Mississippi Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill based on religious beliefs

[her209]

Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia top list of gay-porn watching states
http://americablog.com/2014/03/mississippi-louisiana-georgia-top-gay-porn-watching-states.html

:hmm:

 

[thraashman]

I agree religious people shouldn't have to follow any laws. Muslim taxi drivers shouldn't have to pickup single women.

Atheist kids should be able to walk out on moments of silent meditation in class now.

Hmm I wonder if abortion just became a fundamental religious right? :hmm:

Combine this with a potential win for Hobby Lobby and I can see a whole Pandora's box of unintended consequences!

I feel it might be worth it to reach out to any Mississippi atheist students and convince them to scream as loudly as possible during the pledge of allegiance. If anyone tries to stop them they can explain that as an atheist it is their deeply held religious belief that the pledge's "under God" line is insulting to their religion and they believe they must drown out the offending line.

Sometimes I almost still wish I were in high school so I could do shit like this myself.


Almost.

 

[Paratus]

Nice try at the ninja edit

 

[Incorruptible]

Your quite an impressive speaker. It's a wonder you don't run for parliament.

These other 85 times you've told people to STFU quite impressive as well.

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=1966006

Your skills at oratory have convinced me that this un-American legislated hate in freedom of religion guise is wonderful thing.

You son of a silly person.


On a more serious note, when Arizona tried this they backed down due to the unintended consequences. Their governor refused to sign it.

I think this is going to hurt national republicans in the next election. The more state legislatures pass these horrific laws the more independents and Dems will be motivated to get out and vote during what is historically a low turn out election.

Keep spouting BS.

 

[glenn1]

Are you familiar with "sundown" towns? Are you comfortable with those returning?

Race is already a protected class in discrimination laws. Personally I think bigotry of all kinds is stupid and immoral, but I'd rather it be overt rather than concealed but still evident once you peek past the facade of legal compliance. As a potential customer of a business, I'd rather know up front that a business owner refuses to serve gays from a sign on the front door than from a news article about a lawsuit brought by the ACLU months after the fact.

 

[thraashman]

Keep spouting BS.

I'm waiting for the day that your posts don't consist of 90% insults and ever actually have stuff of substance.

 

[her209]

I'm waiting for the day that your posts don't consist of 90% insults and ever actually have stuff of substance.

What else do you expect from an alt account?

 

[Incorruptible]

I'm waiting for the day that your posts don't consist of 90% insults and ever actually have stuff of substance.

Don't attack freedom and violate peoples rights and you won't be insulted. Not my fault they attack freedom.

 

[Vic]

It's no coincidence that the people who claim to be the most Christian are the least Christ-like.

 

[her209]

It's no coincidence that the people who claim to be the most Christian are the least Christ-like.

Wouldn't you be too if you knew you could just ask some invisible being to not hold it against you in the future?

 

[Paratus]

I'm waiting for the day that your posts don't consist of 90% insults and ever actually have stuff of substance.

What else do you expect from an alt account?

I'm almost convinced that it's being run by a rabid liberal as performance art. Nobody real can post nothing but ideology and insults all day.

 

[master_shake_]

No, we should let them secede this time and watch them turn into a third world country.

they won't have to go far.:whiste:

 

[Vic]

I'm almost convinced that it's being run by a rabid liberal as performance art. Nobody real can post nothing but ideology and insults all day.

Nothing quite like a 9th grade education and an Internet connection.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen someone post in P&N. Because we live in a free country we absolutely can and should say something when people have horrible viewpoints. As I find myself so often having to explain to the conservative members of this board, the First Amendment does not protect you from the scorn and disdain of others that comes from how you choose to exercise that right.

Actually, the reason for my post was to demonstrate that no matter how horrible a viewpoint is/seems, those who hold them really have every right to codify them into law as you do your views, and seeing how "right" and "wrong" have become relative terms, what you say could be completely dismissed.

You can scorn them for their views, and I am sure they scorn you for yours. The problem is that liberals like yourself are good and ready to have your own personal liberal viewpoints made legal (i, e. Gay marriage) while at the same time disallowing those who don't share your views.

Like I said, you don't allow those to dislike chocolate.

 

[Paratus]

Actually, the reason for my post was to demonstrate that no matter how horrible a viewpoint is/seems, those who hold them really have every right to codify them into law as you do your views, and seeing how "right" and "wrong" have become relative terms, what you say could be completely dismissed.

