As was clearly evidenced by the Town Hall meeting held a week ago by our representatives, some individuals don’t take the time to read and understand legislative bills (HB135) and others manage to distort the intended meaning into something to be fearful of.
I wonder, did you read the bill? Granted, they are difficult to understand sometimes, but this one seemed to be straightforward. You mentioned words from the Definitions page, did you read the part on page three about, “protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions?” That’s what this bill was about.
As Cheri Steinmetz stated, several times in that Town Hall, the intent of her HB135 was to keep government (at any level) from persecuting either; government employees or private citizens if that person or persons declined to perform an act which was at odds with their faith. It was intended to allow the free exercise of one’s own faith without fear of being punished for doing so – even whaen in government
service positions.
Your letter to the editor seems to clearly see “discrimination” (in quotes, because that is not what it was) when imagined from one direction, but did you see, for example the discrimination endured by the bakery owners when they were fined for trying to follow their consciences, their religious beliefs.
Or closer to home, the Wyoming Judge who was condemned for commenting to a reporter she would not want to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple. Performing marriages was not her main responsibility and there were other judges willing to perform the ceremony. How was this discrimination? Especially since she is now fighting removal from her job, what do you call that? It looks like persecution from where I stand.
It seems to me the point has been completely missed, i.e. lifestyle and or religious beliefs are a person’s own business. Remember, “Free exercise thereof” in the first sentence of Amendment I? It is supposed to work both ways, Christians included. Perhaps we can agree on that point.
