Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

Bone75

Kali74
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

That's exactly what most of them would do. Feed the poor? Nope. Judge not? Nope. Let he who is without sin... nope. Most decry every behavior or notion Jesus had as evil Leftist. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

I'll admit that you lefties are the most stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude, and manipulative people on the face of the planet, but I still love you all no matter how frustrating conversing with you may be.

Maybe you're aware of these traits within yourself, which might explain your irrational paranoia?

edit on b20144America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

It's not paranoia in this case, paranoia would require a threat, I think of it as speculation. I do think that liberals can be very rude (I am a liberal) and disprespectful as rule... But I think Conservatives (here in the US) are masters of being manipulated by other conservatives. I also think Conservatives are unreasonable when it comes to examining new ideas, or, "unconservtive" ideas. This can be best observed in the notion of RINOS

Gryphon66

Bone75

Kali74
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

That's exactly what most of them would do. Feed the poor? Nope. Judge not? Nope. Let he who is without sin... nope. Most decry every behavior or notion Jesus had as evil Leftist. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

I'll admit that you lefties are the most stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude, and manipulative people on the face of the planet, but I still love you all no matter how frustrating conversing with you may be.

Maybe you're aware of these traits within yourself, which might explain your irrational paranoia?

edit on b20144America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

Have you never met a "rightie" that was stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude and manipulative?

What exactly is a "leftie"?

Further is every "leftie" you meet equally stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude and manipulative?

That would make me wonder if perhaps those traits were not mine that I projected onto others.

I agree the lefties can be rude and disrespectful in the current rhetorical atmosphere. But other traits do not ring a bell with me, they do seem like projection.

spurgeonatorsrevenge

would you force a Jewish cake maker who specializes in made to order cakes, to bake a cake celebrating the 70th anniversary of the "Jewish Solution"

It's just a cake

He makes cakes all the time.

Is the Jewish baker wrong?

The sad fact of the matter is, most of these people I'm arguing with here certainly would force that Jew to make a Nazi cake if it means that homosexuals can force Christians to do the same.

One poster here already admitted that he would force a doctor to perform an abortion, and once your humanity diminishes to the point that you would force someone to take a pair of scissors and snip the spine of a baby, NOTHING is off-limits anymore.

reply to post by Bone75


SO genocide and marriage equality are equal terms here?

You're talking about a late-term partial birth abortion as if every single abortion was like that and you know that is far from the truth. What did you say about dishonesty above?

Gryphon66
reply to post by Bone75

 

SO genocide and marriage equality are equal terms here?

I guess they are now since the doctor is a bigot too. In fact, anyone who resists any part of the progressive agenda is called a bigot.

"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."

You're talking about a late-term partial birth abortion as if every single abortion was like that and you know that is far from the truth. What did you say about dishonesty above?

Would you have preferred the body crushing vacuum version instead?

reply to post by Bone75


Your argument is starting to veer erratically about, Bone. What doctor? You compared marriage equality with the Holocaust.And now blah-blah this progressive agenda, blah-blah that. Anything that's not part and parcel of the wingnuttery agenda is labelled "progressive."

Not sure what you're referring to with the elective surgery bit in the middle there.

And as to your schtick about late term abortions, it's your lie; tell it how you want. More sensationalist nonsense.

Gryphon66
reply to post by Bone75

 

Your argument is starting to veer erratically about, Bone. What doctor? You compared marriage equality with the Holocaust.And now blah-blah this progressive agenda, blah-blah that. Anything that's not part and parcel of the wingnuttery agenda is labelled "progressive."

Not sure what you're referring to with the elective surgery bit in the middle there.

And as to your schtick about late term abortions, it's your lie; tell it how you want. More sensationalist nonsense.

Sorry, its getting late and I didn't fully comprehend your question because I thought you were referring to abortion as genocide (I know... I should've known better), but I took a stab at it anyways.

Now that I understand what you meant, I realize that you will never have an ounce of sympathy or understanding for someone who holds my convictions. In your mind, if I don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, its because I hate gays. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion, its because he hates women. If I don't want to pay for crappy, overpriced health insurance, its because I hate Obama.

