Miss. Passes anti gay discrimination law.

[kaz]

Like the hyperbole the "christians" use about being persecuted about not being able to practice their religious beliefs.

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.

Yes, gays aren't an acceptable group to hate, like Christians or something ...

BTW, no one is proposing to do anything to gays. It's how pathetic and weak the left is. Most people in history would be glad to just be left alone to live their lives. But leftists are so dependent on government that not getting validation and perks to you makes life actually unlivable. You people would have just starved and died at any other point in history

The Mississippi law DOES do plenty to hurt others. Denies them food, shelter, clothing, and even the right to go to the bathroom. That is totally against God. It is totally against the teachings of Jesus.

When your religion teaches you to hate others that are different than yourself, you are worshiping Satan. The KKK claims to be Christian, like ISIS claims to be Muslim.

"It denies them food, shelter, clothing and even the right to go to the bathroom."

Hyperbole is such a terrible argument

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but that wasn't the point I made. I talked about your hatred of them. For example, you think Islam should be unrestricted while Christians and Jews should be blocked from even posting the 10 commandments in schools

 

[the_human_being]

I suppose I shall now be forced to contact my Senator to propose a law banning male homosexuality so that I may protect you homosexual males from killing yourselves. It's my duty as a concerned citizen to look after your health for you.

 

[TNHarley]

Cool.
Choice = freedom

Bigotry is not freedom.

fixing bigotry is not a power of government

Bullshit, bigotry is a crime of hate....it's against the law to deny housing, food, or any other service, using bigotry to justify the denial. Pathetic little bigot.

coming from the guy that thinks minorities are so weak, they need special rights created for them lol

 

[the_human_being]

Yet companies can "legally" still advertise to consumers to use their product.
You still don't get it.

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.

We do it all the time though don't we? How many times have you read on this forum alone where the Liberals spout that the smoker is harming their health and that smoking should be banned altogether, taxes on tobacco products raised and insurance premiums for smokers be increased? Are you aware that anal sex is detrimental to one's health? Are you also aware that the life expectancy for homosexual males is now deemed to be from eight to twenty years less than that of heterosexual males? I then submit to you that male homosexuality should be forbidden by law from a medical standpoint.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/bates/050607


http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

Oh I get it alright. I understand too well.

 

[kaz]

Cool.
Choice = freedom

Bigotry is not freedom.

fixing bigotry is not a power of government

Bullshit, bigotry is a crime of hate....it's against the law to deny housing, food, or any other service, using bigotry to justify the denial. Pathetic little bigot.

coming from the guy that thinks minorities are so weak, they need special rights created for them lol

It's not like businesses are in business to make money. If government doesn't compel them to sell their goods and services, they just won't sell them. Amazing, isn't it? The Montgomery bus company was against the laws that forced their best customers to the back and to stand, that's why government had to compel them to do that. Discrimination is only effective when government forces it. Businesses care overwhelmingly about one color. Green

 

[OldLady]

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.

Yes, gays aren't an acceptable group to hate, like Christians or something ...

BTW, no one is proposing to do anything to gays. It's how pathetic and weak the left is. Most people in history would be glad to just be left alone to live their lives. But leftists are so dependent on government that not getting validation and perks to you makes life actually unlivable. You people would have just starved and died at any other point in history

I don't hate Christians. You have never heard me say any such thing. The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with. If the county clerk had gone to her boss and given her resignation, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, half these laws and backlash laws wouldn't have happened. Instead she decided to refuse to do her job as a government employee due to her personal religious beliefs that don't tolerate gay marriage.. That is not acceptable under our constitution, but it gave a lot of steam to people of her mindset. She should have been fired the first day she said she wouldn't do her job. Period.

 

[OldLady]

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.

We do it all the time though don't we? How many times have you read on this forum alone where the Liberals spout that the smoker is harming their health and that smoking should be banned altogether, taxes on tobacco products raised and insurance premiums for smokers be increased? Are you aware that anal sex is detrimental to one's health? Are you also aware that the life expectancy for homosexual males is now deemed to be from eight to twenty years less than that of heterosexual males? I then submit to you that male homosexuality should be forbidden by law from a medical standpoint.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/bates/050607


http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

You are changing the subject. If you can't argue against my point, just move on.

