Mississippi Discrimination Law Signed by Governor

  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -
#2 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7742 posts) -

Yea, social conservatism is a pretty big joke.

#3 Posted by lostrib (34518 posts) -

what does the bill do?

#4 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@lostrib said:

what does the bill do?

Allows businesses to refuse service for "religious reasons." So if they think God says not to like gays, a business owner can refuse to serve gays--which is exactly why the bill exists.

#5 Posted by lostrib (34518 posts) -

@lostrib said:

what does the bill do?

Allows businesses to refuse service for "religious reasons." So if God says not to like gays, a business owner can refuse to serve gays--which is exactly why the bill exists.

I'm pretty sure the KKK subscribes to some form of religious belief...

let's see how that works out

#6 Posted by Aljosa23 (24747 posts) -

So sad but not unexpected from the inbreed hick politicians they have in that degenerate state. Didn't they just recently ratify the 13th amendment, too?

#7 Edited by foxhound_fox (87690 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

So sad but not unexpected from the inbreed hick politicians they have in that degenerate state. Didn't they just recently ratify the 13th amendment, too?

What's even more sad is that not everyone from these states is a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, and these nutjobs are dragging the entire state down with them.

#8 Edited by VERTIGO47 (6248 posts) -
@Aljosa23 said:

So sad but not unexpected from the inbreed hick politicians they have in that degenerate state. Didn't they just recently ratify the 13th amendment, too?

I wouldn't go far as calling them "inbreed hicks".

Almost all Southern States oppose marriages between 1st cousins. As oppose to most Northern States which have laws legalizing 1st cousin marriages, especially here in NYC. Ironic, really, when you hear about Southern stereotypes.

Just saying.

But going back topic, yeah those laws are backwards thinking and stupid.

#9 Posted by Flubbbs (2969 posts) -

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

#10 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

Agreed.

#11 Posted by lostrib (34518 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

Agreed.

seriously?

#12 Edited by HailtotheQueen (254 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

http://www.wlox.com/story/25156994/mississippi-religious-freedom-restoration-act-signed-into-law

But don't worry; when this is ruled unconstitutional in the next five minutes, I'm sure Republicans will be quick to propose a religious freedom bill permitting separate water fountains.

The first time a Muslim or Atheist business owner refuses to serve Christians they will be screaming about persecution. lol

Its Mississippi, do we really expect any thing more from the state with one of the worst education systems in the country and one of the highest amounts of religious fundamentalism?

#13 Edited by ad1x2 (5508 posts) -

While I understand why you would be against this law, personally I don't have a problem with it. Think of it this way: this law allows people to openly state their opposition to certain people using their establishments. If you knew who didn't want to serve you due to your lifestyle wouldn't you avoid them even if legally you have a right to be served there?

For example, while I don't personally know anybody who is actively protesting Chick Fil A, I have read of people both straight and homosexual who refuse to eat there due to the executive who has a problem with gay marriage. It would be like some restaurant owner telling me he hates black people but will serve me because the law says he has to. Knowing that he is a racist, I won't give him my money anyway.

Now, if the law allowed doctors to withhold life-saving medical care from homosexuals due to religious beliefs like segregation laws allowed hospitals to refuse treatment to non whites in the past that is a different story.

#14 Posted by gamerguru100 (10502 posts) -

Why does this crap still exist in the South? They're like the Middle East of the US (meaning they're several years behind in the human rights department).

#15 Edited by Braun_Roid_Rage (719 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

#16 Posted by lostrib (34518 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

so not that

#17 Posted by Braun_Roid_Rage (719 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

so not that

"unless"

#18 Posted by lostrib (34518 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

so not that

"unless"

in other words, not that

#19 Posted by Braun_Roid_Rage (719 posts) -

@lostrib: Forgot what state we're talking about, so yeah lol.

