Miss. Passes anti gay discrimination law.

[martybegan]

Speeding can cause actual harm.

And if you wanted to just fine these bakers $100, I would have far less of an issue with it.

Make it closer to $500 and you have a deal. You have to make the penalty great enough to encourage the individual to stop the illegal behavior.

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

 

[martybegan]

Speeding can cause actual harm.

And if you wanted to just fine these bakers $100, I would have far less of an issue with it.

Make it closer to $500 and you have a deal. You have to make the penalty great enough to encourage the individual to stop the illegal behavior.

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

 

[Seawytch]

Make it closer to $500 and you have a deal. You have to make the penalty great enough to encourage the individual to stop the illegal behavior.

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why use such an black/white view of things? Laws like this have a place when used to combat discrimination where some actual harm is the result.

 

[Seawytch]

Make it closer to $500 and you have a deal. You have to make the penalty great enough to encourage the individual to stop the illegal behavior.

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

No, not religious people, just bigots. Most of the religious people I know aren't bigots. Did the religious bigots have to go "in the closet" when the CRA was passed?

 

[Iceweasel]

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why? Although I think the time has long passed that government needs to make sure minorities are not discriminated against. It's a different day, even back in Reagan's heyday minority races were only about 18%. Now it's around 30. No smart business is going to turn that down.

However, demanding business go along with your sexual preferences is not even in the same ballpark, no matter how badly activists want to attach themselves to it. It's unfortunate that states are having to pass protection laws for freedom of choice. The left isn't as pro-choice as they would have us believe.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. And I said I would have LESS of an issue with it.

Of course that would lead to people trolling said bakers, people with no intent of buying a cake just to collect their $100 or $500 or whatever dollars.

You do realize parking tickets have gone from discouraging behavior to a revenue stream, right?

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

No, not religious people, just bigots. Most of the religious people I know aren't bigots. Did the religious bigots have to go "in the closet" when the CRA was passed?

So as long as it's the "right type" of religious people, they can practice in the open, if not, off to their basement.

 

[Seawytch]

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why use such an black/white view of things? Laws like this have a place when used to combat discrimination where some actual harm is the result.

So where is the "actual harm" in not baking a cake for a Jew? Where is the "actual harm" in not taking a picture of a wedding because the couple is from Argentina?

And yet that would be against Federal law...whereas kicking someone out of their homes and firing them because they are gay isn't.

 

[martybegan]

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why use such an black/white view of things? Laws like this have a place when used to combat discrimination where some actual harm is the result.

So where is the "actual harm" in not baking a cake for a Jew? Where is the "actual harm" in not taking a picture of a wedding because the couple is from Argentina?

And yet that would be against Federal law...whereas kicking someone out of their homes and firing them because they are gay isn't.

There is none. The difference is your side seems to be far more litigious than these other groups, and far more needing of acceptance than these other groups.

 

[Seawytch]

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why? Although I think the time has long passed that government needs to make sure minorities are not discriminated against. It's a different day, even back in Reagan's heyday minority races were only about 18%. Now it's around 30. No smart business is going to turn that down.

However, demanding business go along with your sexual preferences is not even in the same ballpark, no matter how badly activists want to attach themselves to it. It's unfortunate that states are having to pass protection laws for freedom of choice. The left isn't as pro-choice as they would have us believe.

What business has to "go along" with a "sexual preference"? How does that manifest itself? You're saying it's not okay for a gay person to fire someone who is Christian or not bake them a cake, but it's okay for them to do that to a gay person?

 

[bodecea]

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

No, not religious people, just bigots. Most of the religious people I know aren't bigots. Did the religious bigots have to go "in the closet" when the CRA was passed?

So as long as it's the "right type" of religious people, they can practice in the open, if not, off to their basement.

The "right type" of religious people are those who don't make up religious tenets to mask....no, excuse...their bigotry.

 

[Seawytch]

If it's a fine, the people being denied service don't get the money.

So, let's make bigotry a revenue stream, that's cool.

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

No, not religious people, just bigots. Most of the religious people I know aren't bigots. Did the religious bigots have to go "in the closet" when the CRA was passed?

So as long as it's the "right type" of religious people, they can practice in the open, if not, off to their basement.

Do you have some sort of weird translator that translates what people type into whatever you feel like you want to be upset about?

When the CRA was passed and religious people could no longer discriminate against blacks, even though hey felt god told them to, did they have to go into this closet you think anti gay bigots will be forced into?

 

[martybegan]

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why? Although I think the time has long passed that government needs to make sure minorities are not discriminated against. It's a different day, even back in Reagan's heyday minority races were only about 18%. Now it's around 30. No smart business is going to turn that down.

However, demanding business go along with your sexual preferences is not even in the same ballpark, no matter how badly activists want to attach themselves to it. It's unfortunate that states are having to pass protection laws for freedom of choice. The left isn't as pro-choice as they would have us believe.

What business has to "go along" with a "sexual preference"? How does that manifest itself? You're saying it's not okay for a gay person to fire someone who is Christian or not bake them a cake, but it's okay for them to do that to a gay person?

Contracted services and employer/employee relations are two different things.

The employment question is both easier and harder at the same time. For drone level jobs, a person's personal life isn't really an issue. But say there is a company that deals mostly with a christian clientele. If having an openly gay executive causes them to lose business, is keeping him employed viable?

 

[martybegan]

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

No, not religious people, just bigots. Most of the religious people I know aren't bigots. Did the religious bigots have to go "in the closet" when the CRA was passed?

So as long as it's the "right type" of religious people, they can practice in the open, if not, off to their basement.

