Mississippi religious rights bill passed

[bodecea]

Looks like they dusted off some old Jim Crow legislation

They never learn do they?

The leftards really truly do hate the constitution don't they....lets just do away with the first amendment! That will make them happy! No more free speech or freedom of religion!

Are you only person in America who doesn't know that religious freedom doesn't protect the right of ritual human sacrifice?

That has what to do with this?

Looks like they dusted off some old Jim Crow legislation

They never learn do they?

The leftards really truly do hate the constitution don't they....lets just do away with the first amendment! That will make them happy! No more free speech or freedom of religion!

We love the Constitution

Ever read the 14th amendment?

Ever read the first? Its clear. The 14th amendment is as well and you have bastardized it to fit YOUR definition of what you want.Its just another reason why we need to get rid of it and install a system of 1 leader who makes the laws.

What about the Mississippi clerks who do not like to marry mixed race couples.......should they be accommodated too?

Yes

So it's OK to disregard the Constitution?

Its OK to disregard the bastardized reading of the Constitution by thugs in robes called the SC.

In your version of the Constitution, to whom is the responsibility for interpreting it delegated?

1 ultimate leader. This is the reason democracy doesn't work.

You are free to worship as you please
When your religious views contradict our laws....you lose

Laws made AFTER the constitution aka they go against what our constitution says therefore the constitution overrules the illegal and unconstitutional "law" since the constitution is THE law of the land now law made after it.

Did you know (of course you wouldn't) that PA laws have already been challenged for their constitutionality? Guess what.

So, the only option is to re-present the case with more evidence that they are unConstitutional....OR...get your state legislature to repeal those laws. Have at it.

 

[Silhouette]

Did you know (of course you wouldn't) that PA laws have already been challenged for their constitutionality? Guess what.

So, the only option is to re-present the case with more evidence that they are unConstitutional....OR...get your state legislature to repeal those laws. Have at it.

You mean like using USSC New York vs Ferber?

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf

Guess what depriving a child of either a mother or father FOR LIFE as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage) does? It HURTS CHILDREN...

 

[rightwinger]

Did you know (of course you wouldn't) that PA laws have already been challenged for their constitutionality? Guess what.

So, the only option is to re-present the case with more evidence that they are unConstitutional....OR...get your state legislature to repeal those laws. Have at it.

You mean like using USSC New York vs Ferber?

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf

Guess what depriving a child of either a mother or father FOR LIFE as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage) does? It HURTS CHILDREN...

Rinse/Repeat

 

[Anathema]

Wow! What a big win! Gay marriage is still legal.

If they can find soneone to perform it. This sort of legislation seems to protect pretty much everyone who isn't a Government employee.

 

[hazlnut]

Mississippi bill: OK to not help with same-sex marriage - Daily Journal

All knew this would happen. SC oversteps its boundaries and states pass laws protecting their workers from the nut case homosexual mafia.

So it's OK to disregard the Constitution?

Its OK to disregard the bastardized reading of the Constitution by thugs in robes called the SC.

STFU - you couldn't find the Supreme Court on a map of D.C.

You couldn't even begin the most basic concepts of constitutional law.

You are a child.

A moron.

A bigot and homophobe and should be flushed into the sewer with the rest of the shit.

 

[mdk]

Wow! What a big win! Gay marriage is still legal.

If they can find soneone to perform it. This sort of legislation seems to protect pretty much everyone who isn't a Government employee.

Plenty of people are willing to perform gay marriages.

 

[mdk]

Did you know (of course you wouldn't) that PA laws have already been challenged for their constitutionality? Guess what.

So, the only option is to re-present the case with more evidence that they are unConstitutional....OR...get your state legislature to repeal those laws. Have at it.

You mean like using USSC New York vs Ferber?

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756–57 (1982)
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor” is “compelling.” . . . Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected right https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v61/02-Preston_Final.pdf

Guess what depriving a child of either a mother or father FOR LIFE as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage) does? It HURTS CHILDREN...

Gays can marry in every state and can adopt in all but one. That law is presently being challenged. Nobody is buying the bullshit you peddle. Knowing that you can't do jack shit about it fills me with great joy.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mississippi bill: OK to not help with same-sex marriage - Daily Journal

All knew this would happen. SC oversteps its boundaries and states pass laws protecting their workers from the nut case homosexual mafia.

So it's OK to disregard the Constitution?

The Constitution does not say that anyone has a right to force someone else to support a ceremony that they find offensive. In America, the government is not supposed to be able to force you to support a ceremony against your will, nor punish you for declining to do so.

Tell me, does a Baptist minister have the "right" to force a gay-owned print shop to print handbills about the health risks of homosexuality? How about the "right" to force a gay photographer to photograph a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and the immoral nature of homosexuality according to the Bible? Hey?

