It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 



tallcool1
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.


There's a difference between denying an individual services and denying a group.

Talking strictly about public accommodation (not employment or housing) businesses can deny service to individuals for whatever reason they see fit, like not wearing shoes, someone causing problems, someone who's dirty, etc., but they cannot deny services to "protected groups", like race, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. In other words, they can tell someone who's drunk and disorderly to leave, but they can't say, we don't serve black people here. I hope that makes sense.

Federally, sexual orientation is not a protected group. Yet. So, states can allow discrimination against the LGBT community. In some states, such as Colorado, they have updated their anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. That's why the baker there lost his case.

Have a great cruise!

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




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There has been some discussion about this very topic when it comes to same sex, gay people, same sex couples, the LGBT community in general by some of the best legal minds in the country. They have looked at the laws, both state and federal and have come to the following conclusion, based off of judicial precedent.

The First Amendment, the one that protects religion, and religious expression is very broad in its definition and use. The government cannot just go in and ban a religion, solely cause it does not like it, nor can it force people to attend or follow a faith, cause it is in favor at the time or it owes political favor to such. In short the government can not endorse or stop a religious practice, unless said practice violates criminal laws. Point in case on this would be the snake handlers, where it did step in and stop or make it illegal for said practice, as it violated the laws of the country, and safety. That is perfectly acceptable.

To deny a person their right of belief, their religion is not the purpose of any law, if anything it is the opposite, the laws, those charged with keeping the laws and passing, often look the other way when it comes to those to are of a faith based practice, even when there is overwhelming evidence of wrong doing, and even then it is often a slap on the wrist and a warning.

While the freedom of religion has never been denied to anyone, there comes a point in business that is open to the public. Most would agree that when you do business, you have to be open to your customers, and their faiths. A person could not and should not use religion as an excuse to do wrong, or deny services to another that may not be of their faith or violates the principles of fair trade. This is the bases for what the judges are looking at and stating, when it comes to ruling against businesses or striking down laws like this, is that if a person runs a public business, one that is open to the public, it can not pick and choose who it serves. However, there is one exception to the law, and that has also been upheld in court, and that is the ministerial exception. The ministerial exception is a clause that states that if a person who is a minister, has the right to pick and chose while running a religious organization. That means, say a Baptist minister, can refuse to hire a person who is not a Baptist or violates his faith. If said minister were to run a business open to the public and it is not associated with any church, and chooses not to serve a person, he could not use religion as an excuse.

The saddest part about these laws, is that ultimately people tend to fail to see the long run effects of what will happen if they pass and stand, failing to see that ultimately it will cause more problems than it originally intended to solves. Communities will suffer, and it opens a dangerous legal door that once open will be hard to shut or even go back. So while it may seem like a good idea now, the question that they never answer, is what happens in say 5 years, or 10 or 20? Passage of this kind of law will only hasten the spawning of laws based off of religious principle, to include communities that are isolated and separated from the country on a whole. Ghettos of different beliefs with their own rules and laws spring up. So that means in this case it is feasible to see a town divided along religious lines, where the city council or even a state becomes bogged down in legal mire and red tape unable to function and slowly fall apart, splitting and eventually ending up in a far worse condition than it already is. Would you want to live in such a city or state, where a community or a city is divided along the lines of religion? There are many historical perspectives, even from the very recent history where religion divided people and kept them separate, where it broke out into violence.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Mississippi Governor Signs Religious Discrimination Bill - Now Law

 


LOL

Now the debate is relevant.

Watch for a Federal lawsuit soon.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

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 -


Is there another kind?


if homosexuality is a sin then why is a homosexual mowing lawn not sinful while a homosexual getting married to another homosexual is?


See that's where you are the one moving the goalposts, I could care less whether the person I sell a lawnmower to is a homosexual, a Muslim, or a child rapist for that matter. I don't care because judging others is a sin.

Christian store owners don't make you fill out a survey for the same reason. Ignorance is bliss remember?

Now when someone walks into a bakery and asks a baker to make a cake with Mr. & Mr. Jones on top of it, then the luxury of ignorance goes right out the window. In the case of a Christian baker, without this law, he would have to knowingly commit a sin or risk losing his business.

What if one of the grooms sends his sister into the bakery to order the cake?
In that case he wouldn't even be selling a cake to a homosexual, but the moral dilemma is still there isn't it?
edit on b20144America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: Oops



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The title of this thread should be:

"Dinosaur's in Mississippi invent time machine and turn the clock back to the 1750's where everyone was decent and moral"

Honestly, when will they finally outlaw organised religion *shakes head in disgust*



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 





Now when someone walks into a bakery and asks a baker to make a cake with Mr. & Mr. Jones on top of it, then the luxury of ignorance goes right out the _ In the case of a Christian baker, without this law, he would have to knowingly commit a sin or risk losing his business.


Can you quote the "sacred text" that states baking a cake with the words Mr & Mr on it are a sin? I wonder what religion that is.

