Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

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.

No one forced the shopkeeper or whoever to open a business.

No American should "jump for joy" at a law which could serve as the first step in creating a Theocracy.

BTW, the second step will be when the SCOTUS finds some rationale to give corporations religious beliefs.

As far as anyone not knowing their history or the Constitution, there's nothing in the First Amendment that says anything about "freedom of religion." For those who think they know it but obviously do not:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

And for those who question what that means, I offer first, Thomas Jefferson from his letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Justice Hugo Black wrote in 1947 in the decision Emerson v. Brd of Education:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

... and Justice David Souter only a few years ago ...

In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

... and so on. Religionists today forget that these laws were originally put in place as much to defend one sect against another as against any government intervention or control. Keep eroding the wall between Church and State, and enjoy it when your kids are forced by some local school board to pray toward Mecca five times a day, or, the Baptists won't let the Catholics eat in restaurants, because, well, everyone knows the Pope is the Antichrist.

Talk about short-sightedness.

Gryphon66
No American should "jump for joy" at a law which could serve as the first step in creating a Theocracy.

This isn't the first step towards theocracy, its the first step towards legalizing gay marriage in MS. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it as long as me and my church aren't forced to participate.

Can we all vote to have Mississippi secede from the unholy Union?

reply to post by Bone75


The law is mandating that religious beliefs supercede the laws both common and statutory.

It is, in fact, by that action establishing Theocracy; there is really no other way to interpret it.

Webster, "theocracy," government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

Immediate divine guidance allows a baker to know that one person deserves his publicly for sale product and another doesn't.

It can't be any clearer than that.

reply to post by HUMBLEONE


Perhaps the Framers should have considered the need for the Union to perform an "excession."

Gryphon66
reply to post by Bone75

 

The law is mandating that religious beliefs supercede the laws both common and statutory.

It is, in fact, by that action establishing Theocracy; there is really no other way to interpret it.

Webster, "theocracy," government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

Immediate divine guidance allows a baker to know that one person deserves his publicly for sale product and another doesn't.

It can't be any clearer than that.

and this is WITH a democratic president and a democratic senate....just wait till they are all in control by republicans.

Can anyone point to where anything says this "law" actually passed and when it supposedly took effect?

The title of the thread insinuates that it's a real law already.

I don't think so.

reply to post by xuenchen


JACKSON, Miss., April 2 (Reuters) - Mississippi's governor said he will sign a religious freedom bill approved by state lawmakers over the objections of opponents who say it could be used as an excuse to refuse services to gays and minorities.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed 79-43 in the state House of Representatives and 37-14 in the Senate on Tuesday, protects residents from state laws or local ordinances that violate their right to practice their faith.

xuenchen
Can anyone point to where anything says this "law" actually passed and when it supposedly took effect?

The title of the thread insinuates that it's a real law already.

I don't think so.

No, they're discussing hypotheticals again.

And hypothetically speaking, if such a law were to pass, I`d make a FORTUNE off of opening shops advertising as gay friendly. The Machiavellian in me would open shops for christians only, others for gays only, gay christians only, millionaires only, poor people only, gay christian millionaires...oh the list is endless....

Governor Bryant WILL Sign Bill

Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has said he will sign the bill.

I believe it will take effect July 1.

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.

you don't HAVE to bake such a cake.

you can refuse the commission.

personally I welcome such a law - it means I can expand what I refuse to do for idiot fundamentalist nutjobs because my atheist "religion" (as others describe it) allows me to.

So just for the sake of stating my personal feelings before I jump into the mess here... I think that prejudice and bigotry of any kind whatsoever is a statement of intellectual deficiency that shows just how small your brain and heart are. I grew up with friends and neighbors of literally every race and representing most religious and non religious beliefs. The community I live in and the one I work in is very multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-sexual and personally I am just fine with all of them. I also believe in God but not religion or hell. God is not this petty, bigoted, temper tantrum throwing baby that religion makes Him/Her out to be.

Having said all that, I'm not sure I could support forcing a small, privately owned company to serve those that they do not want to serve. If the cake shop doesn't want to make a gay cake - they shouldn't be forced to. Word of mouth will be good enough that they will lose business and end up closed anyway. Small minds will lose business.

And I'm sure I'm going to be ridiculed for the following or be told that it's "different", but if a baker must be forced to serve someone that they are bigoted against (even though I think we can all disagree with bigotry)....why is it that, as a man, I can't go work out at Curves? Isn't that sexist? Isn't that "bigoted" against men? If I had a sweet girly voice, why can't I join Sweet Adelines? Isn't that sexist as well? Why are these businesses allowed to discriminate and no one cares?

I mean, I know that the above examples are silly. Why would any man want to join a women only club anyway, but if you are being honest you can see the point. I say let's let them have the right to deny service to whoever they want (which I thought was the right of any business anyway, but I guess I'm wrong). Let them deny service to the LGBT community and watch how fast their business closes while a more open minded business opens and takes all the cake business. I'm not gay, but I certainly wouldn't knowingly give my money to any bigoted business. Their intolerance will be their own undoing.

Skyfloating

xuenchen
Can anyone point to where anything says this "law" actually passed and when it supposedly took effect?

The title of the thread insinuates that it's a real law already.

I don't think so.

No, they're discussing hypotheticals again.

Yep. Nothing to see here. Go back to sleep everyone.

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.

So much for liberty and justice and all are created equal...

Amazing how the right wing of America and Afghanistan are mirror images of each other isn't it?

What is it like always being on the side of liberty that tries to limit the liberty of others?

Derek

Viesczy

What is it like always being on the side of liberty that tries to limit the liberty of others?

Derek

Limit the liberty? If Dunkin Donuts refused to sell me a donut because I'm...whatever, I would just go to Krispy Kreme.

I mean, isn't this entire thread about a baker who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple? Yes, that baker is an idiot - but just go to another bakery. Why is this so difficult? The bakers own bigotry will end up in the bakery being closed anyway. You should never force a cook to make something...you'll get a cake full of spit (or worse) anyway. Go to another baker and watch the bigot's bakery close.

reply to post by tallcool1

tallcool1
I mean, isn't this entire thread about a baker who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple?

Actually no. That was in Colorado several years ago. THIS thread is about a law being passed in Mississippi that would allow business owners to discriminate against people they disapprove of.

And I still haven't gotten an answer to the question: What if that's the only business in a small town that offers the service? What if I'm gay and I want a lawnmower but the local hardware store won't sell me a lawnmower because he's a Christian?

Skymon612
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,

You can thank your undercover democrat Thad Cochran and Hurricane Katrina for those numbers, once McDaniel gets voted in you won't be able to make the same claims.

Benevolent Heretic
Governor Bryant WILL Sign Bill

Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has said he will sign the bill.

I believe it will take effect July 1.

edit on 4/3/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

That's what I suspected.

The Governor has not signed it yet.

Let's see what happens if and when.

He might get pressure not to sign, as in other States.

I am a bit confused by all of these stories. I can certainly see both sides of this continuing debate, but what happens when it is not the business, but an individual worker who refuses to do something because of that person's race, religion, sexual identity, etc.?

Here is a possible scenario... Let's say that Joe Smith Owns a bakery. His prize employee is by all accounts the best baker and decorator in a 250 mile radius, no one else even comes close. Problem is, Martha doesn't like blue people, and refuses to have anything to do with blue people at all. Is Joe Smith legally bound to fire Martha because she won't make a cake for blue people? Does Martha give up her rights of self-determination because she works for Joe, even if that agreement was never arranged between Joe and herself?