 

[TNHarley]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Do businesses have to serve polygamy (polyamory orientation) marriages there too? If not, why not? Please cite the 14th Amendment in your answer.

Polygamy is a crime

 

[bendog]

And newww, for something really big

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MerNoYAgAj8/Uvgx7VNQ7pI/AAAAAAAAOYQ/sULhsgQhDyw/s1600/ed_sullivan_1953.jpg

RV park kicks out interracial couple.

Trailer Park Evicted Interracial Couple Over “Black And White Shacking”

 

[OldLady]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't fuck around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, gays aren't an acceptable group to hate, like Christians or something ...

BTW, no one is proposing to do anything to gays. It's how pathetic and weak the left is. Most people in history would be glad to just be left alone to live their lives. But leftists are so dependent on government that not getting validation and perks to you makes life actually unlivable. You people would have just starved and died at any other point in history

I don't hate Christians. You have never heard me say any such thing. The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with. If the county clerk had gone to her boss and given her resignation, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, half these laws and backlash laws wouldn't have happened. Instead she decided to refuse to do her job as a government employee due to her personal religious beliefs that don't tolerate gay marriage.. That is not acceptable under our constitution, but it gave a lot of steam to people of her mindset. She should have been fired the first day she said she wouldn't do her job. Period.

Actual discrimination in the marketplace is almost zero. The people who enact laws in this country to control the marketplace are doing it for their own power

 

[kaz]

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple

That isn't what you are advocating, you are advocating compelling citizens to do business with each other. If I'm one of the very few business owners that don't want to do business with gays, blacks, whatever, then I get punished for it in the marketplace as those customers go to my competitors.

The need for PA laws is zero. You are clearly interfering with my rights by compelling me what to do with my liberty and my property, and your action is flagrantly Unconstitutional as you can't do that without due process of law

 

[TNHarley]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't fuck around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

 

[kaz]

Cool.
Choice = freedom

Bigotry is not freedom.

The only way to have freedom is to be free to be a bigot. Let the marketplace solve it. the marketplace is so much more effective at it than your worshiped government. Jim Crow laws were ... government ...

 

[rightwinger]

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple

That isn't what you are advocating, you are advocating compelling citizens to do business with each other. If I'm one of the very few business owners that don't want to do business with gays, blacks, whatever, then I get punished for it in the marketplace as those customers go to my competitors.

The need for PA laws is zero. You are clearly interfering with my rights by compelling me what to do with my liberty and my property, and your action is flagrantly Unconstitutional as you can't do that without due process of law

Unless there is duplicity among business owners

I will not serve fags if you won't



.

 

[bendog]

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple

That isn't what you are advocating, you are advocating compelling citizens to do business with each other. If I'm one of the very few business owners that don't want to do business with gays, blacks, whatever, then I get punished for it in the marketplace as those customers go to my competitors.

The need for PA laws is zero. You are clearly interfering with my rights by compelling me what to do with my liberty and my property, and your action is flagrantly Unconstitutional as you can't do that without due process of law

Unless there is duplicity among business owners

I will not serve fags if you won't

I want fries with my mufaletta tonite! I don't care if a gay is my server. Just don't spit on my food or beer.

 

[OldLady]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't fuck around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

Now, just apply it correctly.
I already have. It would be nice if the world could work in the way you wish, where everyone was treated equally without government interference, but people aren't that fair, left to their own devices, it seems. I do know this: If blacks, gays, what-have-you, had all been treated fairly to begin with, had not had their equal rights to liberty messed with, the government wouldn't be involved.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am repeating myself and so are you.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple

That isn't what you are advocating, you are advocating compelling citizens to do business with each other. If I'm one of the very few business owners that don't want to do business with gays, blacks, whatever, then I get punished for it in the marketplace as those customers go to my competitors.

The need for PA laws is zero. You are clearly interfering with my rights by compelling me what to do with my liberty and my property, and your action is flagrantly Unconstitutional as you can't do that without due process of law

And many of the people that you don't discriminate against might be so repulsed by your discrimination they may not do business with you.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Here is an interesting fact. For many years many hotels would not rent a room to unwed couples. They might have felt that was immoral. Should we have a law that determines that for us or should we just be free as individuals to choose what we want to do.