On the second day of a historic religious liberties filibuster a St. Louis County Democrat fought the idea that this bill could override the provisions set out by the U.S. Constitution.
Wrap: Senator Scott Sifton argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage established the LGBTQ community as a protected class.
Sifton said that the protections they recieve on the national level supersede any protections that this bill would potentially take away.
|Description: "The notion that somehow voters are going to approve this amendment and now Missourians who have a sincerely held religious belief that requires them to discriminate against same-sex couples dont have to worry about it, is naive. You're still gonna get sued, it's just gonna be the Federal Constitution claim."|
Reporting from the state Capitol, I'm Madeline Odle.
Missouri senators argued over what made the bill discriminatory - or not - in the second day of a history-making filibuster.
Wrap: Jackson County Democrat, Senator Kiki Curls argued that the bill was not protecting a religious belief, it was protecting a discriminatory one.
Curls said it would be different if it were purely allowing clergy or priests to refuse to marry same-sex couples, but including businesses in the mix is what makes the act discrimination.
|Description: "Senator, when you allow folks to refuse service to anyone based upon their sexual orientation or sexual preference, that would be discrimination."|
Reporting from the state Capitol, I'm Madeline Odle