Miss. Passes anti gay discrimination law.

[dani67]

Of course, its only fair. I don't think they have PA laws at all.
Who knew equality was bad?

What equality ?

You can ,move to Mississippi and run for office down there and try to change the minds of the people.

 

[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? 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?

Probably not, but Neo-nazi businesses are usually underground away, so the point is moot.

For employment, they should have basic protections, I am willing to accept that. However there has to be "outs" for religious organizations, and the like.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And gays have historically suffered economic and political disenfranchisement and still continue to. When you can be fired or thrown out of your home for being gay, that IS economic and political disenfranchisement.

We know why you won't "play"...

 

[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?

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.

But people are not free to do that. I cannot fire a person for being a Christian. I can't refuse to bake them a cake, make them a floral arrangement, serve them at my establishment or kick them out of my apartment complex...but they can to me in over half the states. You're okay with that?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

But people are not free to do that. I cannot fire a person for being a Christian. I can't refuse to bake them a cake, make them a floral arrangement, serve them at my establishment or kick them out of my apartment complex...but they can to me in over half the states. You're okay with that?

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.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

And gays have historically suffered economic and political disenfranchisement and still continue to. When you can be fired or thrown out of your home for being gay, that IS economic and political disenfranchisement.

We know why you won't "play"...

What a crock of shit. Homo's have since the 1990's with Civil Unions were allowed to have the same rights as hetro's except for the name. But liberalism isn't about the little guy, it is crushing the opposition, to completely subjugate others who don't like liberalism, so either the government punishes those who oppose it, or eventually others are threatened with death to finally get their way.
Chic-fil-a was threatened by the liberals, but when more normal people showed up in solidarity, the liberals backed off, like the spineless chicken shits they are. There is another link about coming civil war, I think it is coming in 2017, for when the elections go against the liberals they will riot on the streets.

 

[the_human_being]

It must be very frustrating to have to rely on the courts to attempt to force your particular choice of sexual lifestyle upon the majority of the people in any given locale. It would seem more feasible to simply change one's sexual lifestyle to be the one deemed more acceptable by society. Of course playing the victim is in vogue apparently.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The problem lies with the states

They lost the same sex marriage debate in the courts. Now, to save face with the haters in their state, they have initiated these gay harassment laws under the pretext of religion

 

[the_human_being]

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.

The problem lies with the states

They lost the same sex marriage debate in the courts. Now, to save face with the haters in their state, they have initiated these gay harassment laws under the pretext of religion

The states pass laws put forth by their duly elected legislators which represent the views of the people of the state. Without the people of the individual states, there would exist no federal government. The federal government should stay out of imposing its will upon the people of the individual states.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." Yes indeed, all are created naked and created either male or female.

"That they are endowed by their Creator". Yes, by their Creator, not by the federal government.

"With certain inalienable rights. That among these are life." Yes we are given life by our creator, not by any act of the federal government.

"Liberty" Yes. When we are born, we have the liberty to cry when we are hungry or when our diaper needs changing. That liberty exists until the federal government takes it away from us.

"And the pursuit of happiness". Indeed we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue our own individual happiness. Nowhere are we guaranteed that we find happiness in life, only that we are guaranteed the right to pursue that happiness.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you went into a Muslim Restaurant and demanded to be served Pork and Beer, is it the obligation of that restaurant to provide for you? Or does it go against the Muslims religion? Double standards, without them, liberals would have no standards at all.

Oh Jez, not this shit again.

If a Muslim Restaurant does not have pork on the menu, then they don't have to sell pork to anyone.

If a Muslim Restaurant DOES have pork on the menu, then they cannot refuse service based on the religion, race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation (in some states), marital status (in some states), or veterians status (in some states) of the customer.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

But people are not free to do that. I cannot fire a person for being a Christian. I can't refuse to bake them a cake, make them a floral arrangement, serve them at my establishment or kick them out of my apartment complex...but they can to me in over half the states. You're okay with that?

The solution is to give you the equal right to refuse to bake them a cake, make them a floral arrangement, serve them at your establishment or kick them out of your apartment complex.