You can scorn them for their views, and I am sure they scorn you for yours. The problem is that liberals like yourself are good and ready to have your own personal liberal viewpoints made legal (i, e. Gay marriage) while at the same time disallowing those who don't share your views.

Like I said, you don't allow those to dislike chocolate.

Well the problem with conservatives is that they don't believe one of the fundamental tenets of America. All Americans are equal under the the law. Contrary to popular belief on the right, women, minorities, and homosexuals are all Americans and have the right to be represented by their government.

So have all the scorn you want. This law is distinctly un-American as are it's supporters.

 

[thraashman]

Actually, the reason for my post was to demonstrate that no matter how horrible a viewpoint is/seems, those who hold them really have every right to codify them into law as you do your views, and seeing how "right" and "wrong" have become relative terms, what you say could be completely dismissed.

You can scorn them for their views, and I am sure they scorn you for yours. The problem is that liberals like yourself are good and ready to have your own personal liberal viewpoints made legal (i, e. Gay marriage) while at the same time disallowing those who don't share your views.

Like I said, you don't allow those to dislike chocolate.

Discrimination isn't a viewpoint, it's an action. We don't jail people for thinking about stealing, we jail them for actually stealing. You can have your outdated viewpoint all you want, it's when it becomes action that it is illegal.

 

[her209]

Actually, the reason for my post was to demonstrate that no matter how horrible a viewpoint is/seems, those who hold them really have every right to codify them into law as you do your views, and seeing how "right" and "wrong" have become relative terms, what you say could be completely dismissed.

The courts disagree with your so-called "rights". Your codified discrimination has been overturned time and time again.

You can scorn them for their views, and I am sure they scorn you for yours. The problem is that liberals like yourself are good and ready to have your own personal liberal viewpoints made legal (i, e. Gay marriage) while at the same time disallowing those who don't share your views.

That's not a problem, that's progress.

Like I said, you don't allow those to dislike chocolate.

If you dislike chocolate, don't eat it. But don't restrict everyone to vanilla just because you dislike chocolate.

 

[Retro Rob]

Discrimination isn't a viewpoint, it's an action. We don't jail people for thinking about stealing, we jail them for actually stealing. You can have your outdated viewpoint all you want, it's when it becomes action that it is illegal.

Well, this bill seems more reactive and preemptive than discriminatory, as private owners don't want to be sued if they deny service to anyone for any reason.

I also don't see the point in fighting gay marriage, but I do see a reason to protect religious liberty as matters of conscience shouldn't be discriminately ignored, or should we start to jail people who will not to go to war because they refuse to murder another human being?

Even if those businesses wanted to deny service to all minorities, then they'd probably go out of business rather soon, so we're not worrying about that happening. This is almost exclusively about being forced to serve gays wherever it violates matters of religion.

FWIW, I don't think the bill should become law, but I also don't think gays (which this is really about) should be able to sue private owners, thus, forcing them to do something they don't want to. They don't want to be forced, but they have no problems using the legal system to do just that when it benefits them.

 

[DigDog]

well, i think this is actually right; it just gives anyone the right to refuse service to people they don't want to offer services to. many businesses and companies already do this, and they don't even have to explain on what grounds they refuse the service. if anything, this bill actually forces people to explain what sort of problem they have with a customer. imho, one should have the freedom to refuse service at will (like they should have the freedom to hire whom they want).

 

[her209]

imho, one should have the freedom to refuse service at will (like they should have the freedom to hire whom they want).

In which case they would immediately fire a majority of their workers and replace them with children and undocumented workers.

 

[Retro Rob]

well, i think this is actually right; it just gives anyone the right to refuse service to people they don't want to offer services to. many businesses and companies already do this, and they don't even have to explain on what grounds they refuse the service. if anything, this bill actually forces people to explain what sort of problem they have with a customer. imho, one should have the freedom to refuse service at will (like they should have the freedom to hire whom they want).

I had something similar to this. Can I sue a business who wants to perform a 7-year background check, drug screening, or reference check before hiring me?

That's outright discrimination, really....

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not a problem, that's progress.

So, progress is codifying your views into law...thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Ah yes, a relgion that is about peace and love now has the right to enforce hate and discrimination.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Private business owners have the right to discriminate. If you don't like them then don't give them any money. The Free market will take care of the bigots.

no, sorry, federal laws strongly disagree with you on that one indigestible. you cannot discriminate. It's really that simple, I know discriminate is a big word with many syllables, but feel free to look it up for it's definition.

 

[hal2kilo]

yay mississippi, congrats on regressing

Oops, that train left the station long ago.