Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

doubletap

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.

The whole reason they are denying gay people is completely phony to begin with. There is nothing within their faith that says gay people should be banned from Christian establishments. Or shall be banned from receiving their goods/services. So if there is no mention of it, where exactly are their "rights" coming from?

Bone75

Aloysius the Gaul

Why not?

Because selling a gay person a lawnmower presents no moral dilemma for a Christian.

That sounds like selective thinking to me - if homosexuality is a sin then why is a homosexual mowing lawn not sinful while a homosexual getting married to another homosexual is?

Marrying 2 people of the same sex or participating in the ceremony most certainly does, especially if that ceremony takes place in a church.

Presumably any such church allowing such a marriage disagrees with you.

And you might recall that the initial comparison was with SELLING A CAKE - shift the goalposts much?

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?

If it was to save a life then yes, I would.

If it was "elective" surgery then I would not allow the doctor to use specious bigotry to refuse to do it when he's happy to do similar procedures on other people.

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

Show me.

Read the OP or the legislation itself- it allows you to discriminate in any way you care to justify by any religious belief:

Senate Bill 2681

(As Passed the Senate)

AN ACT TO ENACT THE MISSISSIPPI RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT; TO PROVIDE THAT STATE ACTION OR AN ACTION BY ANY PERSON BASED ON STATE ACTION SHALL NOT BURDEN A PERSON'S RIGHT TO THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION; TO AMEND THE 1818 MISSISSIPPI LAWS, ACT OF JANUARY 19, 1818, PAGE 142, TO REVISE THE GREAT SEAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; TO PROVIDE THAT STATE AGENCIES SHALL CONTINUE TO USE STATIONERY AND OTHER SUPPLIES HAVING THE 1818 SEAL THEREON UNTIL SUPPLIES OF SUCH ITEMS ARE DEPLETED; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

SECTION 1. (1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

(2) As used in this act:

(a) "Burden" means any action that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies the exercise of religion by any person or compels any action contrary to a person's exercise of religion. "Burden" includes, but is not limited to, withholding benefits, assessing criminal, civil or administrative penalties or exclusion from governmental programs or access to governmental facilities.

(b) "Compelling governmental interest" means a government interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.

(c) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion. "Exercise of religion" includes, but is not limited to, the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

(d) "State action" means the implementation or application of any law, including, but not limited to, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, or any other action by the state, a political subdivision of the state, an instrumentality of the state or political subdivision of the state, or a public official that is authorized by law in the state.

(3) (a) State action or an action by any person based on state action shall not burden a person's right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in that particular instance is both of the following:

(i) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;

(ii) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(b) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened or is likely to be burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the proceeding. The person asserting that claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief, including relief against the state or a political subdivision of the state. Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and the recovery of costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Section 2(c) would allow you to require people to fill out a survey and justify it by saying that it is an exercise of your religion - which you could have invented on the spot.

reply to post by Honcho


How about a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? The unconstitutional protected classes certainly infringe upon that right, and as a result other reasons must be stated.

The rights of gay people do not supercede those of the business owner.

Aloysius the Gaul

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.

But it seems you're missing the point entirely. I was pointing out that there is a very real possibility that the company that you seek to do business with can still offer you that service. . but you may not get their "A-team".

In my first scenario i mentioned Joe Smith, and Martha the Baker. What if Joe has apprentice bakers working under Martha? What if he agrees to let one of those lesser skilled bakers make your cake?He is still providing you service without infringing upon Martha's rights. It may be of a lesser quality than the cake Martha would make, but then again, in this fictional scenario one would need to go 250 miles to get a better cake than Martha could make. And just remember, Martha is under NO OBLIGATION to anyone other than her employer, and if he has offered a reasonable substitute for Martha's work, then there should be no complaint.

sure, it may not be fair that everyone except the blue people in this scenario get to have one of Martha's cakes. . . But the intent of the law in 1964 was to ensure everyone had the same rights. . not for everyone to be exactly the same.

