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

reply to post by dukeofjive696969


Are we talking about the potential for someone to stare or someone actually staring?

They're very different. One is completely irrational as if you never know anyone is staring you'd simply never know.

Knowing you're being stared however is quite unsettling regardless of the gender or orientation. Hell, half the time the people staring may not be staring for reasons of attraction at all but for entirely different reasons. Still unsettling.

Doesnt have anything to do with gender or orientation as far as I'm concerned. Might just be cannibalism, scoping a robbery or just somebody staring off in thought. Still creepy.

Yes, looking and harassment are two different things. I believe the official cut off is seven seconds.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Hell, half the time the people staring may not be staring for reasons of attraction at all but for entirely different reasons. Still unsettling.

I have to agree with this a bit.
I often stare at people for other reasons male and female.

It seems straight men take more offense when being stared at by gay men, then straight women by lesbians. You guys will have to fight this one out yourselves then, I obviously have a bias.

Well they went and did it, now it is law in the state of Mississippi, and the outcome will be coming, slowly and steadily. And it will have repercussions that I do not think that the state is prepared for or ready to deal with.

The first is are they prepared for the lengthy court battle that will ensue and it will go to the federal court, the appellate and up to the US Supreme court. It will cost millions on the part of the State and the citizens will have to bear the brunt of that cost. Hopefully they have the funds to deal with such.

The next will be what will happen if the state loses a significant part of the population that decides to leave, can it handle, a loss of 2.6% of its population that decides to be elsewhere? That is close to 3 million people who cannot live there due to discrimination? Think about it that is 3 million people who no longer bring in tax revenue to this state, and that lose can be felt, but more importantly, in the next census, they will lose seats in the congress. It could have more repercussions far greater than what they anticipate.

And finally, the next question is one that will come to hit hard, and ultimately the state will find it is going to be at a loss, is after the people that it seeks to stop, start using the very law against them, how much can they deal with the outcry. After all, do you think that others will not use this to their advantage? Those who are Islamic, will use this to get what they want, and create pocket communities, where they will use the justification of their religious law to do as they see fit, and impose standards on their neighbors. A person now can be justified in refusing service to say a single mother, and use the excuse that it is an affront to their religion and refuse service to that person. Someone who is of one of the Judaism can refuse service to others, believing that they are not worth the time and effort to give service to. Under this kind of law a devout Muslim can refuse to giver services to say someone who is Jewish. Protestant can refuse services to say someone who is Catholic. And so forth, as they will make assumptions and ultimately create chaos.

Even the legislators are at risk, as now they opened a legal door that will prevent them from getting services, if the person giving those services are of a different religion, and can do nothing to stop it.

Personally I think that all of the LGBT people should move from that state, leave it behind and to another state, and sit back and watch, as that state has to deal with the loss of revenue, and the rampant abuse of this law against itself.

aightism2
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

I am pretty sure that you stare at women all the time, so why would it be any different for a gay man to stare at you, unless it is to laugh.

Can anybody cite the actual language that is discriminatory?

Or is this all "implied" ?

It must be there somewhere.

reply to post by SevenThunders


I know it would be a crime for a christian to be in league with a pedophile.
Especially when they seem to know quite extensively how they pull off all their evil tactics.
Everything from recruitment, to concealment. Disgusting!

Thank god we have churches around to protect our innocent children from these demons.

AnteBellum
I am upset by this. . . deny food, jobs, housing? Really? In this day and age. Did they not learn anything from the years of persecution other minority groups faced in there states history. And as for CNN and the other big MSM sites, was this not important enough. Did the ratings from the recent events in Arizona not show an interest in this topic anymore?

Can I ask where you formed the above opinion upon the bill? Was it from a "news" source? If so, they twisted it to their political means.

ETA: Where do you get "deny food, jobs, [and] housing?" from?

Here is what the bill states (please note, I am not advocating it, just correcting the perception of what it entails and how "news" spins it)...

First off, regardless of how Arizonians handled their bills, this is Mississippi; we have a nation of free States that govern based upon their populace and not that of the Nation; national polls don't matter there in the sense of legislation. It is up to the People of those particular States to determine how best to be governed.

Now, here is the bill from the Mississippi State Legislature: SB2681sg (PDF File)

According to HuffPo...the bill will "...lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Of course, no where do they offer this evidence...I would like to be able to counter the claim specific to the legislation, but alas, it is based not upon what is legislated but what is "thought"....

As I read the bill, I will remark later, but this sounds like the "left" hitting hard on something they just don't understand.

I dont mean to be insensitive here but....

Whats the big deal?

I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends as well, being in the music business, and I can tell you that NONE of them would want to do business with someone who was FORCED to provide a service for them .....

I wouldnt want to do business with someone who was forced todo business with me either, what kind of quality of work would you expect from that?

I shouldnt have to placate someone by some gov mandate when my belief system doesnt match theirs.....

