“Substantial burden” reminds me of AP Government and Sherbert v. Verner, which concerned a Mormon who couldn’t work on Sundays because of her beliefs.

Let’s quote the decision itself:

Held: As so applied, the South Carolina statute abridged appellant’s right to the free exercise of her religion, in violation of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) Disqualification of appellant for unemployment compensation benefits, solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion.
(b) There is no compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the South Carolina statute which justifies the substantial infringement of appellant’s right to religious freedom under the First Amendment.
© This decision does not foster the “establishment” of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion in South Carolina contrary to the First Amendment.

In this case, the appellant won because working on Sundays would’ve been a major breach of her beliefs, (Ten Commandments, after all.) and the state didn’t have a compelling reason to deny her unemployment benefits because of such belief. (Although it seems like if a job absolutely needs her to work Sundays, she wouldn’t win that.)

Now, while the Bible preaches against homosexuality and implicitly advances the belief that marriage is between man and woman, it doesn’t say anything about staying away from such people. On the contrary, Jesus' actions suggest the opposite.

There is the whole stoning thing, but no sane church today is going to test substantial burden on that. So ruling out lethal punishment, I’d say Christians have little to fear.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

This is a good concession-refutation clincher. Yes, Sater can base his political-decision system based on a religion. The 1st Amendment protects that.

That said, if a politician cannot propose a sufficient non-religious reason for a bill, that’d be a 1st Amendment violation. Christmas is a federal holiday out of practical reasons, not because the United States is a Christian nation.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

This is one of many questions the bill raises. One must wonder if there are enough cases, such as the bakery owner the bill sponsor mentions as an example, to warrant legalizing discrimination.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Here’s what the text has to say:

That the state shall not impose a penalty on an individual who declines either to personally be a participant in a wedding or marriage or to provide goods or services of expressional or artistic creation, such as a photographer or florist, for a wedding or marriage or a closely preceding or ensuing reception therefore, because of a sincere religious belief concerning marriage between two persons of the same sex.

That’s just one of several paragraphs covering the spectrum of clergy and businesses. Make your own judgment, but the phrase “sincere religious belief” is screaming for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to swoop in and demand freedoms based on shoe size.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Remember the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The same amendment that prevents the government from restricting religious freedom also restrains that same government from imposing any one religion on its citizens.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

While Missouri has been largely influenced by Christian traditions, it isn’t a theocracy, and it’s not solely Christian.

According to the Pew Research Center, 20% of Missouri adults are religiously unaffiliated. That’d be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who’d also be subject to religious interests – Christian interests.

I’m interested in seeing what the Missouri Jewish community has to say about Kehoe’s statement, if they care enough.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

This article is the 2nd editorial board article on SJR 39 in five days, the other being “The no-catering-gay-weddings issue comes to Missouri”. The Post-Dispatch clearly believes in their stance against this bill.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-the-no-catering-gay-weddings-issue-comes-to-missouri/article_9143f3db-69e8-5bb1-8cf1-1affb6d96e65.html

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Shelly got to the issue’s crux: Whose liberty should the law side with? On one hand, there’s the freedom for a business to deny services based on one’s religious belief. On another hand, there’s the freedom to be able to pay for services without being unfairly discriminated.

The question is whether a couple’s orientation is sufficient to justify a denial, but at least in my eyes, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Shelley does present a good point that providing a service doesn’t automatically infringe on one’s being. To take another angle, I might be uncomfortable with baking a cake for a KKK member, but I’d like to see the Missouri Senate address that. (And the bill, SJR 39, specifically targets same-sex couples.)

And since it’s legally wrong to deny services based on one’s religion, sex, race, creed, et al., sexuality should fall under that too.

Unfortunately it doesn’t in Missouri, but I hope this discussion will pave the way toward sexual orientation being a protected class under Missouri’s Human Rights Act.


That turned into a mini-essay. I’m going to send a thank-you email to Barbara Shelly.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Onder should do the same. He needs to speak to plenty of LGBT couples, especially those who have faced obstacles because of their sexual orientation.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.