Don't forget, Martha is not a company, she is an employee with an individual right to associate with whomever well she pleases to.

reply to post by doubletap


They don't, and in general any business owner has the right to not enter a contract.

However they do not have the right to specifically discriminate against people on a basis that is unrelated to the nature of the transaction - you cannot refuse to sell to someone because they are black, or old, or bald, or Baptist, etc.

Lawful "discrimination" would be they are being threatening, or you believe they are going to use het good or service for illegal purposes, etc.

Eg this UK Bed and Breakfast owner was heavily fined for refusing accommodation to a gay couple - they said they would also refuse to allow unmarried hetrosexual couples to share a bed.....and looks like that would be illegal under UK equality legislation too.

azdaze
But it seems you're missing the point entirely. I was pointing out that there is a very real possibility that the company that you seek to do business with can still offer you that service. . but you may not get their "A-team".

Unless eth contract specifies who does the work then you have no say in who does it - as long as the service or good is delivered.

If the company has some people who don't like working on particular things, but an deliver the service using other employees then I see no obvious problem - that is a matter of internal organisation for the company.

doubletap
reply to post by Honcho

 

How about a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? The unconstitutional protected classes certainly infringe upon that right, and as a result other reasons must be stated.

The rights of gay people do not supercede those of the business owner.

I don't mind if a business owner wants to deny service to someone, as long as it actually needed to happen and for good reason. Denying service to someone only because they're gay is a terrible reason. And turning around saying it's part of your religious faith is an even more terrible excuse.

The citizens are supposed to be protected more than businesses. This country is for the people, by the people. Not for businesses by businesses. If businesses overruled the people 100% of the time, this country wouldn't look very good at all.

Apparently Republicans are no longer scared of Sharia law, considering they are putting it into practice in Arizona & Mississipi.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Its sad that business owners are forced to lie, but there are plenty of excuses to avoid doing cakes for gay weddings...."too many orders , it wouldn't be done in time", or " we think our cakes are so good, we charge 10 grand for the cake you want".

These ridiculously unconstitutional protected classes need to be abolished. Property rights cease to exist if business owners cannot run their business in the way they see fit.

reply to post by Honcho


Who do you think owns the businesses? We the people. Someone on your street ? A relative?

People do not give up their rights when they go into business. If they choose to refuse a customer for whatever reason, that is their right to do so. Government has no authority to dictate who people must do business with .

Any intelligent business owner wouldn't turn down money, but if they choose to do so, again, that is their right to do so.

reply to post by doubletap


What are you talking about "unconstitutionally protected classes"?

You have a problem with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? (Actually, I bet you DO have an issue with the Fourteenth, I'm purely guessing.

Because the only thing that protects any American citizen, despite whatever "class" you'd like to divide them into, is ultimately the Constitution, which requires Due Process and Equal Protection under the laws.

As to your hypothetical business owner when their customers can arrive on something other than the public roads, when their shop is powered by something other than the public power grid, or when they use something other than the public water system, then you might have the BEGINNINGS of a personal property right claim ... but until then every business owner is a partner with the Public, and therefore, the Public has certain rights as well.

Bone75

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?

God has not been removed from anything. Kids can pray in school, together or individually, they can read their Bibles, i.e. they can practice their religious beliefs.

The Ten Commandments is in every courthouse I've ever been in.

Yes, marriage equality is finally making headway which represents the another nail in the coffin of gender discrimination. The centuries of creating second-class citizens based on archaic superstitions is finally coming to an end.

Preserving traditional marriage seems that it would entail doing something about DIVORCE, right? That's what's DESTROYING marriage and families, to the tune of approximately 50% of all marriages.

