Let’s look at the bill:

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, by adding thereto one new section relating to the protection of certain religious organizations and individuals from being penalized by the state because of their sincere religious beliefs or practices concerning marriage between two persons of the same sex.

It does single out same-sex couples and make no allusion to any other religious protections. Onder might think he’s making a statement, but such legislation doesn’t come off beign to the sticks' short end.

For Onder to believe that his cause is “under seige” makes me wonder what he believes LGBT people are going through. I wouldn’t say that Christians are the persecuted group, and having to make one cake doesn’t amount to oppression.

Sifton’s approach is a good idea, since it highlights the bill’s narrowness when it comes to calling out certain issues.

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

I believe that’s SJR39, since this story mentions that it’s a joint resolution, and the text matches the article.

http://genius.it/goo.gl/BCo4Ne

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

Onder seems to only be concerned for the tolerance of religious people and not the tolerance of gay people.

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

I’d contest the implication that she wasn’t discrimating. Just because she believes that it’s against her faith to serve same-sex couple doesn’t mean she unfairly denied service because of one’s sexual orientation. Would she get a free pass if she objected to a Jewish couple, for example?

Does a lack of desire mean that any discrimination that occurred doesn’t matter?

The answer isn’t necessarily yes, but I question One’s priorities.

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

It’s a common example in today’s political scene. A religious wedding cake decorator is approached by a same-sex couple. Here’s the dilemma: Do you protect the right of the religious decorator to refuse their services because their religion condemns homosexuality, or do you protect the same-sex couple’s right to not be refused service because of their sexual orientation?

Many people are inclined to side with the decorator, but before you do so, let me modify the scenario.

A couple of people, both who divorced their previous spouses, approach the same decorator. Do you now think that the decorator should be able to refuse service on the basis of religious belief? After all, the Bible does speak out against divorce, so a good Christian shouldn’t accomindate divorces in remarrying – right?

What about a Jewish couple or a Muslim couple? They’re Gentiles.

How about interracial couples? We allowed businesses to turn away them because of religion, so shouldn’t we turn them back?


While the above scenarios aren’t as discussed, they could happen. I’d argue that a Christian has more sound ground to turn away a divorcee couple because the Bible does speak at lengths against divorce, while the same text only condemns the act of homosexuality 2-3 times. But that’s a digression.

The point is that the bill specifically focuses on refusing service to same-sex couples. Why does one kind of religious discrimination deserve protection, but not other ones?

To focus on same-sex couples alone is excessively discriminatory, and that wouldn’t stand much in court. So if you want to advance religious freedom, either go all the way, or recognize that maybe we should reframe the problem. Maybe we should focus on the issue on why sex and racial discrimination is a no-no, yet why sexual-orientation discrimination is legally A-OK.

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

When I first visited this page, it linked to the 2014 version of SB916 instead of the 2016 version, which I included below.

http://genius.it/www.senate.mo.gov/16info/pdf-bill/intro/SB916.pdf

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

Here’s a full link to the Missouri Human Rights Act, if anyone wants to sort through it.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/ChaptersIndex/chaptIndex213.html

Here’s the meat of it.

213.030. 1. The powers and duties of the commission shall be:

(1) To seek to eliminate and prevent discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing and to take other actions against discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, or familial status as provided by law; and the commission is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes;

Guess what’s missing.

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

This is one of the “religious freedom” bills' fundamental problems. If those bills become law and the Non-discrimination Act doesn’t, that won’t be good. That’d be the Missouri government valuing one group’s discomfort over another group’s liberty.

This is why Missouri citizens should fight so that their state won’t become another example of a dying movement against LGBT rights.

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

What is this?

The Genius annotation is the work of the Genius Editorial project. Our editors and contributors collaborate to create the most interesting and informative explanation of any line of text. It’s also a work in progress, so leave a suggestion if this or any annotation is missing something.

To learn more about participating in the Genius Editorial project, check out the contributor guidelines.

Loading...

The intro to the song is a set-up, sonically and lyrically. With its sweet, doo-wop melody (a sound she honed in “All About That Bass”), Meghan seems like she’s delivering a familiar love song before switching gears in the following chorus.

As she said in her TIME Magazine interview:

When you hear the song without that intro, it was too much, ‘Who is this? Who is this new artist?’ So I thought, let’s give them a taste of what they know, and then let’s slap ‘em in the face. In the nicest, sweetest way! A polite slap.

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

What is this?

The Genius annotation is the work of the Genius Editorial project. Our editors and contributors collaborate to create the most interesting and informative explanation of any line of text. It’s also a work in progress, so leave a suggestion if this or any annotation is missing something.

To learn more about participating in the Genius Editorial project, check out the contributor guidelines.

Loading...

“What’s your name,” “what’s your (astrological/birth) sign,” and “what’s your number?” are all commonly employed questions used by men trying to pick up women.

Meghan’s not having any of it. She’s encouraging women everywhere to say “no” to men they’re not interested in, an empowering message that’s unfortunately rare in pop music.

As pointed out in her Billboard interview, this song about rejection was inspired by rejection—specifically L.A. Reid telling her that there weren’t any lead singles from this album. And, as she said in Elle:

When I say, ‘You need to let it go,’ it’s like me telling the label like, ‘This is good music. Let’s put it out.’

Meghan’s trying to get comfortable with the word “no” in her everyday life:

As the CEO running my life, running Meghan Trainor, I have to say ‘no’ to things all the time, and it’s been very uncomfortable and very difficult. I’ve said ‘no’ and it’s actually worked—even when I never thought it would work. Even something as simple as saying, ‘I want this for my album cover’ and my label would be like, ‘Nah, we like this picture.’ And I would say, ‘No. I want this picture.“ And they got it, like, 'Understood.’ There’s a lot of power in the word ‘no,’ and a lot of people, like myself, need to know that.

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