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: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

windword

But this bill relieves the religious of being bothered by the burden of the law and bars law enforcement or the government from interfering with the exercise of one's religion.


It does nothing of the sort; please cite the reference to the bill in which it allows the "religious" exemption of the "law".

A State cannot bar a private business from practicing their religion no more than an individual does; as businesses are typically made up of individuals.

That business has one entity to answer to and that is market-forces. If it has found a market for dyed in wool religious persons, then let them be, go to another for your services you seek. If no other is to be found; it seems you found a niche to capitalize upon!

It seems that people are for the State to mandate what businesses can and cannot do (which is an extension of the People)....If I want to sell widgets to people with grey eyes, pale skin and speak only Dutch; why does that bother you? Or is it the fact that this has been portrayed as an "anti-gay" bill -- which is completely false given the posted links I provided?




posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


That's mighty fine stereotyping and ridiculing a group of people you barely know..... Does that somehow make you better than those that do the same to homosexuals?

Just sayin...........
edit on Fri Apr 11 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Darth_Prime
So many people are blind to Discrimination, many don't want to admit it exist as it does and claim we use our "Gay Agenda" to whine about "Special Treatment"

Religion is a belief system, it is something you can believe in or not, and i will defend everyone's right to believe in whatever they want but you cannot make that above people because not everyone believes in it.

this is oppression



How is it oppression when someone says " yeah i choose not to serve you because its against my religious beliefs" but you can go right down the street to the next store and buy what you need there?

Again do you REALLY want to do business with people who dont want to do business with you?

As I said before I have no issues with the LGBT community, and If I had a business myself it wouldnt matter to me one bit who came in and used my services......its all revenue in the end, and if I do a good job its repeat business.....

but I dont expect everyone to feel this way, nor do I expect them to do the same things I do....

I can see where people can get riled up over this, or believe this will turn into something much more, but IMHO reading this thing , I really dont see how its going to do that.

I can see how a lot of business are going to be hurt by choosing NOT to do business with the rest of the community, but in the end that is their own fault.....



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


The term "red neck" is highly offensive. We do not simply choose to be red necks, we are born this way. You, sir (or ma'am), are a bigot.
edit on Fri Apr 11 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Darth_Prime
So many people are blind to Discrimination, many don't want to admit it exist as it does and claim we use our "Gay Agenda" to whine about "Special Treatment"

Religion is a belief system, it is something you can believe in or not, and i will defend everyone's right to believe in whatever they want but you cannot make that above people because not everyone believes in it.

this is oppression


Discrimination surely occurs but you have portrayed that it is the business of the Government to dictate what private citizens (a la businesses) do. Would you be okay if the Government started prosecuting citizens if they were brought to suit for not accepting a friendship based on discrimination?

Am I not allowed to discriminate on who I conduct business with? Be friends with? Be associated with? Because I could of swore that the First Amendment protects free association...

Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.


I can freely, regardless of the public opinion thereof, be associated with the Klu Klux Klan or the Black Panthers or the Communist Party; in terms of the Government, that shouldn't matter. In terms of the public and the free-markets, they are subjected to the whim of how such associations are dealt with. I accept the later, but deny the former.
edit on 9-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

HUMBLEONEPOST REMOVED BY STAFF


Hey wait a minute !!!

This law has religious overtones right?

Well let's see.

If a Muslim family opens a Middle-Eastern restaurant and some local group decides to try to force that business to serve bacon sandwiches and whiskey because THEY want them to, and they refuse to do so for religious reasons, based on this new law who would be right and wrong?

Or a Jewish family being forced to serve pork in their business.

Or turn it around....A Muslim demands that a restaurant owner remove all pork and alcohol before the Muslim enters to eat.

Now what?


edit on Fri Apr 11 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

BubbaJoe
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.


Clever. But that was corrected. The 3/5ths Compromise was an obvious black mark on an otherwise ground-breaking document in terms of political association between a people and their formed government.

Do tell though where women were excluded within the Constitution; I can find only one place in which gender was specified, and that was only via pronoun -- regarding the presidency (if you care to know.)

Other than that, the Constitution was written fairly gender neutral. It was society of the time that exclude women and most of that was done on the State level or lower. So try again.

It was more prevalent in State constitutions, but the Federal Constitution was remarkably gender neutral for the time....but that doesn't fit your narrative.

As for the 3/5th clause....yep, horrible in all senses; save it isn't what most have been taught in my opinion. Looking at the deliberation and debate, the "compromise" was drafted to ensure slave heavy "southern" States (wait...I thought they were Democrat?) would receive credit toward their representative count while the "northern" States (wait...they just want to enslave people!) received equal protection towards such a count.

Crappy all around really and given the circumstances, it was fairly diplomatic and held up until 1860s or so....



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





It does nothing of the sort; please cite the reference to the bill in which it allows the "religious" exemption of the "law".



to guarantee its application in
33 all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially
34 burdened; and
35 (b) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose
36 religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

Government shall not substantially burden a
48 person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a
49 rule of general applicability, except as provided in paragraph (b)
50 of this subsection.

(b) Government may substantially burden a person's
52 exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of
53 the burden to the person:
54 (i) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
55 interest; and
56 (ii) Is the least restrictive means of furthering
57 that compelling governmental interest.



So, I guess preventing murder and assault and child abuse are government interests. But this bill in no way limits the adverse effects on unchecked bigotry, especially in the kind of group and mob mentality you find sometimes in small towns.

I do see a lot of loop holes and opportunity for abuse. It's a sad day when bigotry has to be protected under the guise of spirituality masquerading as religion.

