It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:27 AM
I would likely never have shown up in the anti-gay establishment in the first place. I'm imagining a certain smell pervading the place -- a combination of old hymnals and smug self-satisfaction. But I digress.

In the second case, the second I saw any kind of reluctance to do business with me, I would have been glad to ease on down the road. I don't do business with people who aren't in business to do business.

Long-standing laws on public accommodation aside, as several have said here, just put a sign in your windows with a big X through the rainbow flag or something, and I promise you, I won't trouble you with my money.

Neither will a lot of other folks. There's always more of "us" around than you think.

When a Christian shows me a verse in the Bible which says "thou shalt not do business with the catamite" then there might be some claim here of "free practice of religion." Until then, not so much.

Besides the shortening in the cake icing is forbidden in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11. The religious argument is already nil.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:46 AM

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.

Actually his sign should say "I don't make gay cakes". You're missing the whole point. Wedding vendors, photographers, and bakers are in a unique position here and they are the ones this law is meant to protect.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by Gryphon66

Now I am wondering
Okay say that they have a sign posted on their door that says no gays (or whatever really) and well I have a friend or a neighbor that it bans so I decide I just don't want to do business there because well my friend or neighbor really did enjoy that place and that signed hurt his feelings..

Would I be discriminating against the business owner because of his religion???

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

How is that discriminating against his religion?

I am unaware of any religion where their "sacred texts" command them to bar gay people from their establishments. Maybe you can enlighten me on which religion teaches that gay people should be treated badly.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by Grimpachi

I see you are struggling with some basic concepts - allow me to help...

Let us begin with the basics. The United States Constitution, as written, states that US Citizens shall enjoy Freedom of Religion. Pay particular attention to the word "OF" - and notice that it does not say "From". Ergo, no one, including the law, can force anyone to do something that is against their religious beliefs. Furthermore, no law can be written to protect anyone from someone exercising their freedom of religion. Got that?

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Grimpachi

ummm let me see
love they neighbor as thyself
nope that's not gonna work!
do unto others as you would have them do unto you
love thy enemy???

sorry can't help you with that
probably because it's not in there
I was taught that christians are to be like ambassadors. ya know be in the world not of it.
some christians are like US ambassadors I believe. Either live the way we want you to or do what we want or else....
we'll destroy your country- we won't bake you your wedding cake -whatever!
The Bible does not give the followers the responsibility of bringing in the Kingdom of God that is Christ's job. Every attempt to has failed miserably and in the end has done more harm to the credibility of the religion.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by kozmo

I am not struggling with any concept. Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

I asked what religions "sacred texts" command them to be arses to gay people.

The sign in question said no gays. Am I just supposed to assume that is because of religion. If I saw a sign that just said no gays generally speaking that isn't religious, but it is bigoted.

So which religions "sacred texts" command their followers to be bigots?

I am not sure of which "sacred texts" command the hate.

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

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:21 AM

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I think gay people took that the wrong way.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by Bone75

There is no such thing as a "gay cake". Cakes do not have sex...

reply to post by dawnstar

Private, personal discrimination is totally legal. We all discriminate. Only businesses (and employers, etc., people who deal with the PUBLIC) are prohibited from discrimination. So, to answer your question, yes, it would be personal discrimination.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I don't know I wouldn't be reacting against any certain group just certain people because of something hurtful they did I mean if you walked down the street and the same person passed you everyday and punched you in the stomach would it be discrimination to finally wake up and start crossing the street when you saw him coming?
By the way the reason why I am asking this is that if the religious right ever did get their way on this I believe that many people would be turned off from those businesses. And I kind of think that that would be their next move
we are discriminating against them by avoiding their business!

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:58 AM
Apparently people opposed to this can't see past what's right in front of their faces. In fact, the LGBT community should be jumping for joy over this legislation.

Have any of you stopped for one second to ask yourself WHY a state that doesn't allow gay marriages is writing laws to protect vendors that are going to be affected by them?

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by Skymon612

ississippi 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. - See more at:

Yo ?


I would really love to see those sources.

Since there are more people on welfare in Califoinia, and New York than MS's ENTIRE population.

edit on 3-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by neo96

I thought it was common knowledge. Anyway here is a source if you were really interested.

He was wrong they actually rank #1 for federal spending not #2. It's good form to look things up before posting so I am glad you asked or I may have thought they were second for government handouts.

Despite their vociferous outcries and sophisticated rhetoric condemning Democrats’ alleged proclivity for wasteful federal spending, Republican states are the most dependent on government funds, according to a new Wallet Hub report.

Mississippi, a state historically wallowing in abject poverty and rabid racism, is the number one state with its hand out looking for … well … handouts from the federal government. It takes about $3 in federal spending for every $1 dollar that state taxpayers contribute. It is tied with New Mexico, another red state, when it comes to dependency on government funds.

