Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

reply to post by Grimpachi


Lol good thing that article you posted isn't biased or anything. I mean what with their statements that its full of "rabid racism" they obviously are objective and without any bias whatsoever.

reply to post by doubletap



It seems you were not following the conversation because if you had you would know the previous article was called into question because it was published the middle of last year. As you can see these articles are more recent.

If you would like to dispute the information within them please do so. If you have information that can draw question to the numbers provided within the articles then I would be happy to reassess.

However, I have followed the thread and have read your contribution including what was there before the mods intervened and removed certain statements so in my opinion you are the last person I care to hear from on objectivity, bias, or rabid racism.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Awwww , you sound so stern and serious.

As for what I posted before the mods removed it....eliminating all leftists would be a benefit to the nation and more importantly its future. The ideas advocated by leftists are unconstitutional at their core and are diametrically opposed to the very ideas and purposes that this nation was founded upon. They are indeed a cancer and deserve to be treated as such.

In regards to your little article.....if you want people to take you seriously, posting unbiased factual articles that don't include falsehoods and accusations of "rabid racism" (LOL) would go a long way in furthering your point of view.

Rabid racism....that term is comedy gold.

reply to post by doubletap


Got it. So you are saying you can't refute the numbers.

As far as your assertions about what the country was founded on...well.. you are entitled to your opinion but your statement about treating leftists as a cancer sounds just like Hitlers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Grimpachi


My opinion on the founding of the country is backed up by the words of the founding fathers. Leftists cannot say the same.

As for the numbers.... I never stated they were wrong, I simply pointed out using unbiased sources would be a better course of action. Its natural that states with low population and no major economic activity would be ranked higher than states with exponentially larger populations and numerous revenue centers. It has nothing to do with whether they are a blue or a red state.

Imagine how much Money would be saved by eliminating all unconstitutional social programs.

reply to post by doubletap

My opinion on the founding of the country is backed up by the words of the founding fathers.

Actually in reference to what you have said it is still only "YOUR" opinion.

As for the numbers.... I never stated they were wrong

Glad to hear that because for a minute I thought you were using a logical fallacy by claiming the information was wrong based on the political leanings of the source.

Imagine how much Money would be saved by eliminating all unconstitutional social programs.

Why do you need to imagine? The object you are using to post on ATS most likely has the capability to look up such information. You could probably contribute something useful to the conversation then.

doubletap
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

My opinion on the founding of the country is backed up by the words of the founding fathers. Leftists cannot say the same.

As for the numbers.... I never stated they were wrong, I simply pointed out using unbiased sources would be a better course of action. Its natural that states with low population and no major economic activity would be ranked higher than states with exponentially larger populations and numerous revenue centers. It has nothing to do with whether they are a blue or a red state.

Imagine how much Money would be saved by eliminating all unconstitutional social programs.

This nation was founded by a group of men who had differing ideas, many of our founding fathers were liberals, others were previously loyalists and some were conservatives.

And the lesson from nations that don't have a "social safety net" is you pay for poverty one way of the other. Whether it is in increased costs to police, trial and incarcerate.

Can you name one nation without a social safety net that is also a first world nation? I can't, maybe you can...

I can name at least 50 third world nations that do not have a social safety net.

I think it would be better to reduce spending on the standing military which is also unconstitutional.

Of for fricks sake. Our modern terms "conservative and liberal" have nothing to do with the Founders or the founding of this country.

Neither do the terms "right and left."

Claiming that the Founders all "thought this" or all "believed that" says to me that the claimant really has no idea about American history.

Can I recommend reading something other than The Blaze for information about the founding of the country?

As well, grossly vague and generic statements like "all leftist beliefs are unconstitutional" are worthless in any discussion aside from engendering mere political animus.

Let's stick to the facts.