Get ready for law suits!



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
How have you derived your opinion based on this bill?

Here is the beginning of line 33..."and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened;"

The bill gives recourse for businesses that apply religious means of serving the public an avenue to redress the government; you have it, I have it, why can't they have it? Or should they be at the whim of what you or the State deem acceptable?
edit on 9-4-2014 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

AnteBellum
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


This is discriminating against anyone they don't like or want to serve!
From a christian news source but we all know how good they are at telling the truth.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

xuenchen

HUMBLEONE
Mississippi should have an anti-pork fat law. Leave the FABULOUS people alone, red neck mother.


Hey wait a minute !!!

This law has religious overtones right?

Well let's see.

If a Muslim family opens a Middle-Eastern restaurant and some local group decides to try to force that business to serve bacon sandwiches and whiskey because THEY want them to, and they refuse to do so for religious reasons, based on this new law who would be right and wrong?

Or a Jewish family being forced to serve pork in their business.

Or turn it around....A Muslim demands that a restaurant owner remove all pork and alcohol before the Muslim enters to eat.

Now what?



Your examples aren't correct and certainly misleading as far as what is happening here. Nobody is forcing anyone to do a job which they aren't already providing. Take the original example of a baker not baking a cake for a wedding. The baker already bakes cakes. Your example makes it seem like someone was trying to force the baker of cakes to cook up a hamburger. That isn't so. The baker was asked to bake a cake but wants to refuse doing the job based on his religious beliefs.

So again, nobody can force a Jewish baker to use pork or whatever your examples are. You need to use examples which would actually apply and not some crazy BS that you just make up that is going to mislead others into thinking something that isn't true.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

ManBehindTheMask

Darth_Prime
So many people are blind to Discrimination, many don't want to admit it exist as it does and claim we use our "Gay Agenda" to whine about "Special Treatment"

Religion is a belief system, it is something you can believe in or not, and i will defend everyone's right to believe in whatever they want but you cannot make that above people because not everyone believes in it.

this is oppression



How is it oppression when someone says " yeah i choose not to serve you because its against my religious beliefs" but you can go right down the street to the next store and buy what you need there?

Again do you REALLY want to do business with people who dont want to do business with you?

As I said before I have no issues with the LGBT community, and If I had a business myself it wouldnt matter to me one bit who came in and used my services......its all revenue in the end, and if I do a good job its repeat business.....

but I dont expect everyone to feel this way, nor do I expect them to do the same things I do....

I can see where people can get riled up over this, or believe this will turn into something much more, but IMHO reading this thing , I really dont see how its going to do that.

I can see how a lot of business are going to be hurt by choosing NOT to do business with the rest of the community, but in the end that is their own fault.....


So by your comments it would be all right to say, I don't want to do business with you because of the color of your skin. This is an old argument.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


honestly if you didnt want to do business with me because of the color of my skin, that would be your perogative, id take my business to your competitor as would many others.

Again thats YOUR choice, does it make you ignorant, yes, do I think its ignorant for people to refuse service to others based on their beliefs or sexual orientation? Absolutely....

But is that their choice, sure.....

Will they suffer with their business , probably so!



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


The Hypocrisy is that people are asking for "Special Treatment" for a Religious Reason, and than complaining and saying we have a "Gay Agenda" asking for special treatment.

this is degrading all Homosexuals as below Human, if Religious people can serve people that sin in many other ways what differs with us Gays?

are they going to ask everyone what their sins are? why single out us?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


It's a little obscure but I presume that you are equating the disgusting pedophile behavior of catholic priests with christianity? That's fine as long as I can lump atheists with the mass murdering behavior of Joseph Stalin or Robespierre.

In fact suppose you were a psychotic atheist liberal and the government told you that you had to hire members of the Westboro baptist church to teach your children in their schools in order to foment diversity. Since the current official religion of our schools is atheism, would that bother you?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

SevenThunders
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


It's a little obscure but I presume that you are equating the disgusting pedophile behavior of catholic priests with christianity? That's fine as long as I can lump atheists with the mass murdering behavior of Joseph Stalin or Robespierre.

In fact suppose you were a psychotic atheist liberal and the government told you that you had to hire members of the Westboro baptist church to teach your children in their schools in order to foment diversity. Since the current official religion of our schools is atheism, would that bother you?

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6 The irony of this one tickles me
I could do this all day, but then so could anyone with half a brain!

As for Atheists killing people well. . . who cares! They are atheists, I am not and it doesn't relate here.
I know many good baptists, I was married to one for 4 years, even went to church with the family and sang along with the flock. Nashville and Chattanooga to be exact. As for them teaching my kids, no problem as long as they aren't pedophiles!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The religious right really screwed up when they started enshrining their bigotry in legislation. That gives the courts an opportunity to rule on it's constitutionality. If you're going to be a bigot, do it in hiding.

Google: Valarie Hodges & Susanne Atanus



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

rupertg
The religious right really screwed up when they started enshrining their bigotry in legislation. That gives the courts an opportunity to rule on it's constitutionality. If you're going to be a bigot, do it in hiding.

Google: Valarie Hodges & Susanne Atanus


Yet it was the religious right who abolished slavery and fought for the civil rights movement. The group that opposed these things were the democrats. This should inform your opinion, the promotion of sodomy is not a civil right. The religious see it as negative and harmful for the functioning of a good society.

All homosexual cultures have been destroyed throughout history. Shall we tempt God then with our new 'enlightened' view of sexual immorality?




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join