Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

reply to post by beezzer


No it's intolerance of the act of discrimination.

The Bible says that adulterers should be dragged out into the street and stoned to death. Is it religious discrimination to not allow that? Should we be tolerant of a man beating his cheating wife?

reply to post by Skymon612


One of the reasons Mississippi needs support is the brain drain. A lot of residents have moved to
other states to find work.

So the federal government sends money home for them. Wo stop whining!

beezzer
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

You aren't respecting their rights of belief.

If I were gay, and walked to a bookstore and asked for book XYZ, and they said they wouldn't order it because of their beliefs, is that discrimination, or is that them following the tenets of their faith?

As a gay man I would simply go to a bookstore that catered to MY beliefs then.

A company is an inanimate object it has no religious belief. So if the person running it doesn't want to do something because it is against their belief then they are discriminating against that person. A persons religion belongs in their place of worship and their home nowhere else.

The concept of "rights" arises from two places: our nationality and our basic humanity.

I have certain natural rights because I am a human being.

There are no "rights" that depend on or are limited by the various qualities of my humanity, e.g. my handedness, my eye-color, my hair style, or my sexual preference.

There are no Right Handed Rights, or Blue Eyed Rights or Buzz Cut Rights or Gay Rights.

I have certain legal rights because I am an American citizen.

I have the right to speak my mind, to print my thoughts and deliver those to others, to pursue a religion as I see fit or not, and to be treated equally before the laws.

The sphere of my legal rights is limited by the legal rights of those around me; my rights are not always preeminent when others are involved or when the exercise of my individual rights adversely affects the "equally equal" exercise of their individual rights.

For example, I do not have the right to say things that are harmful and untrue, to print things that are harmful and untrue, or to assign to others a lesser value and treat them differently arbitrarily because of my religious beliefs.

The last two are directly or even intimately intertwined as you can see.

For example, as an an atheist, should I have the right deny someone who comes in with a cross necklace services in my public establishment based solely on my religious non-beliefs? Let us say that I consider Christianity a mental disorder, and I do not wish the general public to see my products in the hands of someone wearing a cross because that implies that I support Christianity because I feel that might diminish my business in the eyes of intellectuals?

Or if the cross were a crucifix, by implication making them Roman Catholic, would it be right to deny them service because they might be child molesters or supporters of child molesters?

How absurd do we have to make the counter-example?

Here's an idea:

Dress as an orthodox jew or priest and wear a scarf with the book of Leviticus on it. Holding a Bible in one hand and your wife in another, enter a gay shop and ask for various tailor-made fashion. Should make for a hilarious reversal of situation.

This is what happens when you get dimwits into office that thinks companies are people and deserve religious rights. Americans that are opposed to this should petition the government to shut off all aid to Mississippi until they decide to follow the Constitution. If the people of that state want to act like a bunch of backward knuckle draggers then let them pay their own bills.

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
You aren't respecting their rights of belief.

Yes, I am. Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. I disagree, but I will fight to the death for people's freedom to believe that it's a sin.

If I were gay, and walked to a bookstore and asked for book XYZ, and they said they wouldn't order it because of their beliefs, is that discrimination, or is that them following the tenets of their faith?

If they would order that same book for a straight person, then that's discrimination.

As a gay man I would simply go to a bookstore that catered to MY beliefs then.

Not so simple if they're the only bookstore in town... What if the one car dealership in the small Mississippi town refuses to sell a car to someone because they are divorced? Should they just hitchhike to the next town in hopes of finding someone to sell them a car there?

Please answer these questions. Your position sounds good on paper - until you get down to the reality.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You want me to answer specifics based on a straw man argument?

Puh-lease.

Call it intolerance to discrimination all you want.

If it helps you sleep at night then good for you.

But justifying hate doesn't make it right.

Regardless of the side you are on.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Skyfloating
Dress as an orthodox jew or priest and wear a scarf with the book of Leviticus on it. Holding a Bible in one hand and your wife in another, enter a gay shop and ask for various tailor-made fashion. Should make for a hilarious reversal of situation.

Exactly. This law could backfire on religious people. If my religious beliefs disagree with yours, I don't have to service you. When Christians start getting turned away for their religion (because it disagrees with mine), the travesty of this law is going to become clear.

