Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

[Coyote]

People who publish articles like this should be forced to eat tripe.

The, "...most anti-LGBT bill to date."

Well...

It was not so long ago that homosexual sodomy was a FELONY in some states. And yet this insignificant, harmless law, reflecting the beliefs and sensitivities of at least 80% of the state's population, is seen as a threat.

The examples of harmful discrimination in the article are so absurd they don't even qualify as bad jokes.

In 1975 when I was applying to rent an apartment in Morgantown (WV), the landlord asked for proof that the woman I was living with was my wife. Had she not been my wife my application would have been rejected because, "there are kids living in that building." Who would have been subjected to witnessing blatant immorality.

And yet, I survived.

So are you saying this is a "good thing"?

Not so long ago, black people, planning trips, had to figure out a route that would include motels and restaurants that would serve them, and be prepared to sleep in the car just in case.

 

[Katzndogz]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

 

[Katzndogz]

People who publish articles like this should be forced to eat tripe.

The, "...most anti-LGBT bill to date."

Well...

It was not so long ago that homosexual sodomy was a FELONY in some states. And yet this insignificant, harmless law, reflecting the beliefs and sensitivities of at least 80% of the state's population, is seen as a threat.

The examples of harmful discrimination in the article are so absurd they don't even qualify as bad jokes.

In 1975 when I was applying to rent an apartment in Morgantown (WV), the landlord asked for proof that the woman I was living with was my wife. Had she not been my wife my application would have been rejected because, "there are kids living in that building." Who would have been subjected to witnessing blatant immorality.

And yet, I survived.

So are you saying this is a "good thing"?

Not so long ago, black people, planning trips, had to figure out a route that would include motels and restaurants that would serve them, and be prepared to sleep in the car just in case.

Gays is a behavior not a race.

 

[Coyote]

People who publish articles like this should be forced to eat tripe.

The, "...most anti-LGBT bill to date."

Well...

It was not so long ago that homosexual sodomy was a FELONY in some states. And yet this insignificant, harmless law, reflecting the beliefs and sensitivities of at least 80% of the state's population, is seen as a threat.

The examples of harmful discrimination in the article are so absurd they don't even qualify as bad jokes.

In 1975 when I was applying to rent an apartment in Morgantown (WV), the landlord asked for proof that the woman I was living with was my wife. Had she not been my wife my application would have been rejected because, "there are kids living in that building." Who would have been subjected to witnessing blatant immorality.

And yet, I survived.

So are you saying this is a "good thing"?

Not so long ago, black people, planning trips, had to figure out a route that would include motels and restaurants that would serve them, and be prepared to sleep in the car just in case.

Gays is a behavior not a race.

So is marriage. So is RELIGION. What's your point? The bill is legitimizing discrimmination against only one class of people. Why not the others?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Any individual ought to have the power of a “religious veto” against any attempted use of government force to comply him to act in a manner that violates his sincerely-held religious or moral beliefs.

I wouldn't go that far. If government can prove actual economic or political harm being caused by said veto, then they have a case to compel compliance.

However hurt feelings is not, and never will be actual harm.

I almost agree, but not quite. Nobody has an inherent right to force someone else's behavior, even for economic or political gain.

If a robber can prove economic harm from not being allowed to steal my wallet, does he have a “case to compel compliance”?

He may be able to, but the greater harm is from your loss of property via illegal methods.

Of course this all isn't absolute, however if, say, all or most of the gas stations in a locality decide not to sell to gay people, they can show harm by the limitation of their ability to travel, which even if the use of cars isn't constitutionally protected, the right to travel freely is. Furthermore, the act of selling gas is a point of sale transaction, that differs in no way depending on the participants in said transaction. Gas is not gay or straight, nor is there any reason for such concepts to be brought up in said transaction.

To me, PA laws are not 100% wrong, they are just being wrongly applied.

At this point, I think we agree.

Behind the 1964 Civil Right Act was a situation where black people could not travel, because restaurants and motels and gas stations and other crucial businesses refused to deal with them. I believe that this situation met the “strict scrutiny” standard for stepping on the Constitutional right to freedom of association, in order to secure the basic ability of a class of people to go about basic necessary parts of life. I'm even OK with laws which, in general, prohibit discrimination against people for reasons that are unrelated to the goods or services that they are seeking; even though, strictly speaking, I think freedom of association ought not to be violated lightly.

Homosexual mockeries of marriage create a different situation. If I were a baker, and someone walked into my shop wanting to buy a cake off the shelf, then it would be none of my business what race, religion, political alignment, or sexual practices that customer had. I have a product,and he has money that he wants to exchange for that product, and that's all that is relevant to that transaction.

But marriage is very sacred to me, and under no circumstances would I ever willingly agree to have any part in a sick homosexual mockery thereof. If someone wants a custom cake to celebrate this evil, then let him go to a pervert-friendly bakery, and leave me out of it.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Is there something more reliable than Pink News?

No. It is an unbiased source that always tells the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

 

[rightwinger]

People who publish articles like this should be forced to eat tripe.

The, "...most anti-LGBT bill to date."

Well...

It was not so long ago that homosexual sodomy was a FELONY in some states. And yet this insignificant, harmless law, reflecting the beliefs and sensitivities of at least 80% of the state's population, is seen as a threat.

The examples of harmful discrimination in the article are so absurd they don't even qualify as bad jokes.

In 1975 when I was applying to rent an apartment in Morgantown (WV), the landlord asked for proof that the woman I was living with was my wife. Had she not been my wife my application would have been rejected because, "there are kids living in that building." Who would have been subjected to witnessing blatant immorality.

And yet, I survived.

So are you saying this is a "good thing"?

Not so long ago, black people, planning trips, had to figure out a route that would include motels and restaurants that would serve them, and be prepared to sleep in the car just in case.

