In the "which GOP state legislature is the most pernicious," Michigan's House wins today. It just passed a license to discriminate bill, which allows anyone to refuse service to anyone, claiming religious objection to that person's religion or lifestyle.
Supporters of these bills claim they allow people of faith to exercise their religion without government interference, but in reality, they are trojan horses, allowing rampant discrimination under the guise of religious observance.
For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor's prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple, and a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver's license to a person who is divorced.
Michigan Speaker Bolger fast-tracked the bill, which passed on partisan lines, 59-50. It now heads to the Michigan Senate, and if successful, to Republican Governor Rick Snyder. It is not known if Gov. Snyder would sign it.
“I support individual liberty and I support religious freedom,” Bolger said today. “I have been horrified as some have claimed that a person’s faith should only be practiced while hiding in their home or in their church.”
The broadly written Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow, for example, an EMT to refuse emergency treatment to a gay person or a pharmacist to refuse to refill HIV medication.
The measure is similar to one in Arizona that even right-wing governor Jan Brewer thought went too far and vetoed.
Two things:
Any chance Snyder can be pushed to veto this?
Do Dems and Michiganders who stayed at home last month think their vote really doesn't matter now?
UPDATE: Some clarification as to whether such bills can apply to EMTs. As per MSNBC:
Like the federal RFRA, Michigan’s bill protects people from laws that substantially burden their sincerely held religious beliefs, unless the government can prove that the offending law serves a compelling interest and accomplishes that goal using the least restrictive means possible.
It appears that the laws, including one in TX, are written as broadly as possible, and continue to be passed in every state with a Republican legislature. As to whether it could apply to EMTs, as was sourced above, it is unclear, but MSNBC says:
In some of the ugliest scenarios, critics say the measure could allow Catholic-owned hospitals to refuse admittance to people who need a procedure that violates the institution’s religious directives,
Presumably even if the patient was dying and there wasn't time to rush him/her to another hospital.
Not good in any case. And looks like these are begging to be upheld/struck down by SCOTUS. Any guess how SCOTUS will rule?