Discrimination Is Now Legal In Mississippi

[Flopper]

Looks like there have been about 80 posts commenting on this bill. Does anyone know what's in SB 2681 or is that immaterial to the discussion?

 

[Iceweasel]

That's not what I said - that's a strawman.

No it isn't. They have rented and eaten, so yes, they can rent and eat without extra legislation.

How have they managed before? Your rights stop where anothers' begins. I don't have the right to be served in a bar that would cater only to blacks, for example. Would I even want to?

Exactly. So where does your right to "freedom" overule my right to fair treatment and equality?

Where is your right to overule another's rights? Are you paying the bills?

I would go elsewhere, if there were no elsewheres and the market was there, that's where free enterprise steps in.

Historically, it hasn't been that neat and humane.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Giving government that kind of power over us is more wrong in my mind. And it isn't like gays have been treated like blacks. When did we have gay slavery or gay drinking fountains?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fine. In a free country, a person or a business SHOULD be allowed to serve or not serve anyone. It's an issue of freedom and liberty.

The other side of that coin is that you also have to suffer the consequences of your actions. Unless you live in Podunk Junction, Mississippi, bigotry will be met by protests and boycotts. That too is freedom.

Not ‘fine.’

In a free country the people have the right to authorize government to enact regulatory measures that ensure the integrity of the markets and the economic well being of the Nation as a whole, such as public accommodations laws. And the people have the right to go into a place of business and expect to be served regardless of who they are.

The notion of allowing discriminatory practices to ‘sort themselves out’ is naïve and ignorant both with regard to the nature of commerce and the fundamental tenets upon which this Nation was founded; that is not 'freedom,' that is not the type of society the Framers envisioned, as we are indeed better than that.

 

[Coyote]

Sure, it's bigotry and racist but its a free country, if some idiot wants to be racist or a bigot, he or she has that right.

Yes...he or she does.

But we don't need a law giving them that explicit right.

Speaking of strawmen..

The law does not give them a right to be racist. They already have that right.

They don't have the right to refuse service to someone on the basis of race - that is illegal - they don't already have that right.

What the law now says is that they can refuse service of any kind based on "religious principles" - a broad and poorly defined concept.

I seriously wonder, if it is challenged in the courts - if it will stand up?

 

[PredFan]

People need to remember that ALL goods and services in PRIVATE businesses belong to the owner. They are his and his alone. No one has a right to another persons property. No one.

Yet we have a considerable body of law stating that the does not have a right to discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and increasingly, sexual orientation. That does not mean they have a right to another person's property - no more than anyone else. And the same as anyone else.

Yes we do have those laws but that doesn't make those laws just.

ALL goods and all services in private business DO belong to the owner. How can you possibly state otherwise? Who worked for that? Who invested the time? Who is responsible when this go wrong? Who suffer when the business fails?

No one else but the owner. Yeah we do have a lot of laws that infringe on the rights of Americans. This law in Mississippi is a small step to correct those bad laws.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Nice to see the high esteem in which some hold The Law.

They're not quite so worried about The Law when it comes to illegal aliens, sanctuary cities and sanctuary states, but I guess we're supposed to take whatever we can get, so there ya go.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yet we have a considerable body of law stating that the does not have a right to discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and increasingly, sexual orientation. That does not mean they have a right to another person's property - no more than anyone else. And the same as anyone else.

The government can't discriminate because all those people pay taxes, regardless of race, gender or religion. I would agree that government shouldn't discriminate against sexual preferences as well. The Constitution limits government, individuals have the right to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm another. It might hurt my feelings to not be served in a black bar but it's a stretch to call it harm.

 

[PredFan]

Fine. In a free country, a person or a business SHOULD be allowed to serve or not serve anyone. It's an issue of freedom and liberty.

The other side of that coin is that you also have to suffer the consequences of your actions. Unless you live in Podunk Junction, Mississippi, bigotry will be met by protests and boycotts. That too is freedom.

Not ‘fine.’

