Miss. Passes anti gay discrimination law.

[rightwinger]

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.

Try looking in the Constitution

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Went right over your head didn't it?

 

[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.

What a total bullshit story

The world in 1961 wasn't the same world as today.

 

[Katzndogz]

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

You would undoubtedly be served. If your girlfriend and her girlfriend walked into a gay bar they might not be served.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If a bakery doesn't have homosexual decorations for a cake, then they don't have to provide for the homo's right?

You mean the cake topper? Correct. If they don't stock or special order toppers for other customers they don't have to stock or special order toppers depicting same sex couples.

So if the baker ONLY stocks single figurines of male/female couples (and doesn't' special order or others), they don't have to order them for a same-sex couple. However if the bakery stocks male figurines individually, and female figurines individually, then they cannot refuse to sell two female figurines or two male figurines to a couple.

With that said, you know that a lot of wedding cake portfolios that baker maintain do not include "figurines" at all. The cake is totally decorated, even on top.

Above is a wedding cake in the portfolio for Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado, one of the two bakeries in the national news for refusing equal service to same-sex couples.

What is the difference in how the cake above is made for a different-sex or same-sex wedding?

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?

Yes.

Just want to get the facts straight before homo's lose their heads by pissing off the Muslims.

No actually what you are trying to do is throw out hyperbolic crap.


>>>>>

 

[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

The world in 1961 wasn't the same world as today.

Total bullshit story

In 1961 gays were firmly in the closet. You would never find openly gay store owners and would never see them face the wrath of the community by firing someone for getting married

 

[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.



>>>>

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

You'll wait a long time because Public Accommodation laws do not mandate what goods and services a business provides, only the reasons they cannot refuse service.

Is a Muslim business doesn't serve pork to anyone, they are not required to serve it.

ONLY if the Muslim business does serve port do Public Accommodation laws kick in and limit the ability to refuse service based on a characteristic of the customer.


Just like...


Is a business doesn't sell wedding cakes, they are not required to sell wedding cakes.

ONLY if the business does sell wedding cakes do Public Accommodation laws kick in and limit the ability to refuse service based on a characteristic of the customer.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

If a bakery doesn't have homosexual decorations for a cake, then they don't have to provide for the homo's right?

You mean the cake topper? Correct. If they don't stock or special order toppers for other customers they don't have to stock or special order toppers depicting same sex couples.

So if the baker ONLY stocks single figurines of male/female couples (and doesn't' special order or others), they don't have to order them for a same-sex couple. However if the bakery stocks male figurines individually, and female figurines individually, then they cannot refuse to sell two female figurines or two male figurines to a couple.

With that said, you know that a lot of wedding cake portfolios that baker maintain do not include "figurines" at all. The cake is totally decorated, even on top.

Above is a wedding cake in the portfolio for Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado, one of the two bakeries in the national news for refusing equal service to same-sex couples.

What is the difference in how the cake above is made for a different-sex or same-sex wedding?

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?

Yes.

Just want to get the facts straight before homo's lose their heads by pissing off the Muslims.

No actually what you are trying to do is throw out hyperbolic crap.


>>>>>

I honestly don't remember the last wedding I went to that had a plastic bride and groom on the top

So tacky

 

[Confounding]

I better not hear any bitching when companies start boycotting your backwards state.

Mississippi gov. signs law allowing service denial to gays

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

 

[bendog]

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.

The supremacy clause is what makes the Mississippi Legislature's ("40 hissing possums in a barn" - Jon Stewart) so amusing.

First of all, Mississippi has no PA law, and the fed govt has not passed a PA law saying restaurants or bakers have to serve gays. SOOOOOO, even before our "new" law, nobody had to serve gays. That is, the law accomplishes nothing, beyond letting the possums vote to say they agree with not serving gays.

Secondly,. the act provides:
"3) The purposes of this section are as follows:
(a) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner,374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and....

Basically, the congress and the scotus got into it over whether a law that on it's face does not discriminate against any religion may nevertheless run afoul of the First Amend if it impacts a religion - in that case it was whether Native Americans could use peyote in religious ceremonies. The Scotus said NAY, and the congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedoms Act. The scotus has thus far declined to say Yay or Nay to the RRFA.

But this Act accomplishes nothing. If the scotus overturns the federal RRFA, this law cannot protect any individual from the application of federal law. That is, Mississippi native americans get no peyote ... of course they don't want any .... But god dammit the Hissing Possums must SPEAK

 

[the_human_being]

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

Of course and you folks really rely on big government to attempt to force the rest of society to accept you. Pathetic.

 

[the_human_being]

If a bakery doesn't have homosexual decorations for a cake, then they don't have to provide for the homo's right?

You mean the cake topper? Correct. If they don't stock or special order toppers for other customers they don't have to stock or special order toppers depicting same sex couples.

So if the baker ONLY stocks single figurines of male/female couples (and doesn't' special order or others), they don't have to order them for a same-sex couple. However if the bakery stocks male figurines individually, and female figurines individually, then they cannot refuse to sell two female figurines or two male figurines to a couple.

With that said, you know that a lot of wedding cake portfolios that baker maintain do not include "figurines" at all. The cake is totally decorated, even on top.

