Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is the result of capitalism. Businesses being able to choose what they do.Mississippi already lost 400 jobs over their bigotry.
Just like no one is proposing to do anything to "christians" , yet they become the most persecuted group ever. Which leads to their unending whiny.
How pathetic is the fact they use the tactics they seem to despise.
The become, "christians", one of the largest hypocritical groups ever.
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.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.
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
Don't know, that wasn't the point I made. I just pointed out your double standard. You don't oppose discrimination, you just want to decide who can and can't be discriminated against. As here, when pointed out a group you hate, you call them "whiny" for expecting the same treatment you give gays
Yet companies can "legally" still advertise to consumers to use their product.
You still don't get it.
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.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.
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.
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.
The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.
So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?
Like the hyperbole the "christians" use about being persecuted about not being able to practice their religious beliefs.
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.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
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
Mississippi already lost 400 jobs over their bigotry.
Germany: Muslim Turks march through Duisburg chanting, “With Allah’s help, we shall conquer You”Jesum Crow! By ensuring blacks and gays equal rights which you cannot interfere with despite your racist views (not your personally, mind) I am about to be raped and put in a burka? Steady on, friend.It isn't the way of liberals to leave people that are happy alone, since many liberals cannot find their own happiness. That is why the go out of their way to constantly interfere in the lives of others. The liberals say they are the champions of the colored people, yet today with a white black man in office, there is more poverty and murder in that sector of America today. They say they are for LBGTQWXYZ yet they are allowing ISIS terrorists into this country and these guys will thrown the alphabet people off the roof or stone them. Women too will be subjugated to these Fanatics, yet women and LBG's vote for the same people who want Muslims to come here. This is a self destructive process, and at one time, I would defend them. Today, I don't care because if this is what women and LBG's want then vote for liberals. Elections have consequences.Now, just apply it correctly.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well since you are an old lady, they might NOT try anything that is wrinkled like an elephant. Remember that Obama was telling everyone that it was Muslims that made America, he is allowing them in by the 10's of thousands, San Bernardino was an example of the murderous intent of them, but since it wasn't you, then who gives a damn. When it does happen to you, then it will be too late, I wont shed a tear.What seems contradictory to many is that nationalism is only allowed for immigrants, as their influence is seen as overall positive, no matter their motives. This explains the complete lack of media outrage.
During the protest they can be heard chanting “Allah is great” and, according to reports, “We rebuilt Germany” and “With God’s help we shall conquer”.
I think that was NC, not Mississippi. Though there's no doubt the law Miss law was opposed by "the establishment." But we have a Tea Party Legislature (40 hissing possums in a barn - Jon Stewart) and governor. I remember when the TPM said it had no stand on anything other than economic issues. hmmm.Mississippi already lost 400 jobs over their bigotry.
The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.
So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?
Sure you can. Religious ceremonies have been separated from Civil action before.
Take "marriage" for example. To some it is a "religious ceremony" only, to others it is a civil matter only, to others it is a mix of the two (meaning it has both a religious and civil component.).
Slaughtering animals for sale, which is ONLY what I'm talking about (not personal consumption), is a civil matter not a religious one. If the method used is found to be unsafe then it doesn't matter if it is a religious ceremony to some as there is a compelling government interest in the sale of safe food.
Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card for laws of general applicability.
>>>>
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.
Cool.
Choice = freedom
What stopped them from doing that?Cool.
Choice = freedom
Tell that to blacks trying to register to vote in the 1960s or find a seat at a lunch counter.
Not much freedom when you're cut off from using the businesses and services the rest of the community enjoys.
You want to talk about choice?
How about choosing NOT to open a business that offers services to the public.
Just make your crappy cakes for your friends and family.
Mississippi already lost 400 jobs over their bigotry.
if you are referring to paypal, wasn't that North Carolina?
And considering paypal has offices in several countries that actually try to imprison or kill off gay, methinks the doth protest too much.
The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.
So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?
Sure you can. Religious ceremonies have been separated from Civil action before.
Take "marriage" for example. To some it is a "religious ceremony" only, to others it is a civil matter only, to others it is a mix of the two (meaning it has both a religious and civil component.).
Slaughtering animals for sale, which is ONLY what I'm talking about (not personal consumption), is a civil matter not a religious one. If the method used is found to be unsafe then it doesn't matter if it is a religious ceremony to some as there is a compelling government interest in the sale of safe food.
Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card for laws of general applicability.
>>>>
If you restrict kosher or halal slaughter of animals, then religious Jews and Muslims would be forced to slaughter their own animals. Considering most live in urban areas, and most cities have rules about how and where animals can be slaughtered in general, you create an unwinnable situation.
The issue is really about animal rights activists using health codes to ban ritual slaughter. "Unsafe" is a big concept that can be misused easily.