In a free country the people have the right to authorize government to enact regulatory measures that ensure the integrity of the markets and the economic well being of the Nation as a whole, such as public accommodations laws. And the people have the right to go into a place of business and expect to be served regardless of who they are.

The notion of allowing discriminatory practices to ‘sort themselves out’ is naïve and ignorant both with regard to the nature of commerce and the fundamental tenets upon which this Nation was founded; that is not 'freedom,' that is not the type of society the Framers envisioned, as we are indeed better than that.

I would expect you to be wrong about this just as you are wrong about everything else. Yes to appropriate regulation laws, no to the rest of that nonsense.

 

[Coyote]

That's not what I said - that's a strawman.

No it isn't. They have rented and eaten, so yes, they can rent and eat without extra legislation.

How have they managed before? Your rights stop where anothers' begins. I don't have the right to be served in a bar that would cater only to blacks, for example. Would I even want to?

Where is your right to overule another's rights? Are you paying the bills?

I would go elsewhere, if there were no elsewheres and the market was there, that's where free enterprise steps in.

Historically, it hasn't been that neat and humane.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Giving government that kind of power over us is more wrong in my mind. And it isn't like gays have been treated like blacks. When did we have gay slavery or gay drinking fountains?

While they haven't been treated exactly like blacks, they have been discriminated and legislated against and still are.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but you are commiting a wrong against one person to uphold the rights of another person.

What's also pathetically laughable about this batch of laws coming down the pipe is that one amendment would have required business' that didn't want to serve gays on religious principles to put a sign up stating that. The amendment didn't pass. So we have religious groups wanting the right to discriminate, but not publically and we have people going into establishment with no idea whether or not they will be served.

 

[PredFan]

Yes...he or she does.

But we don't need a law giving them that explicit right.

Speaking of strawmen..

The law does not give them a right to be racist. They already have that right.

They don't have the right to refuse service to someone on the basis of race - that is illegal - they don't already have that right.

What the law now says is that they can refuse service of any kind based on "religious principles" - a broad and poorly defined concept.

I seriously wonder, if it is challenged in the courts - if it will stand up?

As I said, it IS illegal, but it is also unjust.

 

[PredFan]

my girl is in sweden. We're learning the language together. I love learning. And yes I am a conservative.

Life moves. Live breathes. I can't wait until tomorrow.

Are you in the right thread?

 

[PredFan]

Yet we have a considerable body of law stating that the does not have a right to discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and increasingly, sexual orientation. That does not mean they have a right to another person's property - no more than anyone else. And the same as anyone else.

The government can't discriminate because all those people pay taxes, regardless of race, gender or religion. I would agree that government shouldn't discriminate against sexual preferences as well. The Constitution limits government, individuals have the right to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm another. It might hurt my feelings to not be served in a black bar but it's a stretch to call it harm.

Quite correct.

 

[Tank]

Homosexuals know what they are is wrong, thats why they annoy others for acceptance

 

[PredFan]

That's not what I said - that's a strawman.

No it isn't. They have rented and eaten, so yes, they can rent and eat without extra legislation.



Where is your right to overule another's rights? Are you paying the bills?

Historically, it hasn't been that neat and humane.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Giving government that kind of power over us is more wrong in my mind. And it isn't like gays have been treated like blacks. When did we have gay slavery or gay drinking fountains?

While they haven't been treated exactly like blacks, they have been discriminated and legislated against and still are.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but you are commiting a wrong against one person to uphold the rights of another person.

What's also pathetically laughable about this batch of laws coming down the pipe is that one amendment would have required business' that didn't want to serve gays on religious principles to put a sign up stating that. The amendment didn't pass. So we have religious groups wanting the right to discriminate, but not publically and we have people going into establishment with no idea whether or not they will be served.

The bolded is where you have it wrong. The customers right does not begin where it infringes on the rights of the owner.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Unfortunately, there's nothing to boycott in Mississippi.

awwwww, you cant bully them....oh no, i guess youll habe to suck cock in another state, poor baby

 

[Coyote]

People need to remember that ALL goods and services in PRIVATE businesses belong to the owner. They are his and his alone. No one has a right to another persons property. No one.

