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

ownbestenemy
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

How so? How is you conducting business, save for the notion that you provide such business to the public, a "public function"? A private business serves its interests to facilitate its own; which is to provide a service. Honestly, on my own view would be to provide my business to as many consumers as possible, but that is me; not you or another. On this token, a loan company provides a "public function" but they can discriminate freely, but a business that that you potentially have access to doesn't?

Your argument fails....why can one business freely refuse customers based on their financial history (even it doesn't properly portray their current status) but another cannot refuse based on their personal conscience?

If I ran a bakery, and refused to provide a cake for a Christian wedding or a Jewish bris, I would be crucified in the media. But this asshat in CO that decided to refuse a cake for a gay couple is glorified by your bunch. Discrimination is discrimination, what part of all men are created equal don't you understand?

Anyone willing to discuss the SIGNED bill? Or would we rather get all huffy puffy about what some "news" site or blog has said it states?

Here it is again, as presented and signed by the Governer of Mississippi:

SB2681SG

Confirmed by going to this page: Mississippi Legislature: SB2681SG

All other texts posted here, minus mine and a few others, is erroneous from previous drafts that give the perception of what is claimed. From the linked above, show me what is discriminatory about the bill.

windword

AnteBellum

Quite honestly there is no reason for having an open discussion. I read the bill, I understood it. I can now go open up a store there and do just what the bill states, discriminate!

edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add

This isn't just about discrimination, it's about being able to act on any "religious" idea an individual has. It doesn't even have to be supported by an acknowledged church. What if your religion tells you to beat you wife and kids, kill abortion doctors, mutilate the genital of your daughter; to do honor killings, drug trips, animal sacrifice, the list goes on?

I'd get all upset about this bill, but I think a judge will throw it out, hopefully before someone gets killed or maimed.

Murder and commiting physical violence against another is against the law, so is animal cruelty and illicit drug use....

Turning down a customer is not....

dbl

ManBehindTheMask
you cant MANDATE tolerance.......

Maybe not, but you can make it clear that intolerance is socially unacceptable.

JohnnyCanuck

ManBehindTheMask
you cant MANDATE tolerance.......

Maybe not, but you can make it clear that intolerance is socially unacceptable.

I hardly think passing a law because you dont think people should have freedoms to serve who they choose is the way to do it...

do you not think thats a slippery slope to go down?


people are free to picket and protest and boycott these businesses if they do not agree, thats perfectly within THEIR rights to do so

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Honestly, I can see both sides in this and agree with both to the extent of the State forcing the private individual (or business) to comply with its mandate that it must conduct business (and by extension, enter contract law) with another.

As a business owner, you want to appeal to the widest audience possible for your product, but at the same time, you are careful in what you select to serve. That choice is inherent in being a free-citizen, conducting business in a free market; you choose who you want to sell your product or service to and you choose who you don't want to. You then are subjected to the market forces of the area. If such practices of denying one group of people is unpopular, and given today's ability to communicate that refusal instantly, it will mean your business suffers in the market.

Instead of utilizing the free-market though, people have taken to the State to compel free peoples to engage in contracts they do not wish to; regardless of the discriminatory nature of the contract (except my example you ignored; denying a person based on their income is acceptable apparently)....

You are advocating for the State to be able to compel any person to conduct business not based on their market, but upon the State's approved agenda of who that individual (or business) should conduct with. There is a name for that....look it up.

JohnnyCanuck

ManBehindTheMask
you cant MANDATE tolerance.......

Maybe not, but you can make it clear that intolerance is socially unacceptable.

Via punishment under the law is acceptable method then? Forcing a business to conduct and enter a contract because the State says they must is acceptable? Why even have free will?

ownbestenemy

I actually went and read it, the bill is pretty discrimatory, but well written, good lawyers in Ol Miss.

ManBehindTheMask

windword

AnteBellum

Quite honestly there is no reason for having an open discussion. I read the bill, I understood it. I can now go open up a store there and do just what the bill states, discriminate!

edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add

This isn't just about discrimination, it's about being able to act on any "religious" idea an individual has. It doesn't even have to be supported by an acknowledged church. What if your religion tells you to beat you wife and kids, kill abortion doctors, mutilate the genital of your daughter; to do honor killings, drug trips, animal sacrifice, the list goes on?

I'd get all upset about this bill, but I think a judge will throw it out, hopefully before someone gets killed or maimed.

Murder and commiting physical violence against another is against the law, so is animal cruelty and illicit drug use....

Turning down a customer is not....

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.

And, btw, discrimination IS against the law. What if someone's religion says pregnant woman shouldn't be in public. Can he fire his pregnant customer service employees?

Maybe it would clearer if the bill defined the word "religion". The way it reads, to me, anything could be called a religious conviction or belief.

BubbaJoe

ownbestenemy

I actually went and read it, the bill is pretty discrimatory, but well written, good lawyers in Ol Miss.

Where? I am curious to what you think is discriminatory in the bill....please quote from the bill.

I mean that in honesty, i am for open debate amd diacussion regarding it.

windword

ManBehindTheMask

windword

AnteBellum

Quite honestly there is no reason for having an open discussion. I read the bill, I understood it. I can now go open up a store there and do just what the bill states, discriminate!

edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add

This isn't just about discrimination, it's about being able to act on any "religious" idea an individual has. It doesn't even have to be supported by an acknowledged church. What if your religion tells you to beat you wife and kids, kill abortion doctors, mutilate the genital of your daughter; to do honor killings, drug trips, animal sacrifice, the list goes on?