Gays is a behavior not a race.

Religion is a behavior also

Your religion is a choice of behavior

 

[Katzndogz]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

 

[Katzndogz]

People who publish articles like this should be forced to eat tripe.

The, "...most anti-LGBT bill to date."

Well...

It was not so long ago that homosexual sodomy was a FELONY in some states. And yet this insignificant, harmless law, reflecting the beliefs and sensitivities of at least 80% of the state's population, is seen as a threat.

The examples of harmful discrimination in the article are so absurd they don't even qualify as bad jokes.

In 1975 when I was applying to rent an apartment in Morgantown (WV), the landlord asked for proof that the woman I was living with was my wife. Had she not been my wife my application would have been rejected because, "there are kids living in that building." Who would have been subjected to witnessing blatant immorality.

And yet, I survived.

So are you saying this is a "good thing"?

Not so long ago, black people, planning trips, had to figure out a route that would include motels and restaurants that would serve them, and be prepared to sleep in the car just in case.

Gays is a behavior not a race.

Religion is a behavior also

Your religion is a choice of behavior

No one is going to a gay owned bakery asking for a cake that says in celebration of fag bashing.

 

[rightwinger]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

Catholics oppose divorced people being allowed to remarry. Why isn't Mississippi protecting their religious values?

 

[Coyote]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you can not treat gays as you would any other people. Isn't it Christians that always say "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Somehow, the "love" part has gone missing in this current onslaught of legislation legalizing open discrimmination of LGBT people.

 

[Katzndogz]

A gay couple goes into a Christian bakery. They want a wedding cake. Other than the cake what are they legally entitled to?

Are they legally entitled to courtesy?
Are they legally entitled to customer service?
Are they legally entitled to a transaction free of insults?
Are they legally entitled to be treated in a friendly manner?

Not a single court case has found an entitlement to any of the above.

 

[Katzndogz]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

Catholics oppose divorced people being allowed to remarry. Why isn't Mississippi protecting their religious values?

The prohibition against remarriage is a personal sin to the couple. It is not transferable. Attending and participating in a gay marriage is a personal sin to the person attending. It is not transferable. Although devout Catholic bakers should not have to participate in the marriage ceremony when one or both of the principals has been divorced. This law should protect them too.

 

[Coyote]

A gay couple goes into a Christian bakery. They want a wedding cake. Other than the cake what are they legally entitled to?

Are they legally entitled to courtesy?
Are they legally entitled to customer service?
Are they legally entitled to a transaction free of insults?
Are they legally entitled to be treated in a friendly manner?

Not a single court case has found an entitlement to any of the above.

The legislation isn't about that.

 

[Katzndogz]

A gay couple goes into a Christian bakery. They want a wedding cake. Other than the cake what are they legally entitled to?

Are they legally entitled to courtesy?
Are they legally entitled to customer service?
Are they legally entitled to a transaction free of insults?
Are they legally entitled to be treated in a friendly manner?

Not a single court case has found an entitlement to any of the above.

The legislation isn't about that.

Then they can only force a cake. With the profit from said cake donated to traditional marriage groups in the name of the happy couple. They can get on the donor list of a few.

 

[rightwinger]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

Catholics oppose divorced people being allowed to remarry. Why isn't Mississippi protecting their religious values?

The prohibition against remarriage is a personal sin to the couple. It is not transferable. Attending and participating in a gay marriage is a personal sin to the person attending. It is not transferable. Although devout Catholic bakers should not have to participate in the marriage ceremony when one or both of the principals has been divorced. This law should protect them too.

Catholics do not recognize a divorced person being able to remarry. That is a religious value for Catholics. Why can't a Catholic clerk deny a marriage license to a divorced person? Why can't a Catholic judge refuse to marry divorced people?

Why does the Mississippi law only apply to religious objection to gay marriage?

 

[Katzndogz]

Again it is a question of how limited Mississippi is in protecting religious freedoms. You can claim religious objection to gay weddings but you cannot claim religious objections to mixed race weddings, interfaith weddings, marriage of divorced people or a marriage of a pregnant woman

Hypocrisy

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that says you can not treat gays as you would any other people. Isn't it Christians that always say "hate the sin, love the sinner"? Somehow, the "love" part has gone missing in this current onslaught of legislation legalizing open discrimmination of LGBT people.

There is nothing in Christian Doctrine that says that Christians have to commit a sin to make gays comfortable either.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

What Tommy and PinkNews seem unable to fathom is that even people who don't celebrate everything LGBT have rights too. In essence, this bill protects the right to not jump for joy every time someone waves their genitals around in unique and nontraditional ways.

If discrimmination is a "right" then why does this bill limit the right to discrimminate to just LGBT people? Why not blacks? Jews? Women? Native Americans?

That's the job of liberals
They hate everyone
Bigot

 

[Katzndogz]

None of them are perversions. If it was the wedding of a man and his goat you would be closer.

This is about states protecting religious convictions. Why are only religious convictions against gays protected?

Which other religious convictions are under assault right now?

Catholics oppose divorced people being allowed to remarry. Why isn't Mississippi protecting their religious values?

The prohibition against remarriage is a personal sin to the couple. It is not transferable. Attending and participating in a gay marriage is a personal sin to the person attending. It is not transferable. Although devout Catholic bakers should not have to participate in the marriage ceremony when one or both of the principals has been divorced. This law should protect them too.

Catholics do not recognize a divorced person being able to remarry. That is a religious value for Catholics. Why can't a Catholic clerk deny a marriage license to a divorced person? Why can't a Catholic judge refuse to marry divorced people?

Why does the Mississippi law only apply to religious objection to gay marriage?

It doesn't. That's the only part that irritates you.