Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi, page 7

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 04:56 PM

link

Benevolent Heretic
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?

Then that hardware store owner hasn't really understood the command of Christ to love and serve everyone!

Honestly though, I don't have an answer for that. It's the right of the owner to serve whoever they want vs the right of a human to be treated like a human. Someone forced to do something against their will vs someone who could just go to the next town.

But on the other hand, when we start making laws about who you must serve, then where does it end? Especially regarding religion. Do we force a Muslim owned restaurant to serve ham because there's no other restaurant in town? Do we force vegan stores to carry meat if there's no butcher in town? I know, silly examples again - but once we start down that path...

And really, I was just kinda playing "devil's advocate" here. I think it's very small minded to discriminate against anyone and I absolutely HATE how so called "Christians" will take bits and pieces of the bible to justify their hatred and bigotry - when the very founder of their religion COMMANDS them to love and serve everyone - even their "enemies".

Bone75

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:01 PM

link

Benevolent Heretic
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?

You can't compare selling a lawnmower to decorating a cake that is going to be used in a gay wedding, or taking pictures of 2 men being affectionate to one another at their gay wedding, or being the wedding vendor who has to perform the ceremony.

And besides that, do you really think Christian retailers are gonna start making you fill out a survey about your personal life before they'll sell you something? That's just plain ridiculous.

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:15 PM

link

azdaze
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?

If you are not prepared to do your job as legally directed by your boss then you might have a short career.

This is just one of the reasons this law is stupid, as well as philosophically bankrupt - make a cake for a gay couple does not make you gay, show that you support gay marriage, or anything else - it is a contract for provision of a service and product.

Do you also refuse to talk to gay people? Breath air gay people have also been breathing? How about the water you drink - do you filter out the bits that have already been ingested and pissed out by gay people too?

It's just a bit of spiteful bitching with no actual thought for consequences.

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:15 PM

link

Bone75

Benevolent Heretic
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?

You can't compare selling a lawnmower to decorating a cake that is going to be used in a gay wedding, or taking pictures of 2 men being affectionate to one another at their gay wedding, or being the wedding vendor who has to perform the ceremony.

Why not?

And besides that, do you really think Christian retailers are gonna start making you fill out a survey about your personal life before they'll sell you something? That's just plain ridiculous.

Not under this law it won't be - it will be perfectly legal.

Gryphon66

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:16 PM

link

Bone75

And besides that, do you really think Christian retailers are gonna start making you fill out a survey about your personal life before they'll sell you something? That's just plain ridiculous.

If they don't, how will they know that I'm not doing something in my private life that they will disapprove of and not want to support because of their "religious convictions." I mean, if they are TRULY obsessed with keeping their walk pure (and not just discriminating against people, as we all know they are) then ... why wouldn't they issue a questionnaire?

And if they don't, how can they make such a claim? We must know who is sinful and who isn't! Can't leave that up to God, you know.

If they don't take some action to make sure they aren't supporting sinful lifestyles unawares, then you betcha they're hypocrites.

generik

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:18 PM

link

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.

it is highly ironic, since that is EXACTLY what people do when they force people to support causes that go against their beliefs, by doing things that directly support the cause that they do not support. they take away that person's freedoms, like freedom of religion and holding religious values, and freedom to only support causes of their choice.

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 is not that they are forced to do these things but to show support, and directly support things that they do not support.

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.

but they in fact ARE having their freedoms of choice reduced, and ARE having something forced onto them specifically. and it IS things that concerns them as individuals.

for example i own a printing business, i do pamphlets, signs and shirts. i DO NOT SUPPORT PeTA, in fact i feel they are a "terrorist organization", that needs to be stopped. should i be forced to support their efforts by having to design and paint a headquarters sign, design and produce the very literature that i feel should be banned, as well as design and print up t-shirts that call people who eat meat murderers? all things that directly support their cause, by producing these things which runs counter to my beliefs? if i was a film studio, should i be forced to produce their staged videos where they abuse animals, to get their point across? HELL NO. i should be free to tell them where they can stick their ideals, not be forced to do their work which i consider to be evil.

Gryphon66

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link

The fundamental question here is whether a public business has the right to deny service when there is no compelling reason to do so.

Most laws in most states make it clear that when a business offers services or goods to the public, individuals cannot be refused service based merely on personal preference. The laws about public accommodation extend back into history far beyond our own Constitution into the English Common Law.

This is one of the best papers ever written about the history of the legal concept of public accommodation: Marquette Law Review (1968)

Also, short memories should be reminded that most religious groups did not come to this country seeking freedom to worship as they chose, but rather, to be able to ENFORCE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL BRAND OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF as CIVIL LAW. They were running away from religious freedom, not toward it. (The Pilgrims found "too much" religious freedom in Holland, for example.)

edit on 17Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:28:18 -050014p052014466 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

Spiramirabilis

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link

reply to post by tallcool1

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.

Change the word gay to black, Mexican, Chinese, Buddhist, woman, Republican...

What kind of society do we want ultimately? We can't legislate morality, or force people to like each other. But - public means everybody. Since when do religious beliefs trump all other beliefs - or rights?