The "right type" of religious people are those who don't make up religious tenets to mask....no, excuse...their bigotry.

Not your call, and definitely not government's call.

 

[Seawytch]

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why use such an black/white view of things? Laws like this have a place when used to combat discrimination where some actual harm is the result.

So where is the "actual harm" in not baking a cake for a Jew? Where is the "actual harm" in not taking a picture of a wedding because the couple is from Argentina?

And yet that would be against Federal law...whereas kicking someone out of their homes and firing them because they are gay isn't.

There is none. The difference is your side seems to be far more litigious than these other groups, and far more needing of acceptance than these other groups.

I'm going to bet the difference is that these cases get more play in the Right Wingosphere...I'm going to bet there are more actual lawsuits claiming discrimination from people based on race, color, religion, or national origin than "the gheys".

 

[martybegan]

Figures you are in favor of more government.

Nope, just fewer bigots practicing their bigotry in public.

Lighten up, Francis, it was a joke.

So off to the closets for religious people right?

I always figured all of this crap wasn't about supposed justice, but revenge.

No, not religious people, just bigots. Most of the religious people I know aren't bigots. Did the religious bigots have to go "in the closet" when the CRA was passed?

So as long as it's the "right type" of religious people, they can practice in the open, if not, off to their basement.

Do you have some sort of weird translator that translates what people type into whatever you feel like you want to be upset about?

When the CRA was passed and religious people could no longer discriminate against blacks, even though hey felt god told them to, did they have to go into this closet you think anti gay bigots will be forced into?

Sorry I don't play your game. too bad. so so sad.

The CRA wasn't used to fight hurt feelings, it was used to fight economic and political disenfranchisement, i.e. actual harm.

 

[Iceweasel]

Figures you are in favor of more government.

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why? Although I think the time has long passed that government needs to make sure minorities are not discriminated against. It's a different day, even back in Reagan's heyday minority races were only about 18%. Now it's around 30. No smart business is going to turn that down.

However, demanding business go along with your sexual preferences is not even in the same ballpark, no matter how badly activists want to attach themselves to it. It's unfortunate that states are having to pass protection laws for freedom of choice. The left isn't as pro-choice as they would have us believe.

What business has to "go along" with a "sexual preference"? How does that manifest itself? You're saying it's not okay for a gay person to fire someone who is Christian or not bake them a cake, but it's okay for them to do that to a gay person?

How did you arrive at that? You see, it's your twisted views that is the primary problem here, you try desperately to twist everything to fit into your rebellious world. Which is probably why you are gay in the first place. Human sexuality is a manifestation of who we really are.

I said people should be free to do business or not with whomever. Now read that simple sentence as many times as you need to for it to finally finally soak in.

 

[martybegan]

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why use such an black/white view of things? Laws like this have a place when used to combat discrimination where some actual harm is the result.

So where is the "actual harm" in not baking a cake for a Jew? Where is the "actual harm" in not taking a picture of a wedding because the couple is from Argentina?

And yet that would be against Federal law...whereas kicking someone out of their homes and firing them because they are gay isn't.

There is none. The difference is your side seems to be far more litigious than these other groups, and far more needing of acceptance than these other groups.

I'm going to bet the difference is that these cases get more play in the Right Wingosphere...I'm going to bet there are more actual lawsuits claiming discrimination from people based on race, color, religion, or national origin than "the gheys".

You have to not count the ones involving actual harm. Also to be fair include only contracted services. I have a feeling the # is not what you think it is when those filters are applied.

 

[billyerock1991]

Guess Mississippi was upset about other red states stealing their bigotry heritage .

What gets me, this has nothing to do wh "religious beliefs". Religion is just a bullshit cover for people to express their hatred. Bunch of fake Christians should be ashamed .

Mississippi governor signs law allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples and others

Mississippi's governor signed a law that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples and others based on the employers' religious beliefs.

you know it will never become law ...the supremes will shoot that one down in no time

 

[Seawytch]

When dealing with states like Mississippi, Government is the only answer
We saw that during the Civil Rights era....asking nicely did not work

We also saw State and Local laws that involved actual political and economic harm being inflicted on a major portion of the population of those States, not just hurt feelings.

You guys keep using a hammer, even though the current problem isn't a nail, it's a thumbtack.

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why? Although I think the time has long passed that government needs to make sure minorities are not discriminated against. It's a different day, even back in Reagan's heyday minority races were only about 18%. Now it's around 30. No smart business is going to turn that down.

However, demanding business go along with your sexual preferences is not even in the same ballpark, no matter how badly activists want to attach themselves to it. It's unfortunate that states are having to pass protection laws for freedom of choice. The left isn't as pro-choice as they would have us believe.

What business has to "go along" with a "sexual preference"? How does that manifest itself? You're saying it's not okay for a gay person to fire someone who is Christian or not bake them a cake, but it's okay for them to do that to a gay person?

Contracted services and employer/employee relations are two different things.

The employment question is both easier and harder at the same time. For drone level jobs, a person's personal life isn't really an issue. But say there is a company that deals mostly with a christian clientele. If having an openly gay executive causes them to lose business, is keeping him employed viable?

Let's say a company deals mostly with a White Supremacist clientele. If having black executive causes them to lose business, is keeping hi employed viable?

And yet here we go back to Federal Law prohibits the black person, the Christian, the person from Lithuania from being fired simply because they are black, Christian, or from Lithuania...but does not protect the gays. Are gays not deserving of the same protections given race, color, gender, religion, country of origin, disability, veteran status, etc?