Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mississippi, making 2014 feel like 1814.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mississippi, making 2014 feel like 1814.

    This crap is nothing more than an attempt to allow businesses to discriminate. The older I get the less I understand why some people are so hell bent on what other people do that has no effect on them other than "not liking it." This planet needs a serious enema.


    Mississippi legislators on Tuesday took up and quickly passed a controversial religious freedom bill that could allow state residents to sue over laws they say place a substantial burden on their religious practices.

    Supporters of the measure say it would protect religious freedoms, while opponents say it could be used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. A similar bill that passed Arizona’s legislature earlier this year, but Gov. Jan Brewer (R) vetoed it after the bill drew loud protests from gay rights and civil liberties groups.

    The Mississippi version was on life support after two earlier versions missed key deadlines, but legislators resurrected it in a conference committee last week. That committee stripped out some of the language that civil rights groups objected to. The House and Senate, both of which are controlled by Republicans, took up identical versions on Tuesday and passed them by wide margins.

    The two sides disagree on whether the version passed Tuesday would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians on religious grounds. Another provision of the bill will add the words “In God We Trust” to the state flag, a priority of Gov. Phil Bryant’s (R). Bryant said earlier this month he would sign a previous version of the legislation.

    “This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to live and work according to one’s conscience,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said in a statement applauding the vote. “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.”

    Despite the removal of some of the strongest language, the ACLU said it continues to oppose the bill.

    “We remain hopeful that courts throughout the state will reject any attempts to use religion to justify discrimination,” Jennifer Riley-Collins, executive director of Mississippi’s ACLU chapter, said in her own statement. “Nobody should be refused service because of who they are.”

  • #2
    So it's ok to discriminate against religious folk but not gays? I disagree with both, but homosexuality is way worse than being religious.
    A society that selects for the weak and against the strong is destined for extinction.

    Comment


    • #3
      So, gtfo of my gas station cause your gay? lame

      But if its for churches who cares i doubt gays spend much time sitting in the pews
      WH

      Comment


      • #4
        I probably have the minority opinion on this site but I'm going to say what I have to say anyway.

        The older I get the more that "live and let live" makes sense to me. We only have one planet to live on and we should be able as a society to make that work no matter what our belief system, sexual orientation, skin color, or whatever, happens to be. A little less anger and a little more compassion from all sides would help this. Sadly we constantly fall short of this.

        Some people still want to live like it's 1950 and think it's OK to send certain people to the back of the bus and have separate water fountains and the like, and they think it's OK to discriminate against certain minorities for whatever reason. You and I know such people.

        But - according to our Declaration of Independence all men are created equal. That was the vision that the founding fathers had for us when this country was founded. Still, today, many minority groups are still fighting for their right to even exist.

        I see the issue from both sides. GLBT certainly people have a right to exist and to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and religious people certainly have a right to run their businesses in a way that they see fit and to worship in freedom. The ironic thing is that both groups have suffered serious persecution in the past, and now they are at each others throat.

        Where the two sides mix is where the issue is, and I really don't know what the solution is other than a people gaining a better individual understanding of the two sides of the issue and working individually to solve it. It's not right for GLBT people to be turned away just because of who they are, and it's also not right for GLBT people to demand that religious people do something that is against their religion. The two can actually integrate and mix quite successfully; I see examples of that where I live every day, and catering to everyone is good for the bottom line in a business. But that is obviously not happening everywhere.

        The answer may eventually lie with the younger generation - older people were raised in an era where discrimination was acceptable, but our kids are better enlightened and understand that the world is full of different kinds of people that have different values and beliefs. Another factor is that the minority groups are fighting for their basic rights; being gay in the 1940s was way different than it is today - the progress that gay people have made only happened because the gay people fought for those rights.

        IMO this problem is eventually heading to the supreme court, and I believe that the minorities will most likely prevail when that happens.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm perfectly fine allowing discrimination, the free market will work itself out in the long run.
          "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

          -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

          Comment


          • #6
            I think this is just a bunch of bullshit, as you can figure out a reason to deny service to anyone. I guess this just protects people against lawsuits.

            At the same time I don't have a lot of sympathy for the people on the other side of the equation since most "progressive" people are as intolerant as any KKK member you would meet.
            Originally posted by racrguy
            What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
            Originally posted by racrguy
            Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by FATHERFORD View Post
              I'm perfectly fine allowing discrimination, the free market will work itself out in the long run.
              It didn't between the ~100 years from the end of the civil war until the civil rights act was adopted. What's changed that would make this a self correcting issue?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                It didn't between the ~100 years from the end of the civil war until the civil rights act was adopted. What's changed that would make this a self correcting issue?
                It was slowly working that way there. There was establishments that weren't segregating. The government sped it up a little.

                You can't take away one freedom to gain another. That's not freedom. If someone wishes to not serve another person that is their choice and freedom no matter what the cause.
                "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

                -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by FATHERFORD View Post
                  It was slowly working that way there. There was establishments that weren't segregating. The government sped it up a little.

                  You can't take away one freedom to gain another. That's not freedom. If someone wishes to not serve another person that is their choice and freedom no matter what the cause.
                  Either a business is open to the public or it isn't. Which one is it, in the case of, let's say, a grocery store?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                    Either a business is open to the public or it isn't. Which one is it, in the case of, let's say, a grocery store?
                    If said grocery store chooses not to serve LGBT or people of a certain race, there are many other stores out there that would gladly takes its business.

                    Once again I have no problem with it as far as the law is concerned.

                    As a customer I would have a problem with it, and depending on the circumstances might shop elsewhere.
                    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

                    -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by davbrucas View Post
                      So it's ok to discriminate against religious folk but not gays? I disagree with both, but homosexuality is way worse than being religious.
                      A society that selects for the weak and against the strong is destined for extinction.

                      That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post Dave. Allowing businesses to openly discriminate on religious grounds is fucking outrageous. Where exactly is that train going to stop if we allow it to go full steam ahead just because a few dipshits are terrified that some guys out there might like buttfucking each other?

                      I remember back in Canada a convo like this was going on and the guy that was adamantly against it and screaming at the top of his lungs about fire and brimstone had a signature with two girls kissing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by FATHERFORD View Post
                        If said grocery store chooses not to serve LGBT or people of a certain race, there are many other stores out there that would gladly takes its business.

                        Once again I have no problem with it as far as the law is concerned.

                        As a customer I would have a problem with it, and depending on the circumstances might shop elsewhere.
                        And if you live in an area where there's only one grocery store?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                          And if you live in an area where there's only one grocery store?
                          Sounds like a golden business opportunity.
                          "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

                          -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                            Either a business is open to the public or it isn't. Which one is it, in the case of, let's say, a grocery store?
                            The question is, does a person have the right to contract their labor and goods with those that they want to or does government force them to? Is it this:




                            Or this:

                            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by racrguy View Post
                              Either a business is open to the public or it isn't. Which one is it, in the case of, let's say, a grocery store?
                              Either the business is privately owned, or it isnt. You choose to either do business with them or not. It's not government controlled or funded.

                              You sure you arent a liberal?
                              "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X