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

[her209]

Yes, because clearly public opinion would be right behind that company. Adults everywhere could vacation while the child labor does all their work. I know as a father I would want my children to do that for me and I would approve of any business doing that. That company won't go out of business soon.

Maybe I missed the sarcasm in your post so please excuse mine.

Businesses want to lower costs and increase their profits. Children and undocumented workers cost less to employ than legal adults. Put two and two together.

 

[Incorruptible]

Businesses want to lower costs and increase their profits. Children and undocumented workers cost less to employ than legal adults. Put two and two together.

Gotta love the exaggeration and fear mongering of the left.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Gotta love the exaggeration and fear mongering of the left.

oh man, I love this. Coming from Mr. War on Christmas. lol...

 

[Incorruptible]

oh man, I love this. Coming from Mr. War on Christmas. lol...

So you have no problem with leftist morons attacking Christmas?

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you have no problem with leftist morons attacking Christmas?

 

[her209]

Gotta love the exaggeration and fear mongering of the left.

Why do you hate privately-owned businesses from conducting business as how they see fit?

 

[Incorruptible]

Why do you hate privately-owned businesses from conducting business as how they see fit?

I don't. You're the big government liberal who wants to bully them.

And what sane parent would allow children to work?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't. You're the big government liberal who wants to bully them.

And what sane parent would allow children to work?

Pennsylvania coal mine, 1912

 

[her209]

I don't. You're the big government liberal who wants to bully them.

And what sane parent would allow children to work?

Oh. Now you want to tell parents how they should raise their kids too?

 

[schmuckley]

It's not "Right to Discriminate" bill..
It's right to refuse service based on religious beliefs without getting sued.
I would say that's a good thing.
There may be a few hiccups,but the free market will settle all that.
I have no problem working for gay people;however..I don't have to go to their weddings.
Endorsing sodomy is not a good policy for the United States.Look at what happened to Sodom.
You can be gay all you want..but when someone starts telling me what I can and can't say, and how to run my business?;Oh no..that's not gonna fly.
If all men are created equal;Why are there hate crime laws at all?

 

[schmuckley]

Oh. Now you want to tell parents how they should raise their kids too?

No, that's this person's idea:
"And we know we can’t do this by ourselves. It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation." -Barack Obama
Source: http://balanceedutainment.com/2012/12/obama-sandy-hook/
and this ones: "Kids belong to whole communities" -Melissa Harris-Perry
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

Seriously,kids raised without limits will become wards of the state.

 

[thraashman]

That law violates the private property rights of the owners. Just because the government created the law doesn't mean it's alright.

If the government passes a law restricting free speech then we should accept it because morons like you say so.

So you feel private property rights should trump the rights of a human being? You feel that the rights gained by purchasing something should be held as greater than the rights a human being gets by being human? So basically you support slavery where the right of a private property owner (a slave) should be held as greater than the right of a human being (the human that is held in slavery). This is exactly the argument you're making

Run away you coward. You have no respect for private property. Thugs like you should be teabagged.

There you go again talking about how you want a guy to gently suckle and slobber on your scrotum. This isn't the place for you to talk about your love of having men caress your genitals with their tongue, that's L&R. But even such, we still don't think you should be discriminated against just because you love to be orally stimulated by men.

 

[ivwshane]

No, that's this person's idea:
"And we know we can’t do this by ourselves. It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation." -Barack Obama
Source: http://balanceedutainment.com/2012/12/obama-sandy-hook/
and this ones: "Kids belong to whole communities" -Melissa Harris-Perry
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

Seriously,kids raised without limits will become wards of the state.

Lol! The bubble is strong with this one!

You not understanding Obamas and Perry's point and still willingly putting your ignorance on display is hilarious!

 

[schmuckley]

Lol! The bubble is strong with this one!

You not understanding Obamas and Perry's point and still willingly putting your ignorance on display is hilarious!

Their point is that the Government should determine how parents raise their children and
people's children are not their own,they are the governments.
I do understand that.You don't?
How oh how were children ever raised properly before the U.S. Fed got involved?
owait..before they did..no Columbines or Sandy Hooks.Hmmm..coincidence? Not.
yeah..no bubble:I have no blinders on my eyes.

 

[Oldgamer]

It's not "Right to Discriminate" bill..
It's right to refuse service based on religious beliefs without getting sued.
I would say that's a good thing.
There may be a few hiccups,but the free market will settle all that.
I have no problem working for gay people;however..I don't have to go to their weddings.
Endorsing sodomy is not a good policy for the United States.Look at what happened to Sodom.
You can be gay all you want..but when someone starts telling me what I can and can't say, and how to run my business?;Oh no..that's not gonna fly.
If all men are created equal;Why are there hate crime laws at all?

Bullshit, it is exactly that, the right to discriminate based on your religious beliefs. This is so backwards and stupid, it will backfire on them. But you know what, it will be shot down in a court of law, mark my words.

 

[thraashman]

Their point is that the Government should determine how parents raise their children and
people's children are not their own,they are the governments.
I do understand that.You don't?
How oh how were children ever raised properly before the U.S. Fed got involved?
owait..before they did..no Columbines or Sandy Hooks.Hmmm..coincidence? Not.
yeah..no bubble:I have no blinders on my eyes.

