Louisiana state Rep. Mike Johnson (R) seems to be feeling the heat after introducing a controversial religious freedom bill, which he says is meant to limit “the state’s right to discriminate against people simply on the basis of their belief about marriage as a traditional union between one man and one woman.”
Johnson introduced the bill in the aftermath of religious freedom skirmishes in Arkansas and Indiana. In Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence (R) was forced to clarify his law under widespread national criticism. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchison (R) similarly sent the religious freedom bill back to the state legislature.
Johnson’s legislation blocks the government from taking away tax
benefits or businesses licenses or imposing fines because of a business
owner’s views on gay marriage, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. But critics argue the bill, like with Indiana or Arkansas, would effectively allow businesses to refuse to serve same-sex couples if gay marriage becomes legal in the state.
Leaders at IBM, which has a large presence in Baton Rouge, recently sent a letter to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) which echoed the concerns of other companies who have argued religious freedom legislation creates hostile work environments for some employees. When asked his response to the bill after the letter was made public, Republican Baton Rouge Metro City Councilman John Delgado called Johnson a “despicable bigot of the highest order.”
On Monday, Johnson sat down with the Times-Picayune to defend his legislation. He said “this is not the debate that was held in Indiana or Arkansas. We had those debates in Louisiana five years ago when we passed our religious freedom restoration act, as they did.”
Johnson went on to say that his proposal “was a different bill, it’s a new concept and I’m looking forward to the opportunity to clarify that.”
Watch Johnson’s interview below:
(Photo credit: Youtube)
"Limit “the state’s right to discriminate” but not limit an individual in their hatred of anything they don’t like or are afraid of.
Why don’t you fuckers give it up already?
YOU LOST.
Because of how they “won” with regards to abortion. Basically, they think that they can limit LGBT rights a nibble at a time the same way that they did with abortion in order to win in the long run. What they don’t understand is that it is possible limit abortion (which is a private service) but not LGBT rights (which is a public rights issue).
Just what kind of “heat” is that
I would love to see this guy get suckered with one of those no-discrimination amendments. I don’t care what someone’s beliefs are about gay marriage (well, not much) but I certainly care about whether they act in a discriminatory way. So I’m fine with no state action because of belief, as along as it’s made clear that state action in response to bigoted actions is just fine. Bet he wouldn’t be.