Apple speaks out against new Mississippi religious freedom law

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

It goes even further. This law tells LGBT people they don't deserve to be a part of the society they contribute to. They cannot and do not have equal protection under the constitution. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Black people lived with this kind of legislated and religious bigotry for a very long time. I guess we're going back to segregation.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

I'm not authoritarian either. The Constitution already protects religious freedom, there's no need to make new laws for it. This law goes against both the 1st and 14th Amendments.

I am completely fine if one human being denies service to another human being. If that is your question then the answer is yes as ALL commerce should be at the mutual agreement of the two people involved.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

It goes even further. This law tells LGBT people they aren't worthy to be a part of society. They cannot and do not have equal protection under the constitution. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Black people lived with this kind of legislated and religious bigotry for a very long time. I guess we're going back to segregation.

It doesn't do that at all...that is complete hyperbole.

It says, this person doesn't want to do business with me. If someone didn't want to do business with me I wouldn't want to do business with them. I mean they are going to spit in my food or something anyway so why do I care?

Let's pass a law called "Racist Freedom" that allows racists to deny certain skin colors service and see the amount of people who support this law supporting it.

My guess would be none.

a reply to: Metallicus

Then the Constitution seems to be against that sort of commerce it seems.

Where does it end? Before we know it there will be businesses who deny service to military or Christians or blacks or what have you. This is a slippery slope we're dealing with here isn't it?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

I'm not authoritarian either. The Constitution already protects religious freedom, there's no need to make new laws for it. This law goes against both the 1st and 14th Amendments.

I am completely fine if one human being denies service to another human being. If that is your question then the answer is yes as ALL commerce should be at the mutual agreement of the two people involved.

There's a part of me that understands that kind of thinking. There's another part of me that knows that kind of thinking divides countries, just as it did in the mid 1800's.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Let's pass a law called "Racist Freedom" that allows racists to deny certain skin colors service and see the amount of people who support this law supporting it.

My guess would be none.

That would make for a great example so that people who seem to be confused about what is going on would then understand.

The only difference between your "Racist Freedom" law and this "Religious Freedom" law is that it targets someones sexuality rather than their skin color.

I'll hand it to the BS artists who came up with this law. By selling it as "Religious Freedom" it has convinced many people that it's something other than what it is. It's horrible and deceptive but also clever enough to convince many stupid people to go along with it.

I think Ed is on to something here.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

Then the Constitution seems to be against that sort of commerce it seems.

Where does it end? Before we know it there will be businesses who deny service to military or Christians or blacks or what have you. This is a slippery slope we're dealing with here isn't it?

Well you either believe in personal liberty or you don't. I don't believe in personal freedom only when it is convenient. Also, I am not saying I would discriminate personally against someone else, but frankly, I also am not going to tell someone else how to live their life.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

I'm not authoritarian either. The Constitution already protects religious freedom, there's no need to make new laws for it. This law goes against both the 1st and 14th Amendments.

I am completely fine if one human being denies service to another human being. If that is your question then the answer is yes as ALL commerce should be at the mutual agreement of the two people involved.

There's a part of me that understands that kind of thinking. There's another part of me that knows that kind of thinking divides countries, just as it did in the mid 1800's.

I lived before the Fair Housing Act.

When people could build their little "self interest" communities and deny any outsider who might taint their specialness.

No thanks. Been there, done that.

A business is a business. Not a belief.

a reply to: mOjOm

Except we are talking race Vs. behavior which are totally different to me. Also, race is more obvious. Someone's religion or sexuality need never be something that comes up during a simple commercial transaction. Totally different things as in Apples and Oranges different (Apples, get it?).

Also, I don't think corporations have the rights you folks do (even if our Government is pro corporation). I am saying individuals have these rights not corporations.

a reply to: 412304

Apple isn't defending anyone's rights. Lol.

They're bullying you into thinking the way they want you to think and selling useless s# to you at the same time.

And the halfwit socialists applaud the gigantic corporation's fascist browbeating. The irony is too rich.

a reply to: mOjOm

I know the difference but the concepts are very relative to one another.

This law is based on "morals" so a KKK member could claim that serving a black person is against their "morals" and it would be perfectly acceptable by the logic of this law.

Would those supporting this law also support a racism law? I doubt they would personally, (ETA) at least not openly.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Metallicus

You're ok with people telling others they are not worthy of service though. This law basically tells businesses that it's ok to tell gay people that they can't spend their money however they choose.

It goes even further. This law tells LGBT people they aren't worthy to be a part of society. They cannot and do not have equal protection under the constitution. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Black people lived with this kind of legislated and religious bigotry for a very long time. I guess we're going back to segregation.

It doesn't do that at all...that is complete hyperbole.

It says, this person doesn't want to do business with me. If someone didn't want to do business with me I wouldn't want to do business with them. I mean they are going to spit in my food or something anyway so why do I care?

It does exactly that, sir.

Lets use an extreme example. A well known local gay man gets in a life threatening car accident. The local hospital doesn't treat gays, and the closest town that does is 50 miles away. He dies before getting treatment. Is this the kind of country you want to live in? Choose any scenario you want. You're saying it's ok to do now to LGBT's, what was done to black people until the 60's and beyond. Remember these?



Same thing happening here, Metallicus.

originally posted by: Metallicus

Except we are talking race Vs. behavior which are totally different to me. Also, race is more obvious. Someone's religion or sexuality need never be something that comes up during a simple commercial transaction. Totally different things as in Apples and Oranges different (Apples, get it?).

That doesn't matter. Sometimes Behavior is also obvious and race isn't. So you're just incorrect in that statement. I've been wrong about someones race plenty times and I've known an obvious Christian or Homosexual at times too. As I'm sure you have as well.

Also, I don't think corporations have the rights you folks do (even if our Government is pro corporation). I am saying individuals have these rights not corporations.

Corporations have the same rights as ordinary people do if that's what you mean. (I'm not clear what is meant by the "you folks" comment either.") We have equal Rights as far as I know of here in America so we are all the same folks.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Really?? I think they would. The exact same people would support that as well. They just haven't found the right piece of scripture in their book which would allow them to do so while avoiding responsibility for doing it.

As long as they can just blame their Religion for their shameful actions against others rather than themselves they'll do it in a heartbeat.

a reply to: Metallicus

Unfortunately for you and others who support this law the Civil Rights Act already made things like this law illegal. Title II of the Civil Rights Act says it's illegal to discriminate against someone based on religion, race, color, or national origin.

We're going to set ourselves back 50 years if this law stays in place.

a reply to: mOjOm

You may be right, but at this point in history homophobia is more socially acceptable than racism, unfortunately.

I wouldn't put it past them to defend such a law but I think they'd have a harder time doing it openly.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You may be right, but at this point in history racism is less socially acceptable than homophobia, unfortunately.

I wouldn't put it past them to defend such a law but I think they'd have a harder time doing it openly.

That is exactly why they target a different group openly now instead of Race. But to do that now is harder to do and get away with it. You're exactly right.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Klassified

So Apple is against religious freedom?

Shame on Apple. Time to boycott.

But it's not against religious freedom when a gun shop owner refuses to sell guns to muslims?

Refusing service to someone is not a crime

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Weren't you the author of the above thread ?

Gawd, stop being such a sensitive PC snowflake. Isn't that what you conservatives keep telling others ?