I'd get all upset about this bill, but I think a judge will throw it out, hopefully before someone gets killed or maimed.

Murder and commiting physical violence against another is against the law, so is animal cruelty and illicit drug use....

Turning down a customer is not....

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.

And, btw, discrimination IS against the law. What if someone's religion says pregnant woman shouldn't be in public. Can he fire his pregnant customer service employees?

Maybe it would clearer if the bill defined the word "religion". The way it reads, to me, anything could be called a religious conviction or belief.

It relieves them of nothing within the law except to chose NOT to serve people they do not wish to....

it doesnt say they can commit crimes against these people.....

It just says they can decide who they choose to do business with and who they do not....

I agree that it is vague on what "religion" means as far as statutes.....but honestly does it matter?

If you come into my place of business and I dont want to do business with you I shouldnt have to, and you should have the same right reserved for you if i come into your business and you decide not to do so with me..

ownbestenemy
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Honestly, I can see both sides in this and agree with both to the extent of the State forcing the private individual (or business) to comply with its mandate that it must conduct business (and by extension, enter contract law) with another.

As a business owner, you want to appeal to the widest audience possible for your product, but at the same time, you are careful in what you select to serve. That choice is inherent in being a free-citizen, conducting business in a free market; you choose who you want to sell your product or service to and you choose who you don't want to. You then are subjected to the market forces of the area. If such practices of denying one group of people is unpopular, and given today's ability to communicate that refusal instantly, it will mean your business suffers in the market.

Instead of utilizing the free-market though, people have taken to the State to compel free peoples to engage in contracts they do not wish to; regardless of the discriminatory nature of the contract (except my example you ignored; denying a person based on their income is acceptable apparently)....

You are advocating for the State to be able to compel any person to conduct business not based on their market, but upon the State's approved agenda of who that individual (or business) should conduct with. There is a name for that....look it up.

I honestly can see both sides of this as well, I am a student of history, and have seen the horrors of the past. I truly believe that the laws that the fed and states have passed in the past were to correct problems that were found in a free market economy. I have very mixed feelings about the issues, I want fiscal conservative, social liberals, and ecological common sense.

BubbaJoe
If I ran a bakery, and refused to provide a cake for a Christian wedding or a Jewish bris, I would be crucified in the media. But this asshat in CO that decided to refuse a cake for a gay couple is glorified by your bunch. Discrimination is discrimination, what part of all men are created equal don't you understand?

A very good way of putting it. If I ran a flower shop, and refused to put together arraignments and bouquets for a bible thumper, be it for a wedding or funeral or religious celebration (confirmation party, etc) I'd be absolutely butchered in the press for it and harassed out of town. BUT, it's ok to do this to anyone not "acceptable", because WGAF about those types, right?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

It relieves them of nothing within the law except to chose NOT to serve people they do not wish to....

It just says they can decide who they choose to do business with and who they do not....

It says no such thing, although the bill allows for that. And, discrimination is still illegal.

It does say that an employee has no right to legal recourse.

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

Says the guy who thinks that MLK was a terrorist.

Now Bubba, that almost sounds like you've either heard me say something about MLK or read something I've written about him. Which of course you haven't. Presumption or an attempt to deceive on your part?

For the record, I think MLK's fight for the rights of African Americans was a noble one and I admire him for it.

ManBehindTheMask

windword

ManBehindTheMask

windword

AnteBellum

Quite honestly there is no reason for having an open discussion. I read the bill, I understood it. I can now go open up a store there and do just what the bill states, discriminate!

edit on 4/9/2014 by AnteBellum because: add

This isn't just about discrimination, it's about being able to act on any "religious" idea an individual has. It doesn't even have to be supported by an acknowledged church. What if your religion tells you to beat you wife and kids, kill abortion doctors, mutilate the genital of your daughter; to do honor killings, drug trips, animal sacrifice, the list goes on?

I'd get all upset about this bill, but I think a judge will throw it out, hopefully before someone gets killed or maimed.

Murder and commiting physical violence against another is against the law, so is animal cruelty and illicit drug use....

Turning down a customer is not....

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.

And, btw, discrimination IS against the law. What if someone's religion says pregnant woman shouldn't be in public. Can he fire his pregnant customer service employees?

Maybe it would clearer if the bill defined the word "religion". The way it reads, to me, anything could be called a religious conviction or belief.

It relieves them of nothing within the law except to chose NOT to serve people they do not wish to....

it doesnt say they can commit crimes against these people.....

It just says they can decide who they choose to do business with and who they do not....

I agree that it is vague on what "religion" means as far as statutes.....but honestly does it matter?

If you come into my place of business and I dont want to do business with you I shouldnt have to, and you should have the same right reserved for you if i come into your business and you decide not to do so with me..

So if I don't want to do business with you, I don't have too. That works well in large metropolitan areas, but not in small towns. Please leave you right wing street cred behind, and deal with reality in the life of most Americans.

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


The absence of any referrals to LGBT in the actual law makes it possibly why CNN & FOX reported nothing (if anything).

And obvious why MSNBC would make an issue.

MSNBC is more of a political entertainment and sensationalist network that the others.

If anything, some could speculate that this law could be designed to "view" other religions in different ways?

There's many religious belief "infringements" from many different religions.

Other religions might be the real "targets".

So? Who cares? I'm tired of this "gay thing" that's been going on. Anybody who says anything even remotely negative about homosexuals and they're a bigot and lose their job and blah, blah, blah. Can we move on to the next thing already?