Above is a wedding cake in the portfolio for Masterpiece Cakes in Colorado, one of the two bakeries in the national news for refusing equal service to same-sex couples.

What is the difference in how the cake above is made for a different-sex or same-sex wedding?

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?

Yes.

Just want to get the facts straight before homo's lose their heads by pissing off the Muslims.

No actually what you are trying to do is throw out hyperbolic crap.


>>>>>

I honestly don't remember the last wedding I went to that had a plastic bride and groom on the top

So tacky

Now you wish to make the personal choices for how everyone decorates their wedding cake? Typical Liberal.

 

[Redfish]

I better not hear any bitching when companies start boycotting your backwards state.

Mississippi gov. signs law allowing service denial to gays

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

If you don't like the laws of a state, keep your sorry ass out of it. I refuse to spend any money in California - the land of fruits and nuts. There is nothing that requires every state to kowtow to federal social experiments.

 

[the_human_being]

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.

The supremacy clause is what makes the Mississippi Legislature's ("40 hissing possums in a barn" - Jon Stewart) so amusing.

First of all, Mississippi has no PA law, and the fed govt has not passed a PA law saying restaurants or bakers have to serve gays. SOOOOOO, even before our "new" law, nobody had to serve gays. That is, the law accomplishes nothing, beyond letting the possums vote to say they agree with not serving gays.

Secondly,. the act provides:
"3) The purposes of this section are as follows:
(a) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner,374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and....

Basically, the congress and the scotus got into it over whether a law that on it's face does not discriminate against any religion may nevertheless run afoul of the First Amend if it impacts a religion - in that case it was whether Native Americans could use peyote in religious ceremonies. The Scotus said NAY, and the congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedoms Act. The scotus has thus far declined to say Yay or Nay to the RRFA.

But this Act accomplishes nothing. If the scotus overturns the federal RRFA, this law cannot protect any individual from the application of federal law. That is, Mississippi native americans get no peyote ... of course they don't want any .... But god dammit the Hissing Possums must SPEAK

That's the point. The Hissing Possums have a First Amendment right to speak. That's what's really pissing off the gays. They are pissed because the folks in Mississippi are repulsed by them.

 

[hangover]

Mississippi gov. signs law allowing service denial to gays
There is no difference in this than denying service to blacks, women, Mexicans, Muslims, or liberals.

 

[OldLady]

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.

The supremacy clause is what makes the Mississippi Legislature's ("40 hissing possums in a barn" - Jon Stewart) so amusing.

First of all, Mississippi has no PA law, and the fed govt has not passed a PA law saying restaurants or bakers have to serve gays. SOOOOOO, even before our "new" law, nobody had to serve gays. That is, the law accomplishes nothing, beyond letting the possums vote to say they agree with not serving gays.

Secondly,. the act provides:
"3) The purposes of this section are as follows:
(a) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner,374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and....

Basically, the congress and the scotus got into it over whether a law that on it's face does not discriminate against any religion may nevertheless run afoul of the First Amend if it impacts a religion - in that case it was whether Native Americans could use peyote in religious ceremonies. The Scotus said NAY, and the congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedoms Act. The scotus has thus far declined to say Yay or Nay to the RRFA.

But this Act accomplishes nothing. If the scotus overturns the federal RRFA, this law cannot protect any individual from the application of federal law. That is, Mississippi native americans get no peyote ... of course they don't want any .... But god dammit the Hissing Possums must SPEAK

That's the point. The Hissing Possums have a First Amendment right to speak. That's what's really pissing off the gays. They are pissed because the folks in Mississippi are repulsed by them.

I doubt if they needed the Mississippi law to realize some people are repulsed by them. The Hissing Possums have a right to speak and a right to think what they wish. What they don't have the right to do is limit the equal rights of a group they don't like. We are ALL afforded the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of liberty and to be treated equally in public institutions. If you don't like them, think or say what you like, but you can't take action to treat them any differently than you would someone of like mind.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Of course and you folks really rely on big government to attempt to force the rest of society to accept you. Pathetic.

It all started with...We the People of the United States

 

[boilermaker55]

Why do you rest your case? No real argument?

Only a bigot would say "religion is a bull shit cover" but the freakazoid and sodomites are so full of hatred that they don't even realize that they are bigots. You almost gotta laugh that sodomites punished the Boy Scouts for a Supreme Court decision that said they had the right to discriminate against hiring overt homosexuals to use the BSA as a hunting ground for pedophiles. Next they went after normal teenage girls and forced them to endure sharing a locker room and shower with a freakazoid boy who likes to wear panty hose. What's the next move for the sodomites and freakazoid bigots? Punish Mississippi with economic sanctions? How about this, it's the freaking law and learn to live with it just like religious people learned to live with the abortion holocaust.

God directed John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard to show you the insanity of religion. Your post cements the righteousness of God.

"The insanity of religion"? I rest my case about left wing bigotry.

 

[martybegan]

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"...

Then go fight that, and not some baker who just doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[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.

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

When you go to the courts, you don't win the "debate". You get some asshats in robes to say the "debate is over, neener neener neener"

And there is a difference between a state recognizing a gay marriage, and a state forcing "bake or die" concepts on people over hurt feelings.