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
You want me to answer specifics based on a straw man argument?

Puh-lease.

Exactly what I thought. You refuse to answer the questions when it comes to real life examples. Like I said, it sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life.

But justifying hate doesn't make it right.

So, why are you doing it? I'm justifying equality, freedom and tolerance. Some of the basic fundamentals of our country...

reply to post by Skyfloating

But that is exactly what these kinds of bills will allow for. As funny as it may seem, it will now mean that a person who runs a business, to deny services to those who he either knows is not of a religion he likes, or believes to be against his religion. So your point is very valid, that a minister could walk into a gay owned business and be denied service due to the fact that the owner does not want to deal with members of that community.

Think carefully now, are there other groups that would exploit this kind of law, and not get any repercussion? Yes, while it is sad that they use 2 examples, from other states, the reality is, that it lays the ground work for the one thing that no one wants, and that is communities that go by a totally different standard than the rest of the state and ultimately be protected by said kind of law. With the passing of that bill, if the governor signs it, means the following:

Those who follow the Islamic tradition, can now under that law, refuse service to those who are not Islamic. A Muslim photographer can refuse to take pictures at a Jewish wedding. A devout Jewish person can refuse services to those who are say Catholic, small communities will become further split, and we will see the first communities, that use Sharia.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm not going to help you justify your own intolerance.

I've said my piece.

Both sides need to learn to respect each other. Until that time, we'll continue to see laws like these.

License to Hate

Many legal observers expect that if signed into law, the anti-gay “religious liberty” bill legalizing discrimination against the LGBT community will be struck down by the courts.

Ultimately the legislation will be an expensive exercise in futility, an empty gesture that serves only to demonstrate the irrational and ugly anti-gay bigotry of Christian conservatives in Mississippi.

It's not only in Mississippi, it's all around the country, unfortunately.

I frankly can't wait to see this bill backfire on the bigots. And no, beez. I'm not going to be tolerant and accepting of the bigots. They have every right to hate (and I respect their right), but I'm never going to "respect" their hatred.

If people don't want to server certain "kind".. they should put a card saying "No XXXXX will be served here".. i really hope they do this.

So i can easily find these bastards!

edit: Why don't they do this anyway? the heterosexual wedding cake maker should have put "No Homosexuals here!!".. wonder why he didn't... probably the same reason why any smart person wouldn't.

So in reality, he wants to discriminate but act as if he doesn't discriminate.

reply to post by Skymon612


I've only read some of the first page, so if this is repeating anything, take me to Mississippi and string me up!

The thread name is misleading. This law is not legal until the governor signs it, and then stops being legal the minute a judge stays the law (which would be literally minutes from its signing).

It is discrimination, for, as one poster mentioned, all it will take is putting a little plastic toy on top the cake of either two men or two women. There is no hardship, because the baker would be placing two plastic toys on top the cake in either case, straight or gay. The entire religious flip-out is over putting a same-sex toy on a cake? Ok.

But most importantly, if I were gay and getting married, and the baker had serious vocal qualms about doing my job but said the law will make her do it, so give me your order, I'd run if not walk out of there. The things that could be in that cake are things I don't want to find on my lawn.

Here's to the state of Mississippi (Phil Ochs song) (I'm tearing up a little listening to it as I type, Ochs was so good at what he did....)

reply to post by luciddream

luciddream
edit: Why don't they do this anyway? the heterosexual wedding cake maker should have put "No Homosexuals here!!".. wonder why he didn't... probably the same reason why any smart person wouldn't.

Colorado has a state law expressly prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, etc. and they recently added "sexual orientation" to that law. So, the cake maker is prohibited from putting that sign out front.

So in reality, he wants to discriminate but act as if he doesn't discriminate.

That's the bottom line. They WANT to discriminate, but legally, they can't, so they USE their religion to legally do so. Still, they'll be picking out ONE sin among them all to USE their religion for.

reply to post by 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. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com..."
LOL, the customer is always right?

what is the difference between refusing to do a wedding cake for a gay couple and refusing to serve the black man in a restaurant or sending all the blacks to the back of the bus?

if your argument is that a business owner has the right to run the business as he chooses or that forcing the business owner to serve someone they don't want to well then you must also be all for the business owner refusing service to whoever he wants on whatever basis am I right??