The state with the lowest return on taxpayer investment is South Carolina. Its citizens pay $1 in taxes per capita for every $7.87 in federal funding received. Republican states most dependent on federal funds, report states

They want more as well. From an article dated March 29 2014

Lawmaker: Mississippi spending will rise by $168 million

Lawmaker: Mississippi spending will rise by $168 million

Once money that agencies generate themselves and federal aid are included, Mississippi state government will spend around $18 billion next year.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by neo96

It's easy to find...

Mississippi and New Mexico tied as the most-dependent states in the nation


In first place is Alaska, for which government money accounts for only 20 percent of total revenue. Mississippi, where federal funds represent 45.84 percent of the state's revenue, came in last place.


posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

I think this will backfire. I'm not gay, but if I knew of a business that refused service to gay people (or to blacks, or handicapped or divorced people) not only would I refuse to do business there, I'd do what I could to let everyone know about it.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:24 PM
reply to post by Grimpachi

Yeah it is common knowledge that California is the welfare capitol in this country.

Welfare in California 34% Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only … 12% … of the U.S. population resides here.

How we compare California is third among states in per-capita spending on welfare: $179 New York leads the nation: $256 Idaho is at the bottom: $17

Nation's largest welfare state makes deep cuts

What's that ?

California has more people on welfare than working.

Oh and so does New York !

Back to pushing intellectual dishonesty.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Everyone has sources

Like the ones in this post.
edit on 3-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by neo96

That's two different things. Mississippi (the STATE) takes the most federal help. That's not the same as individuals on welfare.

You asked for a source, you got several.

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by neo96

He didn't say welfare did he?

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,

He said federal aid maybe you didn't pay attention and projected your idea of what that means, but be assured they are #1 recipient state of federal aid.

So his number was off by one but his point is valid. Yours is a different point nice try switching the subject though.

On top of that those states have a higher population.

Oh whats this??

Top state for food stamps Mississippi: 22 percent of residents rely on welfare

So per capita old Miss still comes up higher than those others. Your argument has been invalidated.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:46 PM






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.

It doesnt mater if I am the only mechanic in the entire country, I do not have to work for you if I dont want to.

Trying to force me to is called slavery.

You know, where a freeman is forced to labor for another, against their will.

Your ebtire point is idiocy incarnate.

If it is the only florist in the closest 6 states, they do not have to work for you, I dont care what you want or what your reasons.

What is your job?

I am going to come and insult all you hold sacred and then under force of law, make you work for me.....does this in any way sound reasonable to you?

A freeman works for whom he wants when he wants. There are not if ands or buts to this.

A freeman does not have to render services, claiming so is claiming slavery is ok.

Are you misguided or daft?

Slavery is when someone is the bought property of another person. And they are typically not even paid a wage at all.

Plus, Christianity has various passages/verses in favor of slavery, in both the NT and OT. Doesn't seem like a very good argument to bring into the mix. At least not when it involves Christianity.

Heck, people like you and me may as well be considered slaves underneath god anyway within Christianity anyway. Do what your told and obey and you'll be fine. And never obey or pray to anything else. If you don't? Well, here comes a nice realm filled with extreme torture and anguish. Seems fair right?

I am not religious at all, I am wiping my arsse with the bible the koran and the torra as we speak.

Religion was made to enslave men and their minds.

My goal is to free all men from all their bonds.

A man can be prejudiced if he wants, his business can deny service on those same grounds if he wants to.

Why do I have this feeling that if this was a baker that denied the cake because he is black and doesnt like white folks this would all be quite ok?

Oh ya, thats right, he would just take is business elsewhere and tell his friends, putting this guy out of business.

I know that you aren't, I didn't accuse you of being religious.

The main issue is that our country was founded on equality. Refusing to do business with an entire group of people goes against what this country was supposed to uphold. So that would make that discrimination, which goes hand-in-hand with intolerance, and that just ends up creating inequality.

And on top of that, there isn't even anything in the bible or inside of their beliefs that tell them they should forbid homosexuals from their business. Usually you hear that homosexuals are sinners, or that homosexuality is an 'abomination', but there is no where they can point to to justify their refusal to serve gay people. So that whole argument is completely pointless.

And it just gets even more ironic and strange when the religion is supposed to be filled with love and compassion. That Jesus fellow they look up to didn't want any ill feelings or violence at all. He wanted everyone to be happy and love one another.

So, it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, it has everything to do with their PERSONAL beliefs that they've twisted into religious beliefs. They try and hide behind the bible to justify their discrimination, when in reality the bible doesn't even jive with what their saying in the first place. It's just one big ironic mess.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in