#20 Posted by lamprey263 (23173 posts) -

well, abhorrent for sure, but maybe there's a silver lining that this will go up the court chain to SCOTUS, and fingers cross they'd rule on the side of human decency

#21 Posted by whiskeystrike (12068 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

But according to the article you can. It just simply has to be a religious belief.

#22 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Considering that religious belief incorporates a lot of religions, plus religions can simply be created, it's entirely possible for minorities to be discriminated against under this law.

This was meant almost entirely for Christians to use the Bible, and would not consider other religions, but you can damn well believe that anyone would use this law to their advantage.

#23 Posted by airshocker (29041 posts) -

If you're a business owner in Mississippi this is pretty damn good for you. Once one of your competitors refuses to serve someone you can say you don't discriminate and bam, you get extra business.

#24 Posted by HailtotheQueen (254 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Ah so its okay to discriminate against groups that you approve of personally. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

#25 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6954 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

http://www.wlox.com/story/25156994/mississippi-religious-freedom-restoration-act-signed-into-law

But don't worry; when this is ruled unconstitutional in the next five minutes, I'm sure Republicans will be quick to propose a religious freedom bill permitting separate water fountains.

The first time a Muslim or Atheist business owner refuses to serve Christians they will be screaming about persecution. lol

Its Mississippi, do we really expect any thing more from the state with one of the worst education systems in the country and one of the highest amounts of religious fundamentalism?

I would like to see this happen, if the law got passed.

#26 Edited by Solaryellow (463 posts) -

While it may be morally and ethically wrong to deny any service to someone based on race, sex, etc.., what business it is of the government to tell people whom they have to offer a service? The federal government of the United States is by far one of the most unethical, immoral and hypocritical entities ever to exist on this planet.

#27 Edited by collegeboy64 (1671 posts) -

This is OUTRAGEOUS !!!!

Don't these backward hicks know that Gay rights trump ALL other rights !?!?!?!

You have no right of freedom of association if it interferes with Gay rights.

You have no right to your religious freedom if it interferes with Gay rights.

I mean, if a Jewish shop owner wants to refuse to serve a neo-Nazi dressed up in his Hitler costume, the Jew better be sure the Nazi is not gay.

#28 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -

This is OUTRAGEOUS !!!!

Don't these backward hicks know that Gay rights trump ALL other rights !?!?!?!

You have no right of freedom of association if it interferes with Gay rights.

You have no right to your religious freedom if it interferes with Gay rights.

I mean, if a Jewish shop owner wants to refuse to serve a neo-Nazi dressed up in his Hitler costume, the Jew better be sure the Nazi is not gay.

Your tears are delicious.

#29 Posted by collegeboy64 (1671 posts) -

@collegeboy64 said:

This is OUTRAGEOUS !!!!

Don't these backward hicks know that Gay rights trump ALL other rights !?!?!?!

You have no right of freedom of association if it interferes with Gay rights.

You have no right to your religious freedom if it interferes with Gay rights.

I mean, if a Jewish shop owner wants to refuse to serve a neo-Nazi dressed up in his Hitler costume, the Jew better be sure the Nazi is not gay.

Your tears are delicious.

Are you coming on to me ?!?!

#30 Edited by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -

@chessmaster1989 said:
@collegeboy64 said:

This is OUTRAGEOUS !!!!

Don't these backward hicks know that Gay rights trump ALL other rights !?!?!?!

You have no right of freedom of association if it interferes with Gay rights.

You have no right to your religious freedom if it interferes with Gay rights.

I mean, if a Jewish shop owner wants to refuse to serve a neo-Nazi dressed up in his Hitler costume, the Jew better be sure the Nazi is not gay.

Your tears are delicious.

Are you coming on to me ?!?!

If you want my body and you think I'm sexy come on sugar let me know

#31 Posted by lostrib (34518 posts) -

This is OUTRAGEOUS !!!!

Don't these backward hicks know that Gay rights trump ALL other rights !?!?!?!