To me, health codes could not ban Kosher or Halal Slaughter as they are religious activities. Any government interest is outweighed by the religious freedom involved.
First Syrians leave for US under surge resettlement programMiss. Passes anti gay discrimination law. was deleted. Reason: Stick to the subject.[/paste:font]
Today at 11:17 AM Fairness Doctrine
Germany: Muslim Turks march through Duisburg chanting, “With Allah’s help, we shall conquer You”Jesum Crow! By ensuring blacks and gays equal rights which you cannot interfere with despite your racist views (not your personally, mind) I am about to be raped and put in a burka? Steady on, friend.It isn't the way of liberals to leave people that are happy alone, since many liberals cannot find their own happiness. That is why the go out of their way to constantly interfere in the lives of others. The liberals say they are the champions of the colored people, yet today with a white black man in office, there is more poverty and murder in that sector of America today. They say they are for LBGTQWXYZ yet they are allowing ISIS terrorists into this country and these guys will thrown the alphabet people off the roof or stone them. Women too will be subjugated to these Fanatics, yet women and LBG's vote for the same people who want Muslims to come here. This is a self destructive process, and at one time, I would defend them. Today, I don't care because if this is what women and LBG's want then vote for liberals. Elections have consequences.Now, just apply it correctly.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.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.
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.
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.Well since you are an old lady, they might NOT try anything that is wrinkled like an elephant. Remember that Obama was telling everyone that it was Muslims that made America, he is allowing them in by the 10's of thousands, San Bernardino was an example of the murderous intent of them, but since it wasn't you, then who gives a damn. When it does happen to you, then it will be too late, I wont shed a tear.What seems contradictory to many is that nationalism is only allowed for immigrants, as their influence is seen as overall positive, no matter their motives. This explains the complete lack of media outrage.
During the protest they can be heard chanting “Allah is great” and, according to reports, “We rebuilt Germany” and “With God’s help we shall conquer”.
Many of them were members of the “Turan e.V.” club, an organization that leans on “Rocker” culture, as demonstrated in one of my previous uploads.
And so it begins.....First Syrians leave for US under surge resettlement program
Interesting point on animal slaughter, Marty
This law does not explicitly say anyone can discriminate or deny any service. (It's already legal to do that in Miss) What is says is that even if a law is religiously neutral on its face, a person may raise a religious objection to following it.
I'm not aware of any orthodox Jews here, and the Muslims seem frighteningly friendly and mainstream. but still........ We need some peyote smoking Native Americans down here! Come on. We don't bite! Honest Injun
The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.
So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?
Sure you can. Religious ceremonies have been separated from Civil action before.
Take "marriage" for example. To some it is a "religious ceremony" only, to others it is a civil matter only, to others it is a mix of the two (meaning it has both a religious and civil component.).
Slaughtering animals for sale, which is ONLY what I'm talking about (not personal consumption), is a civil matter not a religious one. If the method used is found to be unsafe then it doesn't matter if it is a religious ceremony to some as there is a compelling government interest in the sale of safe food.
Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card for laws of general applicability.
>>>>
If you restrict kosher or halal slaughter of animals, then religious Jews and Muslims would be forced to slaughter their own animals. Considering most live in urban areas, and most cities have rules about how and where animals can be slaughtered in general, you create an unwinnable situation.
The issue is really about animal rights activists using health codes to ban ritual slaughter. "Unsafe" is a big concept that can be misused easily.
To me, health codes could not ban Kosher or Halal Slaughter as they are religious activities. Any government interest is outweighed by the religious freedom involved.
I don't think that health codes should ban Kosher and Halal Slaughter either. If the slaughter is for commercial sale whether it's a religious matter or not is irrelevant - when it comes to health codes the ONLY factor for the legislature to consider is "does this method of slaughter in some way contaminate the meat sold to consumers".
Since it obviously doesn't, there is no compelling government reason to put such hypothetical restrictions in place.
It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with no impact on food safety meaning there is no reason to restrict the religious ceremony part.
>>>>
I remember, when I first started arguing civil gay marriage years ago, that there posters incredulous that someone could get civilly married and not have to have a religious ceremony. It blew me away that there were such ignorant people.The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.
So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?
Sure you can. Religious ceremonies have been separated from Civil action before.
Take "marriage" for example. To some it is a "religious ceremony" only, to others it is a civil matter only, to others it is a mix of the two (meaning it has both a religious and civil component.).
Slaughtering animals for sale, which is ONLY what I'm talking about (not personal consumption), is a civil matter not a religious one. If the method used is found to be unsafe then it doesn't matter if it is a religious ceremony to some as there is a compelling government interest in the sale of safe food.
Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card for laws of general applicability.
>>>>
