Discrimination Is Now Legal In Mississippi

[Iceweasel]

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

Arg... you keep saying that. How can you call it fair treatment to make somebody, against their will, to fabricate a gay float? That is not the definition of fair or equal.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

To be fair, I brought that up to illustrate the difference. He was just responding to my point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

Regulatory policies enacted pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence are just, necessary, and proper – during the last 76 years regulatory policies have been subjected to comprehensive judicial review and have withstood the scrutiny of the courts, including the Supreme Court.

The issue concerns the fact that all markets are interrelated, including markets perceived to be small, local, and isolated; and a disruption in any one market will adversely effect all markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate all markets to ensure their integrity.

Consequently, the goods and services of private business owners – that market activity – does not belong to the business owner alone, where activity detrimental to the local market, such as discriminating against patrons based solely on who they are, will eventually be detrimental to every market Nationwide.

 

[Coyote]

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?

When you have a specific law created to expressly allow a business the right to refuse service for "religious reasons" - then that is a discriminatory law. It's different if it's a religious organization. But it isn't. "Against their morals" is nothing more than a code word to allow open discrimination. In my opinion - it will be interesting to see what happens if it is challenged.

At what point do you draw the line? What if there is no one else in town that provides that service? Can a pharmacest refuse to fill a script for AIDS medications because AIDS is a gay disease? What else?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

To be fair, I brought that up to illustrate the difference. He was just responding to my point.

true, but they do it alllllllll the time. The two arent even closely related.

 

[Coyote]

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

Arg... you keep saying that. How can you call it fair treatment to make somebody, against their will, to fabricate a gay float? That is not the definition of fair or equal.

You can't force someone to make something they do not ordinarily provide - so, if you want them to make an expressly gay float, they can probably refuse (for the same reasons they could refuse to make say, a playboy bunny float) - but you can't refuse to serve that person at all because he or she is gay. At least that is how I see it.

In another thread, a similar argument was made regarding wedding cakes. If a baker specializes in full blown wedding cakes and a customer wants cupcakes - the baker would be within his rights to refer that customer elsewhere.

 

[Coyote]

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.

To be fair, I brought that up to illustrate the difference. He was just responding to my point.

true, but they do it alllllllll the time. The two arent even closely related.

Discrimination is discrimination and it doesn't matter if it's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Legislated bigotry isn't freedom.

Are you saying that laws that require Christians to go to gay weddings are wrong? If not, I really don't see your point.

I've read some pretty ignorant stuff on here from you homophobes, but that is hilarious!

Since when is there a law requiring Christians to go to a gay wedding? You don't want to go, don't go! You don't want to bake that cake, don't! You don't want to take those pictures, don't!

But don't fucking whine like a baby when you start losing gay and hetero customers thanks to your bigoted stupidity!

This law, if upheld, has the potential to do more than just discriminate against gays.

Tell me something, he who spouts hate, how the fuck does it make any sense at all for anyone, whatever their sexual preferences, politics, gender, race, or anything else, to force another person to show up at, and photograph, what is, allegedly, the single most important day of their lives? If you actually believe that this person hates you, would you actually demand they provide a service that would actually ruin your wedding? It takes a special breed of insanity to do something like that, you might end up eating shit.

Literally.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I treat everyone with the same respect.

Nonsense. Do you invite everyone into your house? Do you chat with phone solicitors jsut like old friends?

I treat them as I would want to be treated.

When I teach dog training classes, I do not refuse to teach clients because they are black, white, gay, Christian, Jewish, hispanic or any of a thousand other differences.

Why is discrimmination such an important "Christian" value that you must enshrine it in law?

I bet you would scream bloody murder if the a judge told you you had to go to church simply because you own a business.

The problem is not discrimination, which is something anyone with an IQ above the freezing point of Helium would see, the problem is being required to give up all your rights simply because you run a business.

 

[OKTexas]

Well...at least until it's declared unconsititutional.


The poorest state in the union with the highest teen pregnancy rate, worst education system, second highest murder rate, and second worst obesity rate in the United States. Glad to see their priorities in order, and THIS is all they're worried about?

Oy!

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has signed into law a “religious liberty” bill that could be used to justify various forms of discrimination, including anti-LGBT discrimination. The bill, SB 2681, was approved by the legislature earlier this week after being a conference between the House and Senate. It differs from other state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” (RFRAs) because Mississippi law defines the word “person” to include businesses, and thus it applies to corporations instead of just private citizens exercising their religious beliefs.

The Family Research Council, an anti-LGBT hate group, took credit for its passage:
The victory was a huge one for FRC, who worked with local churches and conservative policy organizations to coordinate a pastors’ letter in support of the measures with more than 600 signatures. That, in turn, helped to bring along the business community — which, in Arizona, was so deceived by the media and outside leftist groups that it couldn’t distinguish what the bill actually did. Mississippi companies didn’t have that problem, because the state tuned out the propaganda and focused on the actual language.
Incidentally, Bryant will defend the legislation Thursday afternoon on FRC’s radio show hosted by Tony Perkins.