Benevolent Heretic
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.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer and taking the time to explain.
I am a woman too and although I'm dumber than dirt about cars, when I do enter a parts store I usually know what I've been sent there to purchase. I see the attitude you speak of---even from the female employees at times in the big box stores. I've learned to use my small locally-owned store (for whatever time it has left to exist) because they know me, know that I'm not a "car person" just an errand runner for the car guys.
Vandalism isn't the same, nor is threatening someone's safety, at least in my view. I felt no threat from the fellow who refused to rent us a house, nor any hostility, just his belief that we were "living in sin." Many members of our own families shared that view. I didn't cut off relations with them, nor did I demand to "live in sin" in their homes.
I just figure that if a business doesn't want my business, I can easily find another business that does and I'm certainly not going to force someone into a relationship. Just my "live and let live" attitude I suppose. I don't care who anyone sleeps with, none of my business and I really don't want their preferences shoved in my face no matter what they are. I feel the same about organized religions who attempt to shove their opinions in my face. I'm civil and polite when I tell them I'm not interested or that I have a different opinion.
My only negative encounter in that regard was a local Christian bookstore owner. Most of the locally owned bookstores in our town are labeled "Christian" in some manner and since I prefer to do business with local owners, I went to the store looking for a book written by a well-known Christian author. They didn't have the book and in the process of finding out if they could order it, the owner's husband came into the store. He asked me if the car with the hemp bumper stickers on it was mine. I told him that it was. He began to lecture me about the evils of the weed and asked how a Christian could advocate legalization. My initial reaction was to walk away but because I'm an activist, I attempted to explain to him that, as the bumper sticker indicated, Washington and Jefferson grew hemp, so why shouldn't Kentucky farmers be able to grow it? I attempted to explain that it was created by the same Creator that made tomatoes so why shouldn't I be able to grow it in my garden, eat the seeds and use the fibers? I also explained to him that, in the strictest sense, I am not a Christian but I do agree that Christ had many teachings that, if followed, would make the world a better place. His face got increasingly redder and his voice got louder as he berated me as being some sort of "old hippie" that just wanted to use the hemp issue to get marijuana, "the devil's weed" legalized. The same old tired argument used by Hearst and his ilk...and propagated anew by DARE and the War on Drugs. I simply looked him in the eye and told him that I feared that his blood pressure was rising to dangerous levels and that we could agree to disagree on the subject but I couldn't believe that my Creator was going to send me to the fires of hell for advocating a crop that could bring good health, clean food and fuel to the Commonwealth. He ordered me out of his store. I've not been back.
I walked a few blocks down the street to another Christian bookstore and found the book I was seeking. So long as I can conduct business with people on a civil basis, I will do so. If they are rude, no matter what the reason, I'll won't hand over my money to them. Life is too short and precious to spend my time with rude, obnoxious people, no matter what religion they profess.
To me this issue is like telling the folks at the local Amish grocery store they would have to sell tobacco products or alcoholic beverages, something I wouldn't dream of attempting even though I use both products from time to time.

reply to post by doubletap

Imagine how much Money would be saved by eliminating all unconstitutional social programs.

compared to how much money they are spending on their all seeing eyes watch your every move homeland security???
let's see we spend money to help poor people support their families. it kind of eliminates the hungry masses from resorting to theft murder and other illegal activities in their efforts to come with a meal! And we can walk more safely down the streets. We feel safer!

homeland security
probably costs more
invades every area of our lives
and well makes many of use feel that the biggest threat to us is our gov't!!

diggindirt


Vandalism isn't the same, nor is threatening someone's safety, at least in my view.

But would you press charges against someone who vandalized your house, or broke in your home and stole your possessions? What if they vowed revenge against you for pressing charges? Would you still do it? If so, why upset them to the point they might come back and do worse things to you?

To me this issue is like telling the folks at the local Amish grocery store they would have to sell tobacco products or alcoholic beverages, something I wouldn't dream of attempting even though I use both products from time to time.

But these examples are nothing like what we are discussing in this thread. What we are discussing is like telling the Amish grocery store owner that if they already sell homemade jam, then they must sell homemade jam to everyone equally. What the law states is that they can't decide to only sell their homemade jam to one group of people and not to another group of people.

I can imagine that once the Jim Crow laws were abolished in the South, that there were some pretty ticked off racist restaurant and hotel owners, who now had to provide service to blacks. There may have been some spit in some soup served to blacks in the beginning. But the thing is, over time and multiple generations, the restaurant owners of today don't even think about serving blacks. If those racist laws weren't overturned, however, I bet there would still be plenty of restaurants who would refuse to serve blacks even today. It takes time, but making laws to protect people DOES work.

reply to post by diggindirt

To me this issue is like telling the folks at the local Amish grocery store they would have to sell tobacco products or alcoholic beverages, something I wouldn't dream of attempting even though I use both products from time to time.

Before the bill ever passed in your example the grocery store could tell you to bugger off. The laws already protected the owners of stores from such thing.

This bill is a whole different thing. You are not the only one that seems to be confusing the issue.


----------------------------------------

I am not certain on how the legal system will work with this new bill. Perhaps someone here has more legal knowledge and can clarify if I get this wrong.

This law will allow businesses to turn away people for religious reasons and be protected from prosecution however in the case of the wedding cake for a gay couple the couple will still be able to take them to court for discrimination and the bakers defense will have to prove a biblical precedent for not serving them. Personally I think this is too close to American sharia law but so be it.

If the law holds up then as court cases continue happening I think we are going to see the bible defined unlike we have ever seen before as a nation.

Say the baker loses because there isn't anything in the bible that justifies turning away gay customers. Well that would be that. Honestly I don't think some of these groups that are cheering for this bill know what a can of worms just got opened.

Yall asked for it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I guess I'm going to have to hunt down and dust off my membership card in The Church of the Subgenius.

