, you either keep your personal faith to yourself, and do business with all, or you refrain from entering business activities!
Someone's faith is personal, and must be practiced behind the door of one's private home!
If someone wants to practice one's faith outside the privacy of one's own home you accept all and everyone!
My opinion!