Are you at least starting to notice a pattern here?

reply to post by Grimpachi

Maybe you can enlighten me on which religion teaches that gay people should be treated badly.

Every fundamentalist church in the state of Mississippi. And unfortunately, in most towns there is one of those churches about every other block.

tigertatzen
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Maybe you can enlighten me on which religion teaches that gay people should be treated badly.

Every fundamentalist church in the state of Mississippi. And unfortunately, in most towns there is one of those churches about every other block.

There are at least 10 gays in my congregation that would tell you that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

reply to post by neo96

I would really love to see those sources. Since there are more people on welfare in Califoinia, and New York than MS's ENTIRE population.

Indeed, you are right. I also asked what any of that nonsense had to do with legislation for a discrimination law and did not receive an answer. Of course one is not really needed...it was obviously a dirty little jab at the populace of the state of Mississippi by someone who apparently has a really big imagination. So classy. But it's ok. We Mississippians tend to be a forgiving bunch...we just bless their pea-pickin' little heart (because they obviously were either raised in a barn or dropped on their head as a baby), shake our heads and walk on.

So were all agreed then? Mississippi is wrong for wanting into legislate law the right for those with religious beliefs to discriminate against protected groups of people?

Good. Now, how can we stop it?

reply to post by tigertatzen


I looked it up and he was wrong. Old Miss actually came in at #1. Page 4 I think I posted the findings.

There is a little back and forth talking about it but they come in first as far as federal funding and 1st or 2nd as far as welfare recipients. I think they are at 22% of the population. If one state has more people living there than another just saying they have more people on welfare doesn't say much. Anyway here is the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

SearchLightsInc
So were all agreed then? Mississippi is wrong for wanting into legislate law the right for those with religious beliefs to discriminate against protected groups of people?

Good. Now, how can we stop it? [/quote

You don't. Let them run their business the way they want.

Bone75

Now that I understand what you meant, I realize that you will never have an ounce of sympathy or understanding for someone who holds my convictions. In your mind, if I don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, its because I hate gays. If a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion, its because he hates women. If I don't want to pay for crappy, overpriced health insurance, its because I hate Obama.

Are you at least starting to notice a pattern here?

edit on b20144America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

You see, that's where you are absolutely mistaken. Neither I nor the "liberals/progressives" (and I'm neither) I know are, as you put it "stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude, and manipulative". Nor are we "baby-killers" or "gay mafia." We're just folks like everyone else. In fact, most real liberals have a lot in common with old-school libertarians ... in that we both want people to be able to live and let live and be FREE (liber) to find what happiness they can in life.

It's that "let live" that's the issue. If a doctor told me he didn't want to perform an abortion because he believes it's murder, of COURSE I would not ask him to do it. If a baker told me that he didn't want to make a cake for me I would look at them and ask if they really are doing well enough to turn away business, and then, I'd probably take my stuff and go. And I, personally, could care less where you buy your health insurance; I just want you to be able to, for you and your family.

My issue begins with abortion when you tell me that your belief about it is the only possible belief, when you try to restrict or remove the ability to get an abortion if I decide (and it is never an easy decision regardless of what you think) that is the best course of action for me and my life at this moment. My issue begins with marriage equality when you are in support of the continuing legal restrictions that create a second-class citizen out of anyone who loves and wants to marry another of their own sex. Its none of your business who I marry or why I marry them. Your belief has metastasized from affecting your own world (which I support) and has invaded mine (which I will fight tooth and nail over).

See the difference? Don't want an abortion? DOn't have one. Don't want to marry someone of the same sex? Don't marry them.

But dont' tell anyone else living by the convictions of their own conscience that YOUR beliefs and YOUR choice are somehow superior to THEIRS. You are one of many; live your life and let them live theirs.

Until a few years ago, I was the king of live and let live. I don't care what crazy stuff you believe, and I'll usually go there with you and let you explain it all to me. You want to believe that mushroom men from the dark side of Venus are controlling us by genetically modifying popcorn with radio waves? Hey, awesome! Tell me how that all works.

When you start trying to legislate and otherwise control my life because of the mushroom men? That's when you're in for a scrap.

