Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

[WinterBorn]

Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

It claims that the law could see a woman fired from her job for wearing trousers, a counsellor on a suicide line refuse to speak to an LGBT teenager or even an adoption agency refuse to place a child with a family because the parents lived together before they were married.

This is lunacy on a majestic scale.Is the South so far behind the civilised world ?

This insanity is ridiculous. That Mississippi leads the way with the worst law is not a surprise.

This is an attempt to create a state theocracy.

You misspelled common decency.

Allowing women to be fired for wearing pants is "common decency"?
The state passing a bill stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations should be reserved to such a marriage is "common decency" from the gov't? (btw, that means the state is advocating abstinence for all except married couples)

 

[WinterBorn]

So don't go to Mississippi. See that was easy, no?

Great idea! Why didn't they think of that during the Civil Right Movement.

No. If any of our citizens are being discriminated against, we all should be involved.

 

[martybegan]

Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

It claims that the law could see a woman fired from her job for wearing trousers, a counsellor on a suicide line refuse to speak to an LGBT teenager or even an adoption agency refuse to place a child with a family because the parents lived together before they were married.

This is lunacy on a majestic scale.Is the South so far behind the civilised world ?

This insanity is ridiculous. That Mississippi leads the way with the worst law is not a surprise.

This is an attempt to create a state theocracy.

You misspelled common decency.

Allowing women to be fired for wearing pants is "common decency"?
The state passing a bill stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations should be reserved to such a marriage is "common decency" from the gov't? (btw, that means the state is advocating abstinence for all except married couples)

When one side decides to go "all in" when it comes to punishing wrongthink, overreaction from the other side is inevitable. Just as forcing a baker to bake a cake when no harm is done to the other party is crazy, you get this level of crazy as a counterpoint, similar to the Georgia bill (which went too far IMHO).

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

This bill goes way beyond that. Advocating that sex is only proper between a man and a woman who are married is not only discriminatory, it is the state getting involved where they have no business being.

 

[Katzndogz]

Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

It claims that the law could see a woman fired from her job for wearing trousers, a counsellor on a suicide line refuse to speak to an LGBT teenager or even an adoption agency refuse to place a child with a family because the parents lived together before they were married.

This is lunacy on a majestic scale.Is the South so far behind the civilised world ?

This insanity is ridiculous. That Mississippi leads the way with the worst law is not a surprise.

This is an attempt to create a state theocracy.

You misspelled common decency.

Allowing women to be fired for wearing pants is "common decency"?
The state passing a bill stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations should be reserved to such a marriage is "common decency" from the gov't? (btw, that means the state is advocating abstinence for all except married couples)

This is the interpretation of Pink News. Is there anything more reliable?

 

[rightwinger]

So don't go to Mississippi. See that was easy, no?

What Mississippi doesn't realize is that they still belong to the United States and must comply with the Constitution

 

[saveliberty]

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.

This bill goes way beyond that. Advocating that sex is only proper between a man and a woman who are married is not only discriminatory, it is the state getting involved where they have no business being.

How big is your bedroom? Most likely it does not include public places.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Mississippi pass most anti-LGBT bill to date

It claims that the law could see a woman fired from her job for wearing trousers, a counsellor on a suicide line refuse to speak to an LGBT teenager or even an adoption agency refuse to place a child with a family because the parents lived together before they were married.

This is lunacy on a majestic scale.Is the South so far behind the civilised world ?

This insanity is ridiculous. That Mississippi leads the way with the worst law is not a surprise.

This is an attempt to create a state theocracy.

You misspelled common decency.

Allowing women to be fired for wearing pants is "common decency"?
The state passing a bill stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations should be reserved to such a marriage is "common decency" from the gov't? (btw, that means the state is advocating abstinence for all except married couples)

This is the interpretation of Pink News. Is there anything more reliable?

Compost posted a link earlier on this thread. It is pretty much the same stuff.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

This bill goes way beyond that. Advocating that sex is only proper between a man and a woman who are married is not only discriminatory, it is the state getting involved where they have no business being.

How big is your bedroom? Most likely it does not include public places.

Does the bill discuss it being about public places?