 

[hazlnut]

Desperation by the bigots. Rather comical in a way.

Yeah the bigots are the ones that can't allow someone to have a religious objection to performing a faggot "marriage" and sue them instead..that makes the faggots the bigots course I HIGHLY doubt you know what the definition of a bigot is because its exactly what the fags are. Intolerant of christians beliefs.

Mississippi is more of a penal or leper colony than a state.

 

[Silhouette]

What about Kentucky's new separate marriage license for gays? What do you have to say about that purple state?

 

[Silhouette]

The Constitution does not say that anyone has a right to force someone else to support a ceremony that they find offensive. In America, the government is not supposed to be able to force you to support a ceremony against your will, nor punish you for declining to do so.

Tell me, does a Baptist minister have the "right" to force a gay-owned print shop to print handbills about the health risks of homosexuality? How about the "right" to force a gay photographer to photograph a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and the immoral nature of homosexuality according to the Bible? Hey?

The Constitution also does not force you to aid and abet child abuse. Depriving a child for life of either a mother or father per contract (gay marriage) harms them. And, therefore, is child abuse.

Good points about the gay printshop BTW mike. I used an example awhile back about "do Christians have the right to force a gay billboard printer to print "Homosexuality is the leading cause of spreading HIV in the US".

Oh, the uproar from the LGBT cult! And yet that statement is absolutely 100% factually true.

 

[mdk]

What about Kentucky's new separate marriage license for gays? What do you have to say about that purple state?

Incorrect. Both lincenses will work for gay and straight people. Other than a waste of paper, nothing has really changed.

 

[mdk]

The Constitution does not say that anyone has a right to force someone else to support a ceremony that they find offensive. In America, the government is not supposed to be able to force you to support a ceremony against your will, nor punish you for declining to do so.

Tell me, does a Baptist minister have the "right" to force a gay-owned print shop to print handbills about the health risks of homosexuality? How about the "right" to force a gay photographer to photograph a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and the immoral nature of homosexuality according to the Bible? Hey?

The Constitution also does not force you to aid and abet child abuse. Depriving a child for life of either a mother or father per contract (gay marriage) harms them. And, therefore, is child abuse.

Good thing our laws are not based on your mental illness. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Silhouette]

What about Kentucky's new separate marriage license for gays? What do you have to say about that purple state?

Incorrect. Both lincenses will work for gay and straight people. Other than a waste of paper, nothing has really changed.

Except when they try to adopt from Christian adoption agencies... See post #91 for the explanation..

 

[mikegriffith1]

If gays have the "right" to force a religious vendor to service a gay wedding, then conservative Christians have the "right" to force gay-owned photographers to photograph seminars on the dangers of homosexuality, to force florists and bakers to service seminars on how to leave the homosexual lifestyle (and, by the way, tens of thousands of gays have done just that).

 

[mdk]

What about Kentucky's new separate marriage license for gays? What do you have to say about that purple state?

Incorrect. Both lincenses will work for gay and straight people. Other than a waste of paper, nothing has really changed.

Except when they try to adopt from Christian adoption agencies... See post #91 for the explanation..

A private adoption can do pretty much whatever the hell they want. I wish you spent this much worrying about your own family instead of gay families, Mrs Kravitz

 

[rightwinger]

Mississippi bill: OK to not help with same-sex marriage - Daily Journal

All knew this would happen. SC oversteps its boundaries and states pass laws protecting their workers from the nut case homosexual mafia.

So it's OK to disregard the Constitution?

The Constitution does not say that anyone has a right to force someone else to support a ceremony that they find offensive. In America, the government is not supposed to be able to force you to support a ceremony against your will, nor punish you for declining to do so.

Tell me, does a Baptist minister have the "right" to force a gay-owned print shop to print handbills about the health risks of homosexuality? How about the "right" to force a gay photographer to photograph a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and the immoral nature of homosexuality according to the Bible? Hey?

So anyone who opposes a mixed race marriage because it is "offensive" is not obligated to perform it

 

[rightwinger]

What about Kentucky's new separate marriage license for gays? What do you have to say about that purple state?

We reserve the right not to serve negroes

What do you say about that?

 

[mdk]

I am terribly sorry Madame, I can't process your drvier's license b/c my deeply held belief is that women should not drive. Try the next county.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I have one simple question: Why would any considerate, decent person want to force someone to do something that they knew that person would find spiritually offensive, especially when they could easily and quickly just go use a different vendor?

In every single case thus far, the gay rights nazis could have easily and quickly just found another vendor. This has nothing to do with "rights." The Constitution does not give one group of people who live a certain lifestyle the right to force another group of people who reject that lifestyle to service their ceremonies.