Or maybe print off my Discordian Pope's license.

Might come in handy.

kaylaluv

diggindirt


Vandalism isn't the same, nor is threatening someone's safety, at least in my view.

But would you press charges against someone who vandalized your house, or broke in your home and stole your possessions? What if they vowed revenge against you for pressing charges? Would you still do it? If so, why upset them to the point they might come back and do worse things to you?

To me this issue is like telling the folks at the local Amish grocery store they would have to sell tobacco products or alcoholic beverages, something I wouldn't dream of attempting even though I use both products from time to time.

But these examples are nothing like what we are discussing in this thread. What we are discussing is like telling the Amish grocery store owner that if they already sell homemade jam, then they must sell homemade jam to everyone equally. What the law states is that they can't decide to only sell their homemade jam to one group of people and not to another group of people.

I can imagine that once the Jim Crow laws were abolished in the South, that there were some pretty ticked off racist restaurant and hotel owners, who now had to provide service to blacks. There may have been some spit in some soup served to blacks in the beginning. But the thing is, over time and multiple generations, the restaurant owners of today don't even think about serving blacks. If those racist laws weren't overturned, however, I bet there would still be plenty of restaurants who would refuse to serve blacks even today. It takes time, but making laws to protect people DOES work.

edit on 6-4-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

Of course, I will file charges if someone vandalizes my home. They have done me harm. Same with threatening a life. There is harm, intentional harm.
Refusing to rent a house to me...they didn't harm me. Refusing to sell a cake? They didn't harm the wedding couple, just ticked them off.
My bad on the Amish example. You are right, it was a poor example. Perhaps if they refused to sell their jam to fat people? or limited the amount of fattening foods a fat person could buy? Because their belief is that gluttony is a sin.

Again, why would you want to do business with someone who doesn't want your business? I simply don't understand that kind of control-freak mindset? Why would you spend your time and money suing someone to force them to take your money? It just isn't logical in my mind....and it has nothing to do with religious beliefs to me, only to the people who hold those beliefs.
I don't care who sleeps with who. I don't care who marries who. But if I were a Satanist I wouldn't expect a Catholic to agree to put Satanist symbols on my wedding cake. I would go find a Satanist friend to make my cake for me. Problem solved.
As I said before, perhaps it's just the "live and let live" attitude my parents fostered in me.

reply to post by Gryphon66


WOW you get a star for making me look up something which I am seriously surprised that I have not heard of before.

Anyway...

After reading several articles on this bill I am thinking it does not mean what I thought it meant nor does it mean what the supporters of it here thinks it means. Some of the wording is a bit ambiguous but from what I can discern it is not going to protect cake bakers the state over. lol

I am pretty sure that the first instance of someone invoking the law to not bake a cake for a gay couple as the instance has been used several times throughout the thread are going to find themselves in deep #$@! because it does not seem to protect the baker at all.

I am sure there are those in this thread deeply disappointed in the weak language of the bill as it does not give businesses the right to discriminate towards the public.

Grimpachi
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

WOW you get a star for making me look up something which I am seriously surprised that I have not heard of before.

Anyway...

After reading several articles on this bill I am thinking it does not mean what I thought it meant nor does it mean what the supporters of it here thinks it means. Some of the wording is a bit ambiguous but from what I can discern it is not going to protect cake bakers the state over. lol

I am pretty sure that the first instance of someone invoking the law to not bake a cake for a gay couple as the instance has been used several times throughout the thread are going to find themselves in deep #$@! because it does not seem to protect the baker at all.

I am sure there are those in this thread deeply disappointed in the weak language of the bill as it does not give businesses the right to discriminate towards the public.

Yep, I believe, after finally quickly scanning the actual bill (billstatus.ls.state.ms.us... ) you are correct.
After the initial, usual definitions clauses, what seems to be the main body of the bill reads thusly:

(6) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the government, as defined by subsection (4) of this section. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be the same as the general rules of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.

(7) (a) This section applies to all state laws, rules, regulations and any municipal or county ordinances, rules or regulations and the implementation of those laws, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this section.

(b) Any such law, rule, regulation or ordinances adopted after the effective date of this section shall be subject to this section unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this section.

(8) Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.

(9) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term "granting," used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

(10) Nothing in this act shall create any rights by an employee against an employer if the employer is not the government.

In short, it seems that some folks on both sides have made a valiant effort to mountainize a molehill.
Rather than being directed at some sort of gender discrimination issue, I'd be guessing it might be aimed at the health care debacle. But that's just an initial impression after a quick scan. The intense study will have to wait until I've had a bit of sleep and a round of coffee. Just goes to show that getting back to primary sources can show how really out there journalists on both sides of the issue can be....
I should have considered the source... Now I'm going to add the OP to my mental IGNORE list and make a note to myself to read the primary source rather than the ravings of both sides.
Thanks for the heads-up!