I cannot even begin to imagine what must be wrong with you that you interpreted those things the way you did. It would have to be some form of severe mental illness or perhaps English is something you just barely speak. Seriously, no body that could possibly be considered in their right mind would interpret things the way you have here.

 

[alzan]

I don't think handing out products over the counter is 'participating'.

Since I'm not in the business I could be wrong, but I thought the florist does a heck of lot more than just hand the flowers over the counter.

They've got to work with others organizing the wedding to make sure the floral displays etc match thematically and color wise. I believe they have to attend the wedding to set up the floral displays and remain there until the ceremony is over to take them back down and then transport them. I imagine I'm missing some other steps/responsibilities of the florist too.

Fern

I'm not in the business either. I suppose someone could want that level of involvement from their wedding florist. Drawing on my wedding and what we gleaned from other couples experiences the florist had a few pre-designed floral displays from which we chose or we could have designed our own. The florist setup the displays prior to the ceremony and came back at the agreed upon time to take them down. She told us she would not stay for the ceremony.

My previous post should have said "participating in the ceremony is not approval of the union". <smacks hand>

Uh, yeah it is. I'd say a wedding cake is involved with the wedding.

Actually the wedding cake is part of the reception; not all weddings have receptions afterwards. Also, while I haven't attended all weddings I'm fairly certain that most/all do not have the cake up on the altar or out in the pews along with the other guests; though I did go to one where the wedding was in the same room as the reception and all could see the cake.

I guess it's possible that some couples process to the altar with the cake in tow, perhaps it's that to which you're referring. Or maybe the rings are part of the cake and the couple remove them and lick the icing from them before putting the rings on their fingers.

Mmmmm, icing!

 

[nehalem256]

Providing a cake, flowers, etc. is not "being involved" in the wedding; no matter how much Christians/theists wish to pretzel themselves to justify their discrimination.

"Our deity wants us to discriminate!"

You might be able to argue the cake and flowers thing. But good luck arguing a wedding photographer is not involved with the wedding.

 

[nehalem256]

My previous post should have said "participating in the ceremony is not approval of the union". <smacks hand>

The purpose of a wedding is to approve of the union. How is participating in a ceremony designed to approve a union not implicitly approving of the union?

 

[schmuckley]

I cannot even begin to imagine what must be wrong with you that you interpreted those things the way you did. It would have to be some form of severe mental illness or perhaps English is something you just barely speak. Seriously, no body that could possibly be considered in their right mind would interpret things the way you have here.

It's "nobody" :whiste:

 

[Vic]

It's not "Right to Discriminate" bill..
It's right to refuse service based on religious beliefs without getting sued.
I would say that's a good thing.
There may be a few hiccups,but the free market will settle all that.
I have no problem working for gay people;however..I don't have to go to their weddings.
Endorsing sodomy is not a good policy for the United States.Look at what happened to Sodom.
You can be gay all you want..but when someone starts telling me what I can and can't say, and how to run my business?;Oh no..that's not gonna fly.
If all men are created equal;Why are there hate crime laws at all?

According to the the biblical narrative, God destroyed Sodom because Lot could not find 10 righteous inhabitants. Their crimes were being inhospitable and cruel to strangers, and not (necessarily) homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." —Ezekiel 16:49-50

 

[alzan]

The purpose of a wedding is to approve of the union. How is participating in a ceremony designed to approve a union not implicitly approving of the union?

Actually the government approves of the marriage by issuing a license, the wedding is ceremonial in nature. And while some of the attendees may work for the government they are not at the wedding in any official government capacity.

Also, the guests at the wedding are there to celebrate in the joy of the wedding; their approval is not needed or a requirement.

Now go back to your toaster-girlfriend and apologize to her for cheating on her with the curling iron.

You might be able to argue the cake and flowers thing. But good luck arguing a wedding photographer is not involved with the wedding.

Not all couples do weddings the same way; our photographer came before the ceremony and took the pictures and poses we chose. My wife and I and the priest agreed to not have pictures taken during the ceremony as it can interrupt the flow and feel of the occasion.

You must live in a very narrow and black and white world.

 

[schmuckley]

According to the the biblical narrative, God destroyed Sodom because Lot could not find 10 righteous inhabitants. Their crimes were being inhospitable and cruel to strangers, and not (necessarily) homosexuality.

"Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." —Ezekiel 16:49-50

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html
All the men of Sodom tried to rape 2 angels.
As the article says though;That alone is not why they were destroyed.

 

[justoh]

Seems like a good law. Why so much controversy?

 

[Vic]

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html
All the men of Sodom tried to rape 2 angels.
As the article says though;That alone is not why they were destroyed.

That relatively modern (KJV and later) Christian interpretation is not in line with the Jewish tradition.
(Edit: the original Hebrew text was not "have sex with" but used the word "yada" which means "know. ")
I suggest you actually read that book in your hands.
In addition, there is considerable difference between same sex marriage and homosexual rape. Or are you implying that they're the same?