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.

 

CNN and FOX News Completely Ignored Mississippi's New Anti-Gay Segregation Law

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The Christian Post - Thought this source was appropriate.

A copy of the bill defines "burden" as "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."
This 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."


"Senate Bill 2681 would promote discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Mississippi," said Ferrara. "As a minister, it's clear that this extreme bill is about legalizing discrimination, not protecting religious freedom. Furthermore the broad implications of this bill could result in discrimination aimed toward many communities."


"This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work according to one's conscience. This commonsense measure was a no-brainer for freedom, and like the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], it simply bars government discrimination against religious exercise. The legislature gave strong approval to a bill that declares that individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom for entrance into public commerce," he noted in his daily e-blast.

edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add




posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Thanks.

I guess it's all "implied".

I don't see anything that targets any specific group however.

The Federal non-discrimination laws would supersede any "abuses" ...yes? no?

Where are the loopholes?

I'm still not crystal clear on this.
 

Added:

Is your quote from the actual law? or a version that was changed?



edit on Apr-09-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
So then what did you mean by this:


I honestly feel there should be one law across these 50 states, that would remove all of the evangelical BS.
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


I didnt twist anything, just using your quote



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

BubbaJoe
If my religion is caucasion oriented, and my preacher says I shouldn't serve african americans, I can claim protection under this law. I honestly feel there should be one law across these 50 states, that would remove all of the evangelical BS.


Yes you can, as protected by the Federal Constitutional bounds via the First Amendment and by the state's constitutional bounds via the State of Mississippi.

Why does it bother you that a small sect of society wish to exclude persons? Let them die off naturally from their own ignorance. Why should the State be compelled to force such persons to accept others they do not wish to accept? This is beyond religion and it speaks to associations, which is inferred via First Amendment statute and mirroring State statutes regarding the free association of the People.

Should the Government be able to tell you, as an individual, that you must accept another as your friend on Facebook? We are speaking of private enterprise here and the fact the Government is compelling them (save this legislation) to accept what the Government wants them to accept, is beyond the scope of any government in the United States.
edit on 9-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

ManBehindTheMask
So then what did you mean by this:


I honestly feel there should be one law across these 50 states, that would remove all of the evangelical BS.
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


I didnt twist anything, just using your quote


I don't believe any one should be able to discriminate against another group for any reason, All men are created equal and all of that, but seems like African Americans were only worth 3/5's and women weren't considered at all. So much for equality.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   


As Mississippi wages war on LGBT citizens' basic rights, two of the nation's leading news outlets apparently have nothing better to offer than silence


Maybe even the nations leading news outlets are sick the gay mafias bullying and hysterical whining? I know I am.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

ownbestenemy

BubbaJoe
If my religion is caucasion oriented, and my preacher says I shouldn't serve african americans, I can claim protection under this law. I honestly feel there should be one law across these 50 states, that would remove all of the evangelical BS.


Yes you can, as protected by the Federal Constitutional bounds via the First Amendment and by the state's constitutional bounds via the State of Mississippi.

Why does it bother you that a small sect of society wish to exclude persons? Let them die off naturally from their own ignorance. Why should the State be compelled to force such persons to accept others they do not wish to accept? This is beyond religion and it speaks to associations, which is inferred via First Amendment statute and mirroring State statutes regarding the free association of the People.

Should the Government be able to tell you, as an individual, that you must accept another as your friend on Facebook? We are speaking of private enterprise here and the fact the Government is compelling them (save this legislation) to accept what the Government wants them to accept, is beyond the scope of any government in the United States.
edit on 9-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


Being my friend on facebook is not a public function, serving you in my brick and mortar business is.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

AnteBellum
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


You are absolutely right! I must have read the wrong bill.
You have to forgive my shallow little blonde mind.

Now if you could excuse me, I must make like a good little wife and go cook a pie for my husband.
Thank you and god bless!


That is cute that you are projecting some notion that I implied such as you wrote. I am pointing out that the bill itself is far different than the inferred notions that you have quoted. If you care to have a conversation about it, I am glad to do so; but if you only wish to play the faux victim, so be it.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

imwilliam



As Mississippi wages war on LGBT citizens' basic rights, two of the nation's leading news outlets apparently have nothing better to offer than silence


Maybe even the nations leading news outlets are sick the gay mafias bullying and hysterical whining? I know I am.