 

[Katzndogz]

My first job was as a waitress in a little diner owned by two lesbians. They told me that when I married (a man) I would be fired. I was fired but it never occurred to me for a moment that they shouldn't have the right to fire me. Their right was absolute and unquestionable.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If you went into a Muslim Restaurant and demanded to be served Pork and Beer, is it the obligation of that restaurant to provide for you? Or does it go against the Muslims religion? Double standards, without them, liberals would have no standards at all.

Oh Jez, not this shit again.

If a Muslim Restaurant does not have pork on the menu, then they don't have to sell pork to anyone.

If a Muslim Restaurant DOES have pork on the menu, then they cannot refuse service based on the religion, race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation (in some states), marital status (in some states), or veterians status (in some states) of the customer.



>>>>

If a bakery doesn't have homosexual decorations for a cake, then they don't have to provide for the homo's right? If a homosexual went to a Muslim restaurant and wanted that eatery to provide services for their wedding, is the Muslim required to provide service even if the Muslims are ISIS supporters? Just want to get the facts straight before homo's lose their heads by pissing off the Muslims.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

And gays have historically suffered economic and political disenfranchisement and still continue to. When you can be fired or thrown out of your home for being gay, that IS economic and political disenfranchisement.

We know why you won't "play"...

A lot of people might genuinely feel that homosexuality is a deeply immoral thing. It isn't personal. They just might feel that way. I can think of a lot of muslims who feel that way. Hispanic culture definitely doesn't like gays. It is kind of unfair but to force others to accommodate seems just as wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The problem lies with the states

They lost the same sex marriage debate in the courts. Now, to save face with the haters in their state, they have initiated these gay harassment laws under the pretext of religion

The states pass laws put forth by their duly elected legislators which represent the views of the people of the state. Without the people of the individual states, there would exist no federal government. The federal government should stay out of imposing its will upon the people of the individual states.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." Yes indeed, all are created naked and created either male or female.

"That they are endowed by their Creator". Yes, by their Creator, not by the federal government.

"With certain inalienable rights. That among these are life." Yes we are given life by our creator, not by any act of the federal government.

"Liberty" Yes. When we are born, we have the liberty to cry when we are hungry or when our diaper needs changing. That liberty exists until the federal government takes it away from us.

"And the pursuit of happiness". Indeed we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue our own individual happiness. Nowhere are we guaranteed that we find happiness in life, only that we are guaranteed the right to pursue that happiness.

Federal law supersedes State law....Supremacy clause

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If you went into a Muslim Restaurant and demanded to be served Pork and Beer, is it the obligation of that restaurant to provide for you? Or does it go against the Muslims religion? Double standards, without them, liberals would have no standards at all.

Oh Jez, not this shit again.

If a Muslim Restaurant does not have pork on the menu, then they don't have to sell pork to anyone.

If a Muslim Restaurant DOES have pork on the menu, then they cannot refuse service based on the religion, race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation (in some states), marital status (in some states), or veterians status (in some states) of the customer.



>>>>

I'll be waiting for the first liberal court to force a muslim business to serve pork. It won't happen...like ever.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

The problem lies with the states

They lost the same sex marriage debate in the courts. Now, to save face with the haters in their state, they have initiated these gay harassment laws under the pretext of religion

The states pass laws put forth by their duly elected legislators which represent the views of the people of the state. Without the people of the individual states, there would exist no federal government. The federal government should stay out of imposing its will upon the people of the individual states.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." Yes indeed, all are created naked and created either male or female.

"That they are endowed by their Creator". Yes, by their Creator, not by the federal government.

"With certain inalienable rights. That among these are life." Yes we are given life by our creator, not by any act of the federal government.

"Liberty" Yes. When we are born, we have the liberty to cry when we are hungry or when our diaper needs changing. That liberty exists until the federal government takes it away from us.

"And the pursuit of happiness". Indeed we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue our own individual happiness. Nowhere are we guaranteed that we find happiness in life, only that we are guaranteed the right to pursue that happiness.

Federal law supersedes State law....Supremacy clause

I can't really find anything ever written in that era that said that federal laws supercede state laws.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I think we should walk into a gay bar and demand service for me and my girlfriend.

 

[rightwinger]

My first job was as a waitress in a little diner owned by two lesbians. They told me that when I married (a man) I would be fired. I was fired but it never occurred to me for a moment that they shouldn't have the right to fire me. Their right was absolute and unquestionable.

What a total bullshit story