Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

Mississippi the state that ranks #2 in dependency on the federal government and takes in more in federal aid than it pays in to the system, mostly paid for by taxpayers in California and New York has taken the nation back into the past and is now going to allow discrimination again.

The Mississippi legislature has passed legislation that would allow people to use their religion to justify discrimination. It seemed last month that the “religious liberty” bill had sufficiently stalled after the House voted to send it a study committee instead of passing it, with many members noting how it could be used to promote discrimination. However, both the House and Senate have approved a conference report on the bill, advancing it to Gov. Phil Bryant (R) with problematic language.

thinkprogress.org...

Skymon612
Mississippi the state that ranks #2 in dependency on the federal government...

So I guess it bothers you that you are FORCED to support people you disagree with?

Now you know how religious people feel.

reply to post by Skymon612


Well I hope the Gov has the good sense to veto the bill. That is generally what happens. If he passes it then the day after it will be challenged in court only clogging up the system even more than it already is. The bill is doomed to fail.

Metallicus

So I guess it bothers you that you are FORCED to support people you disagree with?

Now you know how religious people feel.

Being forced to Support isn't the same as being forced to Tolerate. That is the difference that I see being done here lately with these Discrimination Laws.

mOjOm
Being forced to Support isn't the same as being forced to Tolerate.

Why do you want to force people to do anything? That's the pinnacle of intolerance.

reply to post by Skymon612


I can see this backfiring on alot of people.

NthOther

mOjOm
Being forced to Support isn't the same as being forced to Tolerate.

Why do you want to force people to do anything? That's the pinnacle of intolerance.

Force wasn't and wouldn't be my choice of a word to use. I used it because the person I was replying to used it and I figured it made more sense that way.

But in a way the same general idea still applies so I still feel the need to explain my statement better. Getting people to Tolerate one another is why society works in the first place. Where as Support is more akin to forcing people to act against their own will. For example, being tolerate of others choices in sexual lifestyles means just staying out of their bedroom. You can still not approve of it or not like it all you want without actively pushing against it. Nobody said you have to join in or promote it in any way since that would be actually supporting it.

Does that make more sense???

Metallicus

Skymon612
Mississippi the state that ranks #2 in dependency on the federal government...

So I guess it bothers you that you are FORCED to support people you disagree with?

Now you know how religious people feel.

It doesn't seem to bother you that you're framing the issue in such a way as to turn a group that wants to publicly ostracize an entire segment of society into the victims. Maybe if some of these people were less concerned about having to bake cakes for gay people or teaching creationism in high school science classes, they could get their act together and become less of a fiscal burden.

Yet another reason I'm proud to call Mississippi home!

Oh and while you're spouting off about people cramming their religion down your throat, here's the bill's purpose from your own source...

Though proponents of such “religious liberty” bills claim that they do not promote discrimination, the examples they cite to explain why such legislation is necessary entail photographers and bakers refusing service to same-sex couples. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins praised Mississippi for advancing this bill, specifically highlighting how it would protect “a wedding vendor, whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage.’”

What's so wrong with that besides the fact that you want to force your own morality on wedding vendors, bakers, photographers, and eventually churches as well?

Metallicus

Skymon612
Mississippi the state that ranks #2 in dependency on the federal government...

So I guess it bothers you that you are FORCED to support people you disagree with?

Now you know how religious people feel.

Hmmm, so it's okay for someone to use their "freedom" to take away another group of peoples freedom in the name of freedom? Seems highly ironic if you ask me.

Are religious people being forced to be homosexuals? No, they are not.

Are they being forced to get abortions? No, they are not.

Are they being forced to take birth control, or use condoms? No they are not.

It has everything to do with what they see happening around them. Not within them.

These people are not having their freedoms or choices reduced. And they are not having something forced onto them specifically. Because it doesn't even concern them as individuals.

Honcho
These people are not having their freedoms or choices reduced. And they are not having something forced onto them specifically. Because it doesn't even concern them as individuals.

Umm excuse me, but telling me I have to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top of it or face discrimination charges qualifies as force in my book.

Honcho

Metallicus

Skymon612
Mississippi the state that ranks #2 in dependency on the federal government...

So I guess it bothers you that you are FORCED to support people you disagree with?

Now you know how religious people feel.

Hmmm, so it's okay for someone to use their "freedom" to take away another group of peoples freedom in the name of freedom? Seems highly ironic if you ask me.

Are religious people being forced to be homosexuals? No, they are not.

Are they being forced to get abortions? No, they are not.

Are they being forced to take birth control, or use condoms? No they are not.

It has everything to do with what they see happening around them. Not within them.

These people are not having their freedoms or choices reduced. And they are not having something forced onto them specifically. Because it doesn't even concern them as individuals.

So the owners of hobby lobby arent being forced to pay for products they find reprehensible to their religious beliefs?

How about the baker who has to bake wedding cakes for gays now?

I am not even religious, but see this as the left forcing their beliefs on others.

Nobody has to work for hobby lobby. There are other bakers that can and will make gay wedding cakes.

The fringe are trying to force the mainstream to not only allow, but participate in their activities.

It isnt enough for gays to be tolerated, they have to force non gay folks to do what they want.....The baker.

It isnt enough that birth control is like $10 a month, they have to force the owners of hobby lobby to pay for products they are against.

Just exactly who is trying to force whom here?

Bone75
Umm excuse me, but telling me I have to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top of it or face discrimination charges qualifies as force in my book.

Well, if you have no other reason than simply because you are discriminating against another person, why shouldn't you be charged with discrimination???

Or do you support discrimination and therefor think that discrimination laws should be removed???

I don't really have a problem with folks selling to those they don't want to. On the other hand, it could be very, very sketchy if it applies to other things like employment and renting.