Yes, that's because an earlier version of the law, almost identical to the failed effort in Arizona, was carefully and extensively rewritten to fly under the radar ... after the Mississippi business community objected to it.

The law prohibits the State from taking any act that "burdens" religious exercise. The law 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.” Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act

I think the real nature and intent of the new law is very clear given the kind of support it has received:
Source

Shortly after the Mississippi law passed, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Center, released a statement saying as much.
“Whether it’s someone like Pastor Telsa DeBerry who was hindered by the Holly Springs city government from building a new church in the downtown area, or a wedding vendor, whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage,’ the provisions of RFRA would apply to prevent the government from discriminating against religious exercise,” Perkins said. ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”

Source 2

The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials, lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

I haven't seen anyone in this discussion claim that the only negative impact of such laws is against gay Americans, but rather, that such a law sets religion and religious beliefs as superior to statutory and common law.

ANY religion.

reply to post by doubletap

Speaking of hypocrisy....since they always demand tolerance, where is the tolerance in the gay community for differing opinions ? Having different opinions than you do doesn't make others ignorant.

Please, do tell...how is it that gay people are being intolerant of heterosexual people exactly? "They" don't demand tolerance. All of us -as American citizens- demand it. For everyone. And apparently our founding fathers felt that way too.

I can't tell if you are one of those little buggers that hang out under footbridges and steal people's lunch money or if you are actually just that obtuse. If you own a legitimate business, with a legitimate business license, you signed forms that stated you were aware of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that as a public entity you are bound by law to provide your product equally to anyone who wants to buy it. You are not a free agent, and your business license is a privilege that was granted to you by the government, not entitlement and license to mistreat people as you see fit.

Tell us please...where is the story about the gay people who are refusing service to a "religious" person because they are "christian" and that violates some tenet of the gay handbook? Can you link that for us please? Because that is not what we are talking about here. When that happens? Your position will be valid on the subject. Now? Not so much.

If you want to be intolerant of a group of people on your own time, feel free. But during business hours, you have to put all of that aside and serve your customers...regardless of color, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, handicap or religious beliefs. Because you and your business have different rights...by design, to prevent this very thing from occurring...and unfortunately for you, in the business world gay people's rights do actually supercede those of the business owner. If that's a problem, it may be a good idea to start looking at alternate means of employment that allow you to be a raging bigot without violating the law. You can refuse service to an individual for all kinds of reasons (attire, vulgar language, smells funny, etc.) and it is perfectly legal. But to refuse a person based on his/her sexual orientation (which is a protected class) is against the law.

As for ignorance, I'm glad you brought that to the fore. See...I'm not a christian or member of any type of organized religion. I am actually Pagan. I don't go to church and sit for hours having a preacher cram his/her interpretation of the bible down my throat. But there are covenants and laws pertaining to my religious beliefs that are very strict. Some things violate those laws and I steer clear of them. But I know what those laws prohibit me from doing. Now I would think that someone who professes to be so holy, so devout (the christians in Mississippi, in this example) would know exactly what chapter and verse of the bible states that it is a violation of christianity to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Would you not agree? Sounds pretty ignorant to me. In fact, they are actually violating their own religion by doing this in the first place. What was it you were saying about tolerance again?

LUKE 6:37

That's the hate you're subject to if you refuse to commit a sin.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


The only "sin" those people are committing is this one:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

source

Gryphon66
Yes, that's because an earlier version of the law, almost identical to the failed effort in Arizona, was carefully and extensively rewritten to fly under the radar ... after the Mississippi business community objected to it.

The law prohibits the State from taking any act that "burdens" religious exercise. The law 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.” Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act

I think the real nature and intent of the new law is very clear given the kind of support it has received:
Source

Shortly after the Mississippi law passed, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Center, released a statement saying as much.
“Whether it’s someone like Pastor Telsa DeBerry who was hindered by the Holly Springs city government from building a new church in the downtown area, or a wedding vendor, whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage,’ the provisions of RFRA would apply to prevent the government from discriminating against religious exercise,” Perkins said. ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”

Source 2

The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials, lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

I haven't seen anyone in this discussion claim that the only negative impact of such laws is against gay Americans, but rather, that such a law sets religion and religious beliefs as superior to statutory and common law.

ANY religion.

It seems to me that reading the actual bill "as submitted to governor" (which is the link I posted/from which I quoted) should give you the information you need rather than reading the interpretations of the bill as written by one side or the other. The language isn't that complicated if you completed high school. It states the definitions quite clearly.
Again, I think this is something both sides want to screech about---and cry, "Lookie, Lookie what we're doing for you!" or "Lookie, Lookie what they're trying to do to you!" thus causing you to be distracted from some other deviltry they're up to.