So, peace be unto you and yours. Anytime you want to start over on the grounds of two people who merely believe differently, I'm good to go.

Best,

Gryph

reply to post by Grimpachi

Oh whats this?? Top state for food stamps Mississippi: 22 percent of residents rely on welfare

Did you happen to look at the date of that publication by chance?

www.christiantoday.com...

Published 11 July 2013 | Serena McGill

Ok, so here's some current info:

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Mississippi is a struggling state and has been for some time, but the implication in both the OP and subsequent posts is that the people there just sit around and do nothing while the government rains down money upon them (and they want even more!), which is not the case at all. People are moving away because there are no jobs even though the cost of living is rising, and they have to relocate just to feed their families and pay their bills. They are most definitely not over there partying away taxpayer dollars on a whim. And sadly, if that bill passes the state will only lapse into more decline...the population will decrease, businesses will fail due to lack of revenue because of discrimination...the list goes on and on.


drug testing

Further evidence that they are not just allowing people to "wallow" on welfare. Apparently, that distinction belongs to other states...such as one of the two mentioned in the OP as the alleged main benefactors of Mississippi's "handouts". Because somehow their taxpayers' money goes straight to Mississippi. Uhh yeah, sure...seems legit right?



CA seems to wallow substantially more than NY: www.usgovernmentspending.com... \

But NY still wins the prize over MS for welfare spending: New York

And even in the article you linked, because they cannot lie no matter how sensational the title, they clearly state that MS is using the money to raise teachers' wages, fill up their education fund for the first time since 2009, and give pay increases to government employees...things they haven't been able to accomplish for a long while.

Like I said before, I see no good reason for the OP having cited all that in conjunction with the topic other than to show disdain for the state as a whole, and feel it was uncalled for and completely irrelevant as well as inaccurate. But since it's been brought up, at least we can get updated statistical info on it so we've got the whole story.

I am not saying that you personally are trying to imply that the state is being greedy or misappropriating funds, etc. The link you posted is just a very good example of how things are misconstrued and blown out of proportion by people trying to fuel the political fire with obfuscation and misdirection. I genuinely hope the bill does not get passed, and I have serious doubts that it will because not everyone in Mississippi is a "backward knuckle dragger" (as someone posted) and clearly they saw potential pitfalls due to the problematic nature of the language contained in it. They are wise to tread cautiously here because one wrong move can escalate very quickly into complete and utter chaos and things could get really ugly should that actually happen. Everyone will lose.

In the old testament there is a story of Sarah and Abraham. They went into Egypt and well Sarah was very pretty. Abraham was afraid that the Pharaoh would see Sarah and want her and well kill Abraham. So he told Sarah to tell everyone that she was his sister, somewhat true but well I consider it a lie. Of course as the story goes the Pharaoh did get wind of the pretty little Sarah and desired her. Sarah and Abraham did indeed lie about their relationship and well the Pharaoh took Sarah as his wife. And God let the Pharaoh know that he was angry! He gave Abraham back his wife and sent them out of Egypt.
Sarah was to obey Abraham in all things!! She she obeyed him in this thing and lied about their relationship.

Sarah is held as a role model for women in the Christian Church and this story is told often to children.
I can point to other stories where people are told to do bad things by those they are supposed to obey if you want!


Ever tell your spouse to tell the person calling for you that you aren't home?
Ever tell your employee to fudge the accounting books just a tad?
Ever support a war that sent young men off to war to kill innocent children???
Ever expect your faithful christian to work on Saturdays (or Sundays)?

There have been quite a few on here that has made the distinction between the business and the employees for that business. If a moral issue comes up with an employee well they can just find another job! But the business owner should never have to go against their conscious! Umm sorry it doesn't work that way! The business owner has those above them that they are to obey also! And there will always be someone above with more authority. And well you will be judged as you have judged others. If your answer to the employee is that they can just find another job then my answer to the business owner is that they can just find another business venture to venture into!!

reply to post by diggindirt

diggindirt
Here's my question with this issue: Why would you want to force someone to do business with you if they don't want to do business with you?