Yes, when I hear the President of the United States say that God told him to go to war and he does it, when I hear that someone's religious beliefs are being enshrined as superior to written law, when corporations are probably about to be determined to have religious beliefs, when the number of people who identify as Christian is between 78 and 85%, the number who don't "believe" in evolution is above 33% or 45% or more ... when year after year there are myriad attempts to Christianize the Government, and a whole political party representing between 45% to 51% of the country spends more time espousing God's supposed teachings than they do making law ... yeah, I start to think about a theocracy.

doubletap
reply to post by Honcho

 

Who do you think owns the businesses? We the people. Someone on your street ? A relative?

People do not give up their rights when they go into business. If they choose to refuse a customer for whatever reason, that is their right to do so. Government has no authority to dictate who people must do business with .

Any intelligent business owner wouldn't turn down money, but if they choose to do so, again, that is their right to do so.

Well looking at it at a broader scale, it would be madness.

I'm not sure about you, but in my area there is a company called Ameren. Ameren is the company that supplies me with electricity. They are the only available electricity company for my area. Making them monopolized. What happens if my state passes one of these bills and then refuses to give power to homosexuals?

There is also only one water processing company for my area also. What happens if they were to start denying homosexuals their ability to get water from them?

No water and no power in today's day and age would be horrible to have to go through. It just starts getting ugly when you start looking at it from a broader scale. It would only cause far to many problems in society.

doubletap
Government has no authority to dictate who people must do business with .

Actually, government has plenty of authority to do so ...

US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)

reply to post by tallcool1

tallcool1
It's the right of the owner to serve whoever they want vs the right of a human to be treated like a human.

Actually, the owner does not have the legal right to serve whomever they want. They can refuse individuals for whatever reason (foul mouth, trouble maker, no shoes, etc.) but they cannot LEGALLY refuse to serve GROUPS (black people, handicapped people, etc.).

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...

No. Both of your examples are about WHAT the establishment serves, not WHO they serve. If a Muslim-owned business served ham to most people, but refused to serve it to one GROUP (gay people, Christians, etc.) then that would be discrimination. If they don't serve ham at all, then they cannot be forced to serve ham.

I know you're playing devil's advocate, which I think is a very important thing to do in cases like this. It helps to explore the whole picture.

reply to post by Bone75


Mississippi Governor Signs Religious Discrimination Bill - Now Law

Bone75
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.

Yes, I can. The law in Mississippi (Yes, it's now a law) allows ALL businesses to use their religious beliefs to turn away customers, NOT just LGBT customers.

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.

I thought it was ridiculous for a REAL Christian to judge a gay couple and refuse service to them, but here we have it.

reply to post by doubletap

doubletap
How about a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

There is no such right.

Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. - See more at: civilrights.findlaw.com...[/e x]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Jeeze, didn't think he'd actually sign it.

reply to post by Kali74


From everything I read yesterday, he thought it was a great idea and had planned to sign it. It will be interesting to see the fall-out.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH - I really was under the impression that a business owner had the right to deny service to anyone they choose for whatever reason they choose. I've seen the signs in restaurants for example stating that hey have the "right to deny service to anyone" or words to that effect. Bad business policy aside, I really believed that they had that right. Since in reality I do not know for sure what the law is on this matter, nor do I have time at the moment to look it up, I'll have to defer to what you have said, since I don't believe you would just make that up. I've grown to respect what you say regardless of whether I agree or not.

And as you said (and I said previously), I am just playing devils advocate here and arguing what I honestly thought was the rights of the business owner...and it would appear that I was incorrect. I'm certainly not above admitting I am wrong.

Regardless - I actually agree with everyone that businesses should not be able to discriminate based solely on prejudicial beliefs. I know I would most certainly not be happy if I was denied my chicken yakisoba for lunch at my favorite yakisoba place simply because I am a typical middle aged white guy.

And with that - I need to bow out for a while. I have an enormously busy day ahead of me as I am going to be on a Mexican cruise next week and have to get my work in order before I leave. Hopefully I'll have a few minutes here and there to check back in before I leave on Sunday morning.