Do you commies and faghadist really expect people to just roll over and let you cram your shit down our throats. Your dear leaders fundamental transformation isn't what the majority in this country wants and there will be backlash.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religious freedom has to start someplace. Why not there? Are you afraid that this freedom notion might catch on?

We have religious freedom already.

You are confusing religious freedom with bigotry.

No, you are deliberately lying about the issues.

Not photographing a wedding is not bigotry, yet the laws say it is. Under those laws it is perfectly legal to require people to go to church simply because they run a business. If you don't have a problem with that, you are a brain dead moron, a lying scumbag, or a fucking activist with an agenda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I treat them as I would want to be treated.

When I teach dog training classes, I do not refuse to teach clients because they are black, white, gay, Christian, Jewish, hispanic or any of a thousand other differences.

Why is discrimmination such an important "Christian" value that you must enshrine it in law?

So you would be OK with neo Nazis?

Yes.

If they behaved with respect.

Treating people with respect does not mean that you agree with an ideology.

It isn't discrimination. It is the principle of free association, which is guaranteed in the Constitution. Why do you have a problem with rights guaranteed in the Constitution?

It's legislated bigotry regardless of how you slice and dice it. Bigotry is NOT a Christian value.

You do realize, don't you, that the poster child for your "principle of free association" was Jim Crow?

Have you even read the law you are bitching about?

Didn't think so.

PDF

Feel free to point out exactly how it is bigoted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Listen shit pusher, have you ever actually been to Mississippi? Sure you haven't.

Why, yes I have, scrotum sucker!

Went to USAF technical school at Keesler AFB.

Mississippi needs to put up new signs at their borders:
WELCOME TO MISSISSIPPI
(Please turn your watch back 150 years)

Because they now have a law that is exactly the same as federal law? Why the fuck aren't you bitching about federal law and how it makes discrimination legal? Is it because you know it is absurd to argue something that incredibly stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What if you remember the owner is an individual?

The only fucking right to fair treatment you have is inside your fucking head. Even the government is not required to be fucking fair when they treat you whatever fucking way they treat you, all they have to do is make sure they follow the rules known as due process. Stop making up rights and you won't end up looking like an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense.

I, personally, appreciate it when you preface your posts with a description of what it contains.

Regulatory policies enacted pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence are just, necessary, and proper – during the last 76 years regulatory policies have been subjected to comprehensive judicial review and have withstood the scrutiny of the courts, including the Supreme Court.

Except that, in this case, we are talking about state laws, which are not part of commerce clause jurisprudence. The reason for that is quite simple, the commerce clause applies to Congress, not states.

Also. you are a blithering idiot.

The issue concerns the fact that all markets are interrelated, including markets perceived to be small, local, and isolated; and a disruption in any one market will adversely effect all markets (Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Funny how you never mention US v Lopez when you blither about the commerce clause.

The Constitution authorizes government to regulate all markets to ensure their integrity.

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of a state law.

Consequently, the goods and services of private business owners – that market activity – does not belong to the business owner alone, where activity detrimental to the local market, such as discriminating against patrons based solely on who they are, will eventually be detrimental to every market Nationwide.

Which explains why the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to a business.

Wait, that only makes sense if SCOTUS is wrong when they ay that businesses do have 4th Amendment rights.

On the other hand, you were right, your post is nonsense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

When you have a specific law created to expressly allow a business the right to refuse service for "religious reasons" - then that is a discriminatory law. It's different if it's a religious organization. But it isn't. "Against their morals" is nothing more than a code word to allow open discrimination. In my opinion - it will be interesting to see what happens if it is challenged.

At what point do you draw the line? What if there is no one else in town that provides that service? Can a pharmacest refuse to fill a script for AIDS medications because AIDS is a gay disease? What else?

Then you must be ecstatic that Mississippi didn't pass a law that does that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

To be fair, I brought that up to illustrate the difference. He was just responding to my point.

true, but they do it alllllllll the time. The two arent even closely related.

Discrimination is discrimination and it doesn't matter if it's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc.

Well then we shouldnt descriminate against murderers, pedos, rapists, and other people. What a fucking moron.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Please post where gays are legislated against, whatever that means.
They are not discriminated against. Christians are discriminated against. A Christian presents that a certain business relationship would violate his conscience and his freedom of association. Both of those are protected by the 1A, btw. And the courts have said, Tough luck. That is discrimination.

 

[bodecea]

true, but they do it alllllllll the time. The two arent even closely related.

Discrimination is discrimination and it doesn't matter if it's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc.

Well then we shouldnt descriminate against murderers, pedos, rapists, and other people. What a fucking moron.

Because you think there is NO difference between gay people and those.

 

[The Rabbi]

Discrimination is discrimination and it doesn't matter if it's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc.

Well then we shouldnt descriminate against murderers, pedos, rapists, and other people. What a fucking moron.

Because you think there is NO difference between gay people and those.

In many cases he's right.

But the point is people discriminate all the time for all kinds of reasons and it's perfectly legal. Discrimination on the basis of somethig that goes against someone's moral beliefs should certainly be protected.