I wanted to answer this question from my perspective. I am a woman and many times, I go into a car parts store, the tire place or the hardware store and I'm either ignored or greeted and treated as if I have no brain or that I've lost my mind and ended up in a car parts store, wandering about looking at the pretty shiny things. At least they agree to take my money. Little do they know that I can tune up my own car AND I know what I need to do it. Anyway, if a store refused to sell to me a part that they sell to everyone else, because I'm a woman, I would never set foot in that store again, BUT, they are breaking the law. They are discriminating against women and getting away with it. For that reason alone, I would contact an authority.

And no matter how many people say that they would just go to the next establishment, I don't believe them. If they went into a bakery and the baker refused to serve them because they're a Christian, and they went to the next baker only to hear the same spiel, and the next and the next, they would eventually become frustrated and angry, and want to do something about it. That's what black people faced in the 60s and that's what gay people face today.

So, it's not to force someone into an association, it's to report someone who isn't obeying the law.

I do understand laws prohibiting discrimination by governmental agencies---that before the law we are all to be viewed as equal and I have some serious reservations about certain laws that negate that premise---but in my private business?

Putting a wedding together is hard enough without having to search through every business to find out if they will service a gay wedding. There's flowers, a caterer, the venue, photography, music, etc... How much hassle should a person have to go through just because they're gay? If the law is known and business owners see other business owners get punished for breaking it, they're more likely to just serve their customers, regardless their sexual orientation.

If someone vandalized your house, breaking the law, you'd want them punished for it. You wouldn't just say, "Oh, well, I hope that doesn't happen again." If someone threatened your wife or child, you wouldn't just say, "Golly, that wasn't nice." You'd want to do something about it. You don't want the vandal or the threatening person to love you or be your friend, you want the law obeyed.

That's about the best I can explain it from my point of view.

tigertatzen
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Maybe you can enlighten me on which religion teaches that gay people should be treated badly.

Every fundamentalist church in the state of Mississippi. And unfortunately, in most towns there is one of those churches about every other block.

WOW .... just WOW. I am from the South and I am gay. I grew up in a small town and went to a very conservative church. One day I sat down with my preacher and told him I am gay. He asked me if I wanted to study the Bible specifically on the subject. I said no. He never mentioned it again and I was always welcomed at the front door when I attended. I was never treated any differently than any other member. Thank you so much for labeling EVERY fundamentalist Christian. That is bigotry in action IMO.

reply to post by tigertatzen


Sorry I don't know why but things did not link for me correctly.

Despite their vociferous outcries and sophisticated rhetoric condemning Democrats’ alleged proclivity for wasteful federal spending, Republican states are the most dependent on government funds, according to a new Wallet Hub report.

Mississippi, a state historically wallowing in abject poverty and rabid racism, is the number one state with its hand out looking for … well … handouts from the federal government. It takes about $3 in federal spending for every $1 dollar that state taxpayers contribute. It is tied with New Mexico, another red state, when it comes to dependency on government funds.

The state with the lowest return on taxpayer investment is South Carolina. Its citizens pay $1 in taxes per capita for every $7.87 in federal funding received. Republican states most dependent on federal funds, report states Mar. 29, 2014

They want more as well. From an article dated March 29 2014

Lawmaker: Mississippi spending will rise by $168 million

Lawmaker: Mississippi spending will rise by $168 million

Once money that agencies generate themselves and federal aid are included, Mississippi state government will spend around $18 billion next year.

I have not implied that the residents of the state were knuckel draggers but the OP did give accurate information. As you can see these are up to date articles. I posted them on page 5 not 4 www.abovetopsecret.com....

Population of California is 38.7 million while the population of Mississippi is 3 million, State of New York is 19.7 million. So for example if 3 million people in CA are on welfare and 1 million in Mississippi are on welfare miss would have a higher percentage of population on welfare.

Anyway the OP for whatever reason said Mississippi was number 2 in federal dependency if he meant welfare recipients he was correct if he meant federal aid he was wrong because Mississippi ranks number 1.

Look I am sure 168 million is going to a good cause but the facts still remain that there is more federal money going to Mississippi than any other state even before the 168 million bump. I am sure each state can in their own way show some good causes where the federal funds are going.

The OPs numbers were brought into question and all I am saying on that is his numbers are correct or off by one.