Isn't judging a sin in some religions? I wonder if the one that says baking a cake is a sin also says judging is a sin. That would be quite the conundrum.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

SearchLightsInc
The title of this thread should be:

"Dinosaur's in Mississippi invent time machine and turn the clock back to the 1750's where everyone was decent and moral"

Honestly, when will they finally outlaw organised religion *shakes head in disgust*


Thank Gawd for the 1st Amendment eh

Gawd bless the Constitution !!




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


EXCELLENT post!


When we muddy the separation of church and state (which is what happens when we make laws based on religion) we violate the very concept of the 1st Amendment (a law is being made that respects the establishment of religion), while violating the 14th Amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.)


sdcigarpig
The saddest part about these laws, is that ultimately people tend to fail to see the long run effects of what will happen if they pass and stand, failing to see that ultimately it will cause more problems than it originally intended to solves. Communities will suffer, and it opens a dangerous legal door that once open will be hard to shut or even go back.


In the 50s and 60s, people used religion to turn away black people and it led to the civil rights era. I tend to think this will happen again. But I absolutely agree that communities will suffer and that it will cause problems.

Really great post!



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Why do people care so much what strangers do in their personal lives? Once we start letting businesses discriminate against who gets to enter their business based on sex, age, race, gender etc we are taking a huge step backwards



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

xuenchen

SearchLightsInc
The title of this thread should be:

"Dinosaur's in Mississippi invent time machine and turn the clock back to the 1750's where everyone was decent and moral"

Honestly, when will they finally outlaw organised religion *shakes head in disgust*


Thank Gawd for the 1st Amendment eh

Gawd bless the Constitution !!



Yes, the constitution has done a great job protecting people from religious idiots and their cavemen views.

*rolls eyes*



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


OK for you.

It's hard to argue with prejudice.

btw, can somebody quote the exact language of this law pointing to the controversey?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


OK for you.

It's hard to argue with prejudice.

btw, can somebody quote the exact language of this law pointing to the controversey?



The idea that you can deny service to someone based on their: Gender, Race or Sexual Orientation is where the obvious controversy comes from. That's not practising your faith, that's called being an a**hole and the last time i checked, there was no amendment in the american constitution giving you the right to be tosser.
edit on 4-4-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
If this were law and I`d be a homosexual I could circumvent it by saying:

"I want to make a cake with me and my friend on it. We`re celebrating 10 years of friendship".

If it were not law, as a Business owner I could circumvent giving them service by saying "We're all booked out this month. Sorry".

What could anyone do about that? Nothing.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


I despise religion and this bill protects the rights of business owners. You seem to think they shouldn't have rights.

Why is that? Childish ignorance, or no respect for rights for people who have opinions you don't like?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Skyfloating
If this were law and I`d be a homosexual I could circumvent it by saying:

"I want to make a cake with me and my friend on it. We`re celebrating 10 years of friendship".

If it were not law, as a Business owner I could circumvent giving them service by saying "We're all booked out this month. Sorry".

What could anyone do about that? Nothing.



Exactly. There are always ways to discriminate without explicitly saying so. The crybaby leftists can't do anything about it



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

SearchLightsInc

xuenchen
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


OK for you.

It's hard to argue with prejudice.

btw, can somebody quote the exact language of this law pointing to the controversey?



The idea that you can deny service to someone based on their: Gender, Race or Sexual Orientation is where the obvious controversy comes from. That's not practising your faith, that's called being an a**hole and the last time i checked, there was no amendment in the american constitution giving you the right to be tosser.
edit on 4-4-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)


No, the a**hole is the gay person who turns to their mate and says "Let's go make that Christian bake us a wedding cake." or "Let's go make that Christian take our wedding photos."



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Skyfloating
If this were law and I`d be a homosexual I could circumvent it by saying:

"I want to make a cake with me and my friend on it. We`re celebrating 10 years of friendship".


Yes, you may be able to get around it. If the owner suspected you of being gay, however, he could still refuse you by making up an excuse like you outlined below... And that would be taking a huge step backwards, because that's what business owners used to do to black people (and probably still do in states like Mississippi) by saying, "sorry, we don't have the time to make another cake in that time period".



If it were not law, as a Business owner I could circumvent giving them service by saying "We're all booked out this month. Sorry".

What could anyone do about that? Nothing.



I would be really careful about that, because if another person enters your establishment and you sell to them, you've got a possible lawsuit on your hands.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Bone75

No, the a**hole is the gay person who turns to their mate and says "Let's go make that Christian bake us a wedding cake." or "Let's go make that Christian take our wedding photos."


IN this scenario, did the gay folk poll bakers just to find out which ones were Christian?

Yep, sounds reasonable. (Not.)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


They could always take their little hurt feelings to another bakery like a mature adult would do.

Instead , they choose to whine and sue.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Gryphon66

Bone75

No, the a**hole is the gay person who turns to their mate and says "Let's go make that Christian bake us a wedding cake." or "Let's go make that Christian take our wedding photos."


IN this scenario, did the gay folk poll bakers just to find out which ones were Christian?

Yep, sounds reasonable. (Not.)


More reasonable than thinking a business owner is going to start polling customers to find out which ones are sinners, especially in small towns where everyone knows each other.
edit on b20144America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join