Mississippi religious rights bill passed

[rightwinger]

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.

So if spiritually, I was raised in Mississippi to believe that a white person serving a negro is demeaning, I should be allowed to tell them to find someone else

 

[Anathema]

Plenty of people are willing to perform gay marriages.

Fine. Then this bill should be a non-issue. Let the homo lovers provide services for the homos and leave the Moral people alone.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

In most cases thus far, the gay couple has targeted known Christian vendors precisely to force them to their knees before the Rainbow Altar...

 

[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?

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

A truly idiotic argument. You can't help being born into a certain race, but you most certainly can choose whether or not to engage in homosexual conduct. And, of course, there are tens of thousands of former gays walking around who can attest to that fact, and many of them will tell you that when they were gay they used the "born that way" nonsense as an excuse but did not really believe it.

The Bible does not condemn interracial marriage (Moses married an Ethiopian woman), but it does condemn homosexuality in no uncertain terms.

 

[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

A truly idiotic argument. You can't help being born into a certain race, but you most certainly can choose whether or not to engage in homosexual conduct. And, of course, there are tens of thousands of former gays walking around who can attest to that fact, and many of them will tell you that when they were gay they used the "born that way" nonsense as an excuse but did not really believe it.

The Bible does not condemn interracial marriage (Moses married an Ethiopian woman), but it does condemn homosexuality in no uncertain terms.

Religion is a choice.......sexuality is not

 

[mdk]

Sorry folks. I wish I could process your divorce papers but it is against my deeply held religious beliefs.

 

[mdk]

I am sorry I can't register your will, sir. My deeply held religious beliefs prohibits women from owning property.

 

[mdk]

I am sorry I can't process your taxes. Gays claiming their children as dependents is against my deeply held beliefs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That bigotry, hate, and ignorance dominate a conservative state such as Mississippi comes as no surprise, it's just very sad and telling.

“People who oppose the bill said it would take rights away from gay people by not allowing them to go into a circuit clerk’s office to get a marriage license like any other individual.

Rep. Ed Blackmon, D-Canton, said the bill harks back to a day when the Mississippi Legislature was trying to ensure African Americans like himself did not have the same rights as white Mississippians.”

Correct.

'“This bill protects against government action against any individual who holds these beliefs,” against same sex marriage or against providing government services to gay people said Gipson.'

Nonsense.

This measure is unwarranted and hateful; claims that obeying an otherwise just and proper law because it conflicts with religious belief is not justification to ignore the law (see Employment Division v. Smith)

 

[rightwinger]

The Missisippi bill is a protection of hatred

 

[mdk]

Sorry I can't process your building permit. An unmarried couple living together is against my deeply held beliefs.

 

[mdk]

Sorry I can't process your liquor license, sir. Drinking is a vice and against my deeply held beliefs.

 

[rightwinger]

The bill is narrowly crafted as a "we hate fags" bill

It does not offer broad latitude in how you may apply your religious beliefs to your job duties......only religious beliefs as they pertain to gays

 

[hazlnut]

I am sorry I can't process your taxes. Gays claiming their children as dependents is against my deeply held beliefs.

Deeply held beliefs like blacks and whites should not marry?

Those kind of beliefs.

 

[mdk]

I am sorry I can't process your taxes. Gays claiming their children as dependents is against my deeply held beliefs.

Deeply held beliefs like blacks and whites should not marry?

Those kind of beliefs.

Pretty much.

 

[mdk]

Sorry I can't process your child's birth certificate. Unbaptized children are against my deeply held beliefs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

A truly idiotic argument. You can't help being born into a certain race, but you most certainly can choose whether or not to engage in homosexual conduct. And, of course, there are tens of thousands of former gays walking around who can attest to that fact, and many of them will tell you that when they were gay they used the "born that way" nonsense as an excuse but did not really believe it.

The Bible does not condemn interracial marriage (Moses married an Ethiopian woman), but it does condemn homosexuality in no uncertain terms.

No, this is truly idiotic, as well as ignorant and wrong.

Americans enjoy the protected liberty of choice with regard to making personal, private decisions about how to live one's life, whether to have children or not, or whom to marry, absent unwarranted interference from the state:

“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Moreover, requiring state officials to conduct state business in accordance with the law in no way 'violates' the religious liberty of that state official who considers the business of the state to be in conflict with his religious beliefs:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

As with the Mississippi measure, your argument fails, it is completely devoid of merit or fact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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 interracial 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.


********************************************

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 interfaith 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.

>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

When Muslims in America can get a settlement for being forced to drive a beer truck (which I have no problem with by the way) based on religious freedom but Christians are being punished for not participating in a gay wedding the issue is real.

 

[tinydancer]

Should a Muslim bakery be forced to participate in a LGBT wedding by baking the wedding cake? I don't think they should.