Mississippi governor signs ‘religious liberty’ bill into law

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericgtr12, Apr 5, 2016.

  1. ericgtr12 macrumors 6502a

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #1
    I guess the name "LGBT Oppression" was taken so yeah.. naturally religious freedom is the next best thing.

     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    perhaps they should re-examine those "sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions." but that's just me.
     
  3. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #3
    They need to compromise. I mean the onerous fines and jail for refusing service. The Left will ignore laws they don't like (creating sanctuary cities and turning a blind eye to illegal immigration), but will exact swift and unusually hard retribution for those laws that they do.
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    And sanctuary cities and illegal immigration have what to do exactly with discrimination of the type this bill has, as well as its blatant violations of the Civil Rights Acts? I mean, outside of your hilarious attempt at deflection..?

    BL.
     
  5. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #6
    There are laws the Left likes and there are laws the Left does not. It stands alone as truth without your deflective embellishments.
     
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    I ask again: Your statement has what to do with refusing service to LBGT people exactly, outside of your attempt at deflection?

    BL.
     
  7. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #8
    This act is beyond pathetic. I encourage you read the actual text. The Act protects not a broad range of beliefs, but 3 very specific ones on religious grounds, namely that:
    • Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
    • Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a 21 marriage; and
    • Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
    It protects adoption centres; foster parents; surgeons and chemists involved in the treatment of gender dysphoria; not only bakeries and florists, etc., but also anybody providing services that "celebrate" or "recognise" a same-sex wedding; anybody who has sex-specific dress and groom codes for students because of a religious belief; and judges who can solemnize marriages.

    It makes no mention of what constitutes an "impediment" or a "delay", as a result of any of the above objecting, to people attempting to exercise their rights to obtain a marriage licence.

    It also defines a "person" as a natural person; a religious organisation; a sole proprietorship; or a cooperative.

    More pathetic attempts by Republican governors to elevate the status of religious beliefs for no rational reason. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: any specific belief that requires government protection is not one of any substance. It appears First Amendment protections for religious persons are not enough; they want the government to protect some of their beliefs more than others (and at the expense of other persons).
     
  8. bradl, Apr 5, 2016
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2016

    bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9

    Wait.. so not only does this violate the 1st, 14th, and possibly 19th Amendments, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rulings of Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, but it also takes a Citizens United tack and establishes that "religions are people, too"?

    The derp in Mississippi must really hurt. This is going to get beat down flatter than an elephant sitting on larva.

    BL.
     
  9. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #10
    So you're putting words in my mouth as well as deflecting? Good lead, counsel.

    In time, where will be push back to the point where refusing service comes at a fine akin to a traffic ticket. What's presently going on with fines is completely out of control. Typical tyrannical Leftism for those laws that it likes.
     
  10. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    Don't worry, the Act covers the State's behind in that respect, by saying that no parts of it shall deprive anybody of their constitutional rights under state and federal law (but still doesn't define what a "delay" means when somebody attempts to exercise their rights in the face of objection from another person or corporation).

    Translation: "We're doing everything we can to condone discrimination in a way that does not fall foul to federal law and we're doing it in the name of protecting people from discrimination."
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    You brought up Sanctuary cities and illegal immigration. I am simply asking you what those have to do with the bounds of this bill that was signed into law. You keep looking for some excuse, no matter how feeble to attack the political Left, when this law affects everyone in Mississippi.

    Again, your poor attempt at deflection just regarding the thread topic is noted, and I also note that you have yet to answer the question.

    BL.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 5, 2016 ---
    Interesting. So if two guys there for a business convention of some sort decide to save money by sharing a room instead of getting separate rooms, and the hotel refuses their reservation because the clerk "believes" they are gay, there is no recourse of action, because according to them, their constitutional rights aren't violated?

    This law is basically doing the exact opposite of what it is saying: it is establishing the right to discriminate, without having to give any reason as to why someone is discriminated against; again, with no recourse of action.

    BL.
     
  12. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    I learned that you go 'round and 'round in circles, so I'll just remain with my solid contention of laws that the Left likes and those laws that the Left does not. Real simple. No need for all that mumbo-jumbo in the attempt to detract from a simple fact that I've observed.
     
  13. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    In short, you can't even argue your own position after you've spouted off some asinine comment about something that doesn't even deal with the topic at hand.

    Something we've all noted of you.

    BL.
     
  14. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    The hypocrisy stuns.
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #16
    Please. Gays can't vote? Are they being lynched?

    Tell BLM that gays are suffering as much as blacks in 1920s Georgia. I'd love to hear their reply.
     
  16. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    Possibly.

    The exact words of the 19th:

    The 19th effectively protects transgenders from being refused to register to vote; this bill would give the polls and registrars the right to refuse service based on that applicants gender.

    BL.
     
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #18
    Please. No need to bring a "we" into it in order to bolster your silly arguments and name-calling.

    In the law that you like, do you approve of fining people over $130,000.00 for refusing service to bake a cake, and have it include mandatory muzzling about the ruling, while also taking part in a reeducation class? I'll take that as a No ... Not going far enough!

    And take that, Renzatic. ;)
     
  18. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #19
    Lying on voter registration forms is a felony. If they lie about their sex, they're felons and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
     
  19. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #20
    That is regardless of it. If they have completed their change to the gender they are, is it lying on any voter registration form? And in addition, since the registrar is the one refusing service, they would be violating the applicant's voting rights, granted to them by the 14th and 19th.

    BL.
     
  20. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    Yes. If they possess XY chromosomes and they mark "Female" on their registration form they are committing a felony. Same applies to females lying about their sex. Throw the book at 'em.
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    You still can't answer the question. What does "sanctuary cities" and "illegal immigration" have to do with refusing to serve anyone based on a person's sexual orientation and preference, which is the topic of this thread? You avoid the question more than a drone avoids a fencer.

    Source for the bold, please. Provide that, and I will get back to you.. with an answer, which is something you obviously can not nor seem to possess the ability to reciprocate.

    BL.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 5, 2016 ---
    Having your ID card that doesn't match your gender identity does not impact or affect your right to vote, in any state. That part is guaranteed under the 19th and like the 2nd, shall not be denied or abridged by the USA or any State.

    BL.
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23
    I don't care what ID card they carry so long as they tell the truth on their voting registration cards. During the census, too.
     
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    As they believe they are telling the truth, they are telling the truth; it isn't about what you perceive them to be.

    BL.
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    I'm old enough to remember conservatives pointing to any company leaving California (or deciding against California) as ironclad proof that liberal states were hostile to business, and this was considered to be a Serious Sin.

    Now? Eh, who needs those businesses anyway. Good riddance. Do things our way if you come here.

    The irony is just too delicious.
     

Share This Page