Says the guy who thinks that MLK was a terrorist.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   


Quite honestly there is no reason for having an open discussion. I read the bill, I understood it. I can now go open up a store there and do just what the bill states, discriminate!
edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


As signed, the sections you posted now read the following:


(c) "Exercise of religion" means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.


The later portion in which you have stated, is not found in the final legislation...

You are quoting an old bill it seems....see my link in my first post.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
So basically I am reading in this bill, I can refuse to do business with anyone who doesn't believe as I do. Religious asshats need to get out of politics.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Repost:

The Christian Post - Thought this source was appropriate.

A copy of the bill defines "burden" as "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."
This 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."


"Senate Bill 2681 would promote discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Mississippi," said Ferrara. "As a minister, it's clear that this extreme bill is about legalizing discrimination, not protecting religious freedom. Furthermore the broad implications of this bill could result in discrimination aimed toward many communities."


"This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work according to one's conscience. This commonsense measure was a no-brainer for freedom, and like the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], it simply bars government discrimination against religious exercise. The legislature gave strong approval to a bill that declares that individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom for entrance into public commerce," he noted in his daily e-blast.


You can keep on going if you want but my understanding of what I read is discriminatory and written very well, by someone who knows what they are talking about, I might add. But you can spin it any way you feel! I am one for free speech!
edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


How so? How is you conducting business, save for the notion that you provide such business to the public, a "public function"? A private business serves its interests to facilitate its own; which is to provide a service. Honestly, on my own view would be to provide my business to as many consumers as possible, but that is me; not you or another. On this token, a loan company provides a "public function" but they can discriminate freely, but a business that that you potentially have access to doesn't?

Your argument fails....why can one business freely refuse customers based on their financial history (even it doesn't properly portray their current status) but another cannot refuse based on their personal conscience?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

BubbaJoe
So basically I am reading in this bill, I can refuse to do business with anyone who doesn't believe as I do. Religious asshats need to get out of politics.


Where; what sections of the bill allow this?



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


That picture isn't the bill signed into law. See my link on my first reply....you are posting drafts that others are taking aim at....



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   

AnteBellum


Quite honestly there is no reason for having an open discussion. I read the bill, I understood it. I can now go open up a store there and do just what the bill states, discriminate!
edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add


This isn't just about discrimination, it's about being able to act on any "religious" idea an individual has. It doesn't even have to be supported by an acknowledged church. What if your religion tells you to beat you wife and kids, kill abortion doctors, mutilate the genital of your daughter; to do honor killings, drug trips, animal sacrifice, the list goes on?

I'd get all upset about this bill, but I think a judge will throw it out, hopefully before someone gets killed or maimed.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Repost:

The Christian Post - Thought this source was appropriate.

A copy of the bill defines "burden" as "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."
This 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."


"Senate Bill 2681 would promote discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Mississippi," said Ferrara. "As a minister, it's clear that this extreme bill is about legalizing discrimination, not protecting religious freedom. Furthermore the broad implications of this bill could result in discrimination aimed toward many communities."


"This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work according to one's conscience. This commonsense measure was a no-brainer for freedom, and like the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], it simply bars government discrimination against religious exercise. The legislature gave strong approval to a bill that declares that individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom for entrance into public commerce," he noted in his daily e-blast.


You can keep on going if you want but my understanding of what I read is discriminatory and written very well, by someone who knows what they are talking about, I might add. But you can spin it any way you feel! I am one for free speech!



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Repost:

The Christian Post - Thought this source was appropriate.

A copy of the bill defines "burden" as "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."
This 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."


"Senate Bill 2681 would promote discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Mississippi," said Ferrara. "As a minister, it's clear that this extreme bill is about legalizing discrimination, not protecting religious freedom. Furthermore the broad implications of this bill could result in discrimination aimed toward many communities."


"This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work according to one's conscience. This commonsense measure was a no-brainer for freedom, and like the federal [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], it simply bars government discrimination against religious exercise. The legislature gave strong approval to a bill that declares that individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom for entrance into public commerce," he noted in his daily e-blast.


You can keep on going if you want but my understanding of what I read is discriminatory and written very well, by someone who knows what they are talking about, I might add. But you can spin it any way you feel! I am one for free speech!



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Goodnight!
edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join