Good for this state......they decided they arent going to force a private business to do business with people they dont want to...

People should be happy about that......

you cant MANDATE tolerance.......

and forcing someone to do something YOU want even if they dont believe the same way isnt tolerance on your end (not saying you OP im just making an example here)

i find it deeply hypocritical when people espouse tolerance while exercising none for those who wont do what they want....

ManBehindTheMask


Good for this state......they decided they arent going to force a private business to do business with people they dont want to...

People should be happy about that......

While I respect most of what you said, this was the same justification used during the Jim Crow era.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

xuenchen
Can anybody cite the actual language that is discriminatory?

Or is this all "implied" ?

It must be there somewhere.

From what I have read on the quoted (see my post) bill, I have yet to find the discriminatory language; it seems inferred (and wildly by the OP or their source at that), but I am still going through it.

BubbaJoe

ManBehindTheMask


Good for this state......they decided they arent going to force a private business to do business with people they dont want to...

People should be happy about that......

While I respect most of what you said, this was the same justification used during the Jim Crow era.

Except we are not talking about Jim Crow Era legislation and being able to reserve the right to refuse service isn't anywhere near that era....

Go crow at the local market when you can't shop with no shoes on; or are you okay with that restriction because it is government mandated for health reasons? The State can restrict but a private business cannot?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Go to next post.

reply to post by xuenchen

As you have asked, here is where it comes to the use and abuse of this law:

Section 1, part c: (c) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion. "Exercise of religion" includes, but is not limited to, the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

Section 1, part 3, (b) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened or is likely to be burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the proceeding. The person asserting that claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief, including relief against the state or a political subdivision of the state. Appropriate relief includes, but is not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and the recovery of costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Now based off of those 2 parts of the bill, the language, is what will be abused. And abused heavily by those who would exploit the law. Think about it, we all have our beliefs, but by using this law, it now becomes legal to refuse service without repercussion, and be protected by the law just by stating that it is an affront to your religion. Can you think of any group in the USA that would use this as a means to discriminate and state that it is an affront to their religion and ultimately now be protected?

Oh but it will not be so obvious, at first it will be those who are known to be in the LGBT community, then it will slowly spread to other aspects of a community. And there are a lot of groups that will use this in that state that will have no qualms about using it against those they do not like.

ownbestenemy

BubbaJoe

ManBehindTheMask


Good for this state......they decided they arent going to force a private business to do business with people they dont want to...

People should be happy about that......

While I respect most of what you said, this was the same justification used during the Jim Crow era.

Except we are not talking about Jim Crow Era legislation and being able to reserve the right to refuse service isn't anywhere near that era....

Go crow at the local market when you can't shop with no shoes on; or are you okay with that restriction because it is government mandated for health reasons? The State can restrict but a private business cannot?

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.

BubbaJoe

ownbestenemy

BubbaJoe

ManBehindTheMask


Good for this state......they decided they arent going to force a private business to do business with people they dont want to...

People should be happy about that......

While I respect most of what you said, this was the same justification used during the Jim Crow era.

Except we are not talking about Jim Crow Era legislation and being able to reserve the right to refuse service isn't anywhere near that era....

Go crow at the local market when you can't shop with no shoes on; or are you okay with that restriction because it is government mandated for health reasons? The State can restrict but a private business cannot?

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.

So youre against someones religion or belief system , keeping them from doing business with another.......because you see it as intolerant.....

And in all your tolerance you would like to pass a law that bans their belief system.......

Yeah sounds bout right......thats how tolerance works huh?

And this ladies and gentlemen is a prime example of what I was talking about

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


makes sense.

it's not like there is only 1 place in the state that bakes cakes or does wedding pics.
heck, even in the county!

i wouldn't want to deal with a biz that HAD to deal with me.
i'd go else where.

lol, i'm not gay btw.

oh and media matters is soooo left wing it ain't funny.

i think they are making a false claim.

ManBehindTheMask

BubbaJoe

ownbestenemy

BubbaJoe

ManBehindTheMask


Good for this state......they decided they arent going to force a private business to do business with people they dont want to...

People should be happy about that......

While I respect most of what you said, this was the same justification used during the Jim Crow era.

Except we are not talking about Jim Crow Era legislation and being able to reserve the right to refuse service isn't anywhere near that era....

Go crow at the local market when you can't shop with no shoes on; or are you okay with that restriction because it is government mandated for health reasons? The State can restrict but a private business cannot?

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.

So youre against someones religion or belief system , keeping them from doing business with another.......because you see it as intolerant.....

And in all your tolerance you would like to pass a law that bans their belief system.......

Yeah sounds bout right......thats how tolerance works huh?

And this ladies and gentlemen is a prime example of what I was talking about

No you misunderstand what I said, no where have I said I would discriminate against a religious person, at the same time they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone else, nice twist of phrase there.

ETA: Nice Rush Limbaugh BS, OMG Christians are persecuted.