Well how ya gonna feel when you go into your favorite resturant and find out that the owner doesn't plan on serving a group you are in?

Those who are arguing the religious rights issues
How would you feel if a loved one was terribly injured and the only doctor was a johavah witness who was refusing to provide the blood transfusion that was needed?

I've come to the conclusion that quite frankly society has grown a tendency toward insanity and there isn't much I can do to stem that tide. You don't want to serve me that's fine just hang a danged sign on the door saying as much and at least I won't waste my time walking into your place! And well even if your signs don't bar me I might just decide to go elsewhere since I am just the type of person who doesn't like cruel people!
And of course if I happen to own a business of my own I'll consider making a few signs of my own...
Smokers only!!
No far right religious folks allowed!!
Ultra Conservatives need not enter!
Politicians banned!!!

Give me time and I will make up some more I am sure!

Doesn't the bible mention something about loving your enemy??


By the way anyone happen to know weather or not Hobby Lobby has been providing insurance coverage to their full time employees before obamacare?? I'd really like to know since I visited their site and I really have a feeling that they did!
If they did then chances are quite good that the health insurance did cover birth control within in it's preventative care.. According to a law that's been around since clinton's time it had to be!!

So well I doubt if the "abortion pill" would have been included in that since it's so new but the IUD's probably were!
Why wasn't hobby lobby complaining then?
My guess is that hobby lobby didn't have a problem with it or well kind of hard to believe buy maybe they just didn't realize it- at least not to it's FULL TIME EMPLOYEES.
So in reality it's just one of two things
They don't want to provide coverage to those part time easily replaceable, not worthy for much part time employees.
or they really just don't like the abortion pill??

My guess is that they are getting a nice check from some far right conservative group to raise a stink over obamacare!

reply to post by oblvion

You are flat out wrong.

No business MUST OFFER SERVICES to anyone it doesnt want to.

Actually you are wrong but if this bill passes you would be right in one state...for a while.

Then may I ask WHY IS THIS BILL BEING PUSHED????

All businesses via the SCOTUS have the same rights as individuals( citizens united) ( a rather dark point in the SCOTUS history IMHO), this is a fact. It is no longer open to debate at this point.

Corperate personhood applies to campain contributions only!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMEONE WORK FOR YOU!!!!!!! THAT IS SLAVERY!!!!!

You are correct no one can force you to work however it is only slavery if you are forced to work without compensation. If you don't offer your services to white or black folk equally you won't have to work at all because you will not have a right to run a business anymore.

If you forced me to bake you a cake, I would take a crap in the mix.

If you mean by forced doing the job you offer to the pubic willingly.
Then you would go to jail. Not only would that be poisoning it would probably qualify as attempted murder.

If you forced me to fix your car, I would cut your brake lines.

If you mean by forced doing the job you offer to the pubic willingly.
Attempted murder again.

If you forced me to build your house, I would not nail in the floor joists or anchor the building to the foundation, meaning the first strong wind would fold it like a house of cards.

If you mean by forced doing the job you offer to the pubic willingly.
Prison again. Atempted murder is a felony.

Make me work for you, you will learn very fast why this doesnt work out.

And yo would learn real fast that your new adress puts you a lot closer to the groups you are so prejudice against. Don't drop the soap.

No one is telling a baker o build a house or a builder to bake a cake. No one if forceing them into those jobs they chose those jobs. Just when dealing with the public they have to check their prejudices at the door or leave them at home. That is all. If they can't then they will not be forced to work but they don't have a right any longer to run a buisness. They will have plenty of free time then. Good luck with the job search or have fun in the unemployment line.

That seriously how it works I am not BSing you. It is obvious you lack the understanding of the laws because almost everything you said you would do would make you someones girlfriend in prison.

reply to post by saneguy

saneguy
"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. -

No one is trying to force bakers to put two grooms on a cake. If they don't have a two-groom topper, no one can (or should) force them to get one. The cake baker in Colorado refused service to the gay couple without even hearing about the decoration on the cake, but because they were gay. This isn't about decorations, it's about refusing to bake a PLAIN wedding cake for the couple.

And that's beside the point.

This law in Mississippi would allow ANY business owner to turn away gay people even if all they wanted is a lawn mower.