If you don't want to sell a cake to somebody, that's one thing; they don't need a cake. Folks need jobs and homes. While I don't like it, I'm not sure I have the right to stand in the way of such discrimination.

The problem is going to come that, if this is indeed the way it is, then it will run afoul of the courts so fast it'll make their heads spin.

oblvion

So the owners of hobby lobby arent being forced to pay for products they find reprehensible to their religious beliefs?

You mean those very same products that they are heavily invested in for years now. 3/4 of Hobby Lobby's Retirement Investments are in the very companies who manufacture those reprehensible products which are against their Religious Beliefs.

But I guess it's different when they are making money off of those products rather than spending money on them, right???

Their claim of righteousness and religious belief is a LIE. You've been had. They've played upon the emotional and spiritual ideals of people and taken them all for a ride to suit their own agenda. Look behind the curtain which has recently been pulled open and shows the Great Wizard for who he really is, a big fat hypocritical lying group of selfish A-holes.

Bone75

Honcho
These people are not having their freedoms or choices reduced. And they are not having something forced onto them specifically. Because it doesn't even concern them as individuals.

Umm excuse me, but telling me I have to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top of it or face discrimination charges qualifies as force in my book.

What happens when it is the only florist or bakery for miles around? Suppose they end up finding a new one only to be shot down once again, and then again. I'm sure there would be an unprecedented uproar if some of these businesses started refusing Christians service based solely on their religious faith. And it would just end up having people kick and scream saying it's a violation of their first amendment right as well. I have no doubt in my mind that it would.

I thought Christianity was based heavily on love and forgiveness. Love thy neighbor after all. Doesn't seem like their following their so-called faith the right way anyway. And I highly doubt there's any where in the bible that states gay people should be denied pastries.

mOjOm

Bone75
Umm excuse me, but telling me I have to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top of it or face discrimination charges qualifies as force in my book.

Well, if you have no other reason than simply because you are discriminating against another person, why shouldn't you be charged with discrimination???

Or do you support discrimination and therefor think that discrimination laws should be removed???

Try reframing it...would you force a Jewish baker to make a Nazi themed wedding cake for a couple of Kluxers? Say, a couple of sheeters shoving a little Jewish guy into a marzipan oven on top of the cake, with the little SS uniformed bride and groom doing a Heil Hitler?

reply to post by Metallicus

So I guess it bothers you that you are FORCED to support people you disagree with? Now you know how religious people feel. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I find it rather amusing that you would make a statement such as this, specifically for citing "religious people" as an example...are you referring to a certain denomination or just anyone who is "religious"? And if the latter, what are the requirements for being sufficiently devout as to be considered "religious"? You do realize that if this legislature passes, it will be primarily a benefit for all of those uncomfortable, put-upon and victimized "religious" folks that reside in the great state of Mississippi, correct? And by that I am referring to the overwhelming Baptist population that fills every church on every street corner three times per week, twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday.

I imagine they will be thrilled to know they can turn the tables on all of those pesky, problematic LGBT folks, ethnic groups and members of other religions that they don't care for, and get their revenge for being so victimized and traumatized by them all this time. Being "forced" to "support" them and such. Give me a break. Graciously accepting the fact that every person is unique and does not deserve to be judged for their ethnicity or sexual orientation, etc., and being "forced to support" said alternate lifestyle and/or other things that offend their delicate sensibilities are nowhere near being the same dynamic.

While I am quite certain that the discrimination would be largely focused on the LGBT community, it certainly would be a vehicle for all types of prejudice, because it does not specify (hahaha "discriminate", if you will). It would also be detrimental to the well-being of the entire state in terms of social unrest; the economy, education system, welfare system, employment commission...all of those already struggle as it is. This would be a devastating blow and would send the entire state back to the Stone Age with a terrible quickness.

mOjOm

Bone75
Umm excuse me, but telling me I have to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top of it or face discrimination charges qualifies as force in my book.

Well, if you have no other reason than simply because you are discriminating against another person, why shouldn't you be charged with discrimination???

Or do you support discrimination and therefor think that discrimination laws should be removed???

Well lets see here, discrimination is legal..."black panthers" "KKK" "feminism" "religious vs anti religious" " black only neighborhoods" " only the mexican flag being allowed to be flown on cinco de mayo".........."I like pringles not ruffles" " I prefer hamburgers to hot dogs"....


I mean we all discriminate all day every day.

Your entire point is pointless.

What you really mean is that a white christian isnt allowed to discriminate like all other social groups do all the time.


Dont hide your BS, just come out and say what you mean.

Bedlam
Try reframing it...would you force a Jewish baker to make a Nazi themed wedding cake for a couple of Kluxers? Say, a couple of sheeters shoving a little Jewish guy into a marzipan oven on top of the cake, with the little SS uniformed bride and groom doing a Heil Hitler?

edit on 3-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

I don't know what sheeters are but I think I get what you're saying. We don't even need to reframe it to that extent actually. Let's take an example even closer to the real thing.

Let's say they wanted a cake with with the depiction of two people having sex made of frosting on it. Regardless of the sexuality of those frosting people be it gay or straight or whatever, the baker could simply say, "sorry we don't do those types of cakes here." That would be a case, like your example above, where declining their business because it's obscene would be allowed and could be argued in a court of law.

However, baking a normal wedding cake for someone where the only difference is that you place two plastic grooms on top of it instead of a bride and groom isn't a reasonable excuse not to bake that cake.

The simple truth is that the baker simply wants to use his business to discriminate against other people they do don't like for no other reason than because they don't like them. They were not being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. Just bake a cake like they do all the time. They didn't want to because the person asking was gay. No other reason at all is given. That is Discrimination, plain and simple.