This will bring back the ability to persecute and prosecute gays. The anti-sodomy laws were used almost exclusively against gays, while straights were apparently welcome to enjoy oral or anal sex.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Just reflect on this bill for a minute. It provides for a religious veto on pretty much every aspect of life. It cant be constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

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.

This bill goes way beyond that. Advocating that sex is only proper between a man and a woman who are married is not only discriminatory, it is the state getting involved where they have no business being.

Action and reaction. I am not surprised that this happened, nor am I shocked that the first State to really go nutters was Mississippi.

 

[Compost]

Is there something more reliable than Pink News?

Mississippi Senate passes “Protecting Freedom of Conscience” bill

That article pretty much validates the Pink News story. Thanks.

If you see a balanced straight up report on the bill as validation for your prejudice against non LBGT people, sure.

 

[WinterBorn]

This can easily bring back something t hat I had personal experience with.

In the 80s, there was a decision to add AIDS education to the Alabama public school curriculum. I applaud that. There was nothing pro or con about homosexuality. But, apparently, the powers that be foresaw a specific question being asked. A female student at the high school in Tuscaloosa asked "I heard you can't get AIDS from oral sex. Is that true"? The only answer the teacher was allowed to give when asked any question about oral sex was "Oral sex is illegal in the state of Alabama". So this naive young woman walked out thinking she was "safe" from HIV is she only performed oral sex.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So don't go to Mississippi. See that was easy, no?

What Mississippi doesn't realize is that they still belong to the United States and must comply with the Constitution

The Constitution calls for freedom of religion also...

 

[WinterBorn]

So don't go to Mississippi. See that was easy, no?

What Mississippi doesn't realize is that they still belong to the United States and must comply with the Constitution

The Constitution calls for freedom of religion also...

Indeed it does. But nothing has restricted anyone's ability to worship as they choose. This bill forces the entire state to live under Judeo-Christian ideals. That is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Compost]

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.

This bill goes way beyond that. Advocating that sex is only proper between a man and a woman who are married is not only discriminatory, it is the state getting involved where they have no business being.

No. The bill seeks to not punish those who don't agree that anything goes in terms of who can marry who. If bakers hadn't been punished for not wanting to bake cakes for same sex weddings and preachers not been called out for daring to quote scripture, this bill would not have been necessary.

 

[rightwinger]

The bill which was passed by the House last month, was voted through the Senate, 31-17, and will be known as the ‘Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act’.

Unlike bills passed in other states, the Mississippi only protects people with anti-LGBT religious views.

It states that it’s acceptable to discriminate someone who identifies as LGBT, if the view is held that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, sex should only happen in marriage and male and female refer only to someone’s anatomy.

Just another "We hate fags" bill

It does nothing to protect freedom of conscience for other religious beliefs, only freedom of conscience to hate fags

 

[Katzndogz]

This can easily bring back something t hat I had personal experience with.

In the 80s, there was a decision to add AIDS education to the Alabama public school curriculum. I applaud that. There was nothing pro or con about homosexuality. But, apparently, the powers that be foresaw a specific question being asked. A female student at the high school in Tuscaloosa asked "I heard you can't get AIDS from oral sex. Is that true"? The only answer the teacher was allowed to give when asked any question about oral sex was "Oral sex is illegal in the state of Alabama". So this naive young woman walked out thinking she was "safe" from HIV is she only performed oral sex.

It looks more like adding AIds education to the public school curriculum was a really bad idea.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just reflect on this bill for a minute. It provides for a religious veto on pretty much every aspect of life. It cant be constitutional.

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. Religious freedom is explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, and along with it, freedom of conscience is certainly very strongly implied.

Those of you in the pervert-rights movement, trying to force your sickness on those of us who want no part of it, have no genuine backing in the Constitution.

As is always the case, those of you on the left wrong choose to interpret the Constitution to mean what it clearly does not say, but which you want it to mean, over what is explicitly and clearly written therein.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Is there something more reliable than Pink News?

Mississippi Senate passes “Protecting Freedom of Conscience” bill

That article pretty much validates the Pink News story. Thanks.

If you see a balanced straight up report on the bill as validation for your prejudice against non LBGT people, sure.

If you think about it for a minute you could probably come up with all manner of oppressive stuff that could be inflicted on folk. In the name of religion natch.