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.
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 theleftwrong 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.
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.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.
It looks more like adding AIds education to the public school curriculum was a really bad idea.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.
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.
How does that trump the right of an individual to lawfully go about his or her business under the created equal thing ?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 theleftwrong 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.
Where do you get that? The bill protects people's right to believe heterosexual marriage is the only marriage there is and not be punished for that belief.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.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.
And a state gov't calling all sex outside a heterosexual marriage "improper" is not even close to what a state should be doing.
How does that trump the right of an individual to lawfully go about his or her business under the created equal thing ?
If Mississippi wants to protect religious freedom as it relates to marriage, then protect my right as a Catholic to object to someone who is divorced and refuse to allow a divorced person to remarry
The left worries about a hairy freakazoid being unable to use the ladies rest room . They would traumatize young girls by forcing them to share a shower and a locker room with a mentally confused boy and they call us loonies.
Where do you get that? The bill protects people's right to believe heterosexual marriage is the only marriage there is and not be punished for that belief.
So don't go to Mississippi. See that was easy, no?
The left worries about a hairy freakazoid being unable to use the ladies rest room . They would traumatize young girls by forcing them to share a shower and a locker room with a mentally confused boy and they call us loonies.
The ideology that is now identified in this country by the name “liberal” has truly devolved into madness and evil.
If Mississippi wants to protect religious freedom as it relates to marriage, then protect my right as a Catholic to object to someone who is divorced and refuse to allow a divorced person to remarry
If you are in a business that caters to weddings, I will fully support your right not to cater to a wedding in which one or both participants were previously married and divorced. Your right to determine what you will or will not have part in, based on your own sincerely-held moral and religious beliefs, is greater than any right that anyone else has to compel you to participate in something that violates your moral or religious beliefs.
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 ?
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.
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”?
I haven't read the bill but if it's like what I think you missed the mark. Homosexuals are killed in places that aren't Christian at all. Atheist, Communist, Muslim, etc. It should not be a crime to refuse service due to what you believe is a perversion, religious or not. You are superimposing your sense of morality onto everyone else. That's the Constitutional violation right there.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.
