Mississippi governor signs ‘religious liberty’ bill into law

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,284
I guess the name "LGBT Oppression" was taken so yeah.. naturally religious freedom is the next best thing.

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant Tuesday signed into a law a controversial bill that allows businesses and public officials to decline services to gay couples based on religious beliefs.

Critics say the measure, one of the most far-reaching of such initiatives considered in nearly a dozen states, is discriminatory and likely to have economic consequences. Supporters say it's merely a way to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions.

Source: The Commerce Appeal
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snoopy4 and tgara

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
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.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
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.
There are laws the Left likes and there are laws the Left does not. It stands alone as truth without your deflective embellishments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snoopy4 and tgara

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
There are laws the Left likes and there are laws the Left does not. It stands alone as truth without your deflective embellishments.
I ask again: Your statement has what to do with refusing service to LBGT people exactly, outside of your attempt at deflection?

BL.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
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).
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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).

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.
 
Last edited:

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
I ask again: Your statement has what to do with refusing service to LBGT people exactly, outside of your attempt at deflection?

BL.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snoopy4 and tgara

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
Wait.. so not only does this violate the 1st, 14th, and possibly 18th 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.
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."
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
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.
[doublepost=1459900560][/doublepost]
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."
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadeTheSwitch

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgara

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
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.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Please. Gays can't vote?
Possibly.

The exact words of the 19th:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
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.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
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.
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. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snoopy4

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
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.
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.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
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.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
That is regardless of it. If they have completed their change to the gender they are, is it lying on any voter registration form?

BL.
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.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Please. No need to bring a "we" into it in order to bolster your silly arguments and name-calling.
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.

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!
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.
[doublepost=1459902811][/doublepost]
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.
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.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
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.
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.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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.
As they believe they are telling the truth, they are telling the truth; it isn't about what you perceive them to be.

BL.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
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.