It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Aloysius the Gaul
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.
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.
Aloysius the Gaul
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".
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.
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?
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.
It's the right of the owner to serve whoever they want vs the right of a human to be treated like a human.
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...
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.
How about a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?
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]