It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Annee
but you are perfectly fine with forcing people to act against their nature as long is it someone religious you can punish? Okay, got it religious slaves are okay.
No human being or Government should enforce their moral code on another human being unless in defense of property or person.
SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
At the same time, if a business that is privately owned chooses to discriminate, I think that should be on them. They should be allowed to refuse people and the people they offend should be allowed to protest and refuse to shop there.
They are the only grocery store in a small town - - the next town being 20 miles away.
They think the physically disabled will break something or scare away customers.
Military vets not welcomed.
Single mom trying to buy food for her kid. Oh, sorry - - my religion won't let me serve an unmarried mother. But, there's another store 20 miles away.
Great plan.
Well that changes my perspective a bit. I was speaking more about cake shops that don't want to make cakes and stupid things like that. I don't think essential things like that should be restricted at all.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Monsanto could "come out" in favor of gay rights and all the sudden they'd be the humanists' new darling corporation.
originally posted by: Klassified
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: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: burgerbuddy
So let's follow those countries example.
Why do we think we're so much better than those countries when we seem to be reverting to their ways more and more?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
That's bulls# and you know it. Pure hyperbole.
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NthOther
The irony here is priceless.
The bigots won't do business with gays but they are now upset because Apple won't do business with Bigots. Shouldn't the Bigots be supporting Apple in their choice of who they want to do business with based on their personal beliefs too???
Apparently it's only ok when they want to discriminate against gays, but it's wrong if others do the same to them.
originally posted by: Klassified
Apple speaks out against new Mississippi religious freedom law