Yet we have a considerable body of law stating that the does not have a right to discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and increasingly, sexual orientation. That does not mean they have a right to another person's property - no more than anyone else. And the same as anyone else.

Yes we do have those laws but that doesn't make those laws just.

ALL goods and all services in private business DO belong to the owner. How can you possibly state otherwise? Who worked for that? Who invested the time? Who is responsible when this go wrong? Who suffer when the business fails?

No one else but the owner. Yeah we do have a lot of laws that infringe on the rights of Americans. This law in Mississippi is a small step to correct those bad laws.

Just for who?

No one is asking any business to give freebies or take in violent people or anything like that.

What is Just about a law that permits a business to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their race, or gender, or any other thing that is what a person Is and can not change?

What is "just" for a business owner is unjust for the individual being discriminated against. In an ideal society, as you say, that person would go elsewhere - but history has shown us that is not the case.

 

[Iceweasel]

While they haven't been treated exactly like blacks, they have been discriminated and legislated against and still are.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but you are commiting a wrong against one person to uphold the rights of another person.

What's also pathetically laughable about this batch of laws coming down the pipe is that one amendment would have required business' that didn't want to serve gays on religious principles to put a sign up stating that. The amendment didn't pass. So we have religious groups wanting the right to discriminate, but not publically and we have people going into establishment with no idea whether or not they will be served.

How are gays being discriminated against? Marriage? We have loads of threads on that if that's your point. What restaurant has a gay test? It's a trumped up issue. The point was they want to refuse service, which should be their right anyway, if they are called to do somethings against their morals.

Christians typically do not have a problem serving gays food or whatever. But if called on to make a gay float for a parade, they want to opt out without being put out of business. What is the problem with that?

 

[tinydancer]

my girl is in sweden. We're learning the language together. I love learning. And yes I am a conservative.

Life moves. Live breathes. I can't wait until tomorrow.

Are you in the right thread?

Thanks for the heads up. Thanks.

 

[Coyote]

No it isn't. They have rented and eaten, so yes, they can rent and eat without extra legislation.



Where is your right to overule another's rights? Are you paying the bills?



Two wrongs don't make a right. Giving government that kind of power over us is more wrong in my mind. And it isn't like gays have been treated like blacks. When did we have gay slavery or gay drinking fountains?

While they haven't been treated exactly like blacks, they have been discriminated and legislated against and still are.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but you are commiting a wrong against one person to uphold the rights of another person.

What's also pathetically laughable about this batch of laws coming down the pipe is that one amendment would have required business' that didn't want to serve gays on religious principles to put a sign up stating that. The amendment didn't pass. So we have religious groups wanting the right to discriminate, but not publically and we have people going into establishment with no idea whether or not they will be served.

The bolded is where you have it wrong. The customers right does not begin where it infringes on the rights of the owner.

And when the rights of the owner infringe on the rights of the individual?

In this case - the rights of the owner to "freedom and liberty" vs the rights of the individual to fair treatment and equality.

 

[buckeye45_73]

That's not what I said - that's a strawman.

No it isn't. They have rented and eaten, so yes, they can rent and eat without extra legislation.



Where is your right to overule another's rights? Are you paying the bills?

Historically, it hasn't been that neat and humane.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Giving government that kind of power over us is more wrong in my mind. And it isn't like gays have been treated like blacks. When did we have gay slavery or gay drinking fountains?

While they haven't been treated exactly like blacks, they have been discriminated and legislated against and still are.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but you are commiting a wrong against one person to uphold the rights of another person.

What's also pathetically laughable about this batch of laws coming down the pipe is that one amendment would have required business' that didn't want to serve gays on religious principles to put a sign up stating that. The amendment didn't pass. So we have religious groups wanting the right to discriminate, but not publically and we have people going into establishment with no idea whether or not they will be served.

being black is way different than being gay. Why do libtards compare these groups. One is a race, the other a choice. If i dont want to serve sex perverts, i shouldnt have to.