The religious aren't being discriminated against - they're being held to the same standards as the rest of society. They seem to consistently argue against what they perceive to be special rights for others, but are in reality asking for special rights and privileges for themselves

If they want to live in a world where they don't have to serve the public - they should maybe think about starting a private commune. They can serve each other on their commune - but out here in the rest of America they get to live by same laws as the rest of us

If this becomes law, we're saying one of several possible things. Either: belief trumps law - always. Or - all people are allowed to openly discriminate however and whenever they see fit

That's a kind of freedom I guess. For some people - some of the time...but not for everybody all of the time

I hate bigotry too - but it's not something we can outlaw. We can only all of us agree together to live by certain rules. When a majority of us agree to go back to the times of segregation and open discrimination then they can have their way. Just like they used to. I believe this is what this is really all about - a loss of control

Accommodating the special needs of the religious is what brought us the inquisition. Things are starting to feel a little inquisitiony hereabouts lately - or haven't you noticed?

:-)

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

Gryphon66

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link

Spiramirabilis
Things are starting to feel a little inquisitiony hereabouts lately - or haven't you noticed?

:-)

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

I've noticed that since the late 1980s, actually. More and more we move toward a theocratic government. For anyone to look at the First Amendment and not see CLEARLY that the intention is to keep the State OUT of Church and the Church OUT of State ... but, you will also see the common (yet faulty) assertion made earlier ... "you have freedom OF religion, not FROM it."

As opposed to seeking greater freedom for anyone, most if not all religions require members to believe that their own particular sect is the ONLY truth, and should our wall of protection ever fall, I can assure you, that those who laugh loudest will not be laughing last.

What goes around, comes around.

rupertg

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link

Ahhhhhh Mississippi.......just when you think they couldn't get anymore backward......take a bow.

Were all these Christian types on vacation when their ministers told them that Jesus said we are to "love one another"?

Grimpachi

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link

I see a brave new world of personal religions popping up with this bill.

Sorry we don't serve blacks its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve Native Americans its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve Latinos its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve orientals its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve Jews its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve Budhists its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve Polish its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve women its against my religion.

Sorry we don't serve whites its against my religion.

But I get the feeling it will only be when the people who passed the bill come across a business that says.

Sorry we don't serve Christians its against my religion.

At that point they will complain how wrong it is.

I will be the first to start a religion that discriminates against politicians.

Gryphon66

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link

generik

for example i own a printing business, i do pamphlets, signs and shirts. i DO NOT SUPPORT PeTA, in fact i feel they are a "terrorist organization", that needs to be stopped. should i be forced to support their efforts by having to design and paint a headquarters sign, design and produce the very literature that i feel should be banned, as well as design and print up t-shirts that call people who eat meat murderers? all things that directly support their cause, by producing these things which runs counter to my beliefs? if i was a film studio, should i be forced to produce their staged videos where they abuse animals, to get their point across? HELL NO. i should be free to tell them where they can stick their ideals, not be forced to do their work which i consider to be evil.

Well, you see, a non-believer could far more easily make such an argument against serving Christians, because there are few entities in history that have a bloodier track record for death and destruction than the various incarnations of the Church.

The fact that the mascot of the largest sect is a man being tortured to death is an easy clue. Should I be allowed to discriminate against Christians if I choose?

Doesn't ANYONE see where that would lead?

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link

Gryphon66

Doesn't ANYONE see where that would lead?

Yes lots of people do - just not the poor persecuted christians of Mississippi!

Bone75

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link

Gryphon66

Spiramirabilis
Things are starting to feel a little inquisitiony hereabouts lately - or haven't you noticed?

I've noticed that since the late 1980s, actually. More and more we move toward a theocratic government.

What planet are you living on?

In the last 30 years I've watched sex, violence, an homosexuality completely take over our televisions. I've seen God and prayer removed from our schools and the Ten Commandments removed from courthouse lobbies. More and more states are legalizing gay marriage and a couple have even legalized pot.

Now Mississippi is putting some protections in place for people who are going to be subject to some serious moral dilemmas when we legalize gay marriage, and you really think we're moving towards a theocracy?

doubletap

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link

reply to post by Skymon612

Why didn't you title this a "victory for property rights and freedom of association"?

Thinkprogress? Good thing you use unbiased sources

doubletap

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link

Honcho

Hmmm, so it's okay for someone to use their "freedom" to take away another group of peoples freedom in the name of freedom

There isn't a freedom to force someone to do business with you. They aren't losing any freedoms by having to find another bakery to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

dawnstar

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link

A question here

who would it be that would make most of the cakes decorated for gay couple anyways??
the owner of the business or an employee??
everyone seems to quickly dismiss any protection the constitution might give the employee
and it would usually be an employee that would be doing the dirty work

and I am sorry but ya see a long time ago refusing certain races from enjoying the same quality of services as what we served to the rest of the people (like choosing your seat on a bus) was all too common and laws were written to protect such actions from occurring the laws have been on the books for decades and I wouldn't be surprised if it was also challenged on the grounds it went against religious beliefs although it probably wasn't.

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link

I'm sure there will be a roaring business printing "NO POOFTERS" signs in various disguises - perhaps it's just a ploy to boost literacy in Mississippi??

Bone75

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link

Aloysius the Gaul

Why not?

Because selling a gay person a lawnmower presents no moral dilemma for a Christian. Marrying 2 people of the same sex or participating in the ceremony most certainly does, especially if that ceremony takes place in a church.

To give you a more realistic comparison, I'll ask you this...

Would you force a doctor to perform an abortion, simply because he's the only doctor in town?

Not under this law it won't be - it will be perfectly legal.

Show me.

yamammasamonkey

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link

reply to post by 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, 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. "

I would like proof of this. There are fewer than 3 million people in Mississippi. If every single person in the state was on the Federal dole it would still not equal the amount of people doing the same from NY or California, either one.