You have no right of freedom of association if it interferes with Gay rights.

You have no right to your religious freedom if it interferes with Gay rights.

I mean, if a Jewish shop owner wants to refuse to serve a neo-Nazi dressed up in his Hitler costume, the Jew better be sure the Nazi is not gay.

Going a bit overboard there

#32 Edited by collegeboy64 (1671 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@collegeboy64 said:

This is OUTRAGEOUS !!!!

Don't these backward hicks know that Gay rights trump ALL other rights !?!?!?!

You have no right of freedom of association if it interferes with Gay rights.

You have no right to your religious freedom if it interferes with Gay rights.

I mean, if a Jewish shop owner wants to refuse to serve a neo-Nazi dressed up in his Hitler costume, the Jew better be sure the Nazi is not gay.

Going a bit overboard there

I have no tolerance for half-steppers like you.

Extremism in defense of Gay Rights is no vice.

#33 Edited by Sword-Demon (6964 posts) -

Honestly, I don't have an issue with this.

Let businesses deny service to whomever they want, and then a good number of people will boycott those places and bring their money to businesses that don't discriminate.

If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, let them.

#34 Edited by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

^^Agreed, it's their business so they should be able to run it in any way they see fit. With that said, perception means a lot in the eye of the general public so by denying service to a certain group of customers based on their beliefs or whatever could cast a dark cloud over that company and push potential customers elsewhere...

#35 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

^^Agreed, it's their business so they should be able to run it in any way they see fit. With that said, perception means a lot in the eye of the general public so by denying service to a certain group of customers based on their beliefs or whatever could cast a dark cloud over that company and push potential customers elsewhere...

As well as bring more customers in that agree with the shop owner. Just look what happened with Chick-Fil-A. Gays tried to protest and in turn, Chick-Fil-A had huge lines of supporters coming to show their support and Chick-Fil-A made a lot of money from it.

#36 Posted by slateman_basic (3940 posts) -

@LittleMac19 said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

^^Agreed, it's their business so they should be able to run it in any way they see fit. With that said, perception means a lot in the eye of the general public so by denying service to a certain group of customers based on their beliefs or whatever could cast a dark cloud over that company and push potential customers elsewhere...

As well as bring more customers in that agree with the shop owner. Just look what happened with Chick-Fil-A. Gays tried to protest and in turn, Chick-Fil-A had huge lines of supporters coming to show their support and Chick-Fil-A made a lot of money from it.

Because everyone thought it was a crap protest. What the founders and owners of the company do with their money is no one's business. CFA's are independently owned franchises. So, in fact, by protesting, they were likely protesting someone who supported their lifestyle and even donated money to equal rights causes.

What they failed to understand is that CFA has a tremendous amount of loyalty. PArt of it is the religious right seeing a company founded by people who share the same religious beliefs. But the majority of it is that CFA offers a good product at a fair price with fantastic service. They are normally involved in local communities. They hire and train people to be polite and friendly. They have a corporate philosophy to excel at customer service and relations, even if it requires them to take a loss on sale (fixing an order for free, adding extra sauces, etc.) So while gays want to say it didn't work because of homophobes, they're only partially correct. It didn't work because everyone recognized what was going on and wanted to support a company they like. Which is the way free market economies should work.

#37 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3788 posts) -

it's the south. be thankful they only went this far and didn't start linching gays and colored folk.

#38 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@VERTIGO47 said:

Almost all Southern States oppose marriages between 1st cousins.

Yeah, except for Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee.

#39 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7742 posts) -

lol at people defending it.

#40 Posted by TheFlush (5514 posts) -

This will be overruled, socially backwards ideology is going to die anyway, but sometimes you have to give it a little push.

#41 Posted by toast_burner (21449 posts) -

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Ah so its okay to discriminate against groups that you approve of personally. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

Both he and flubbs are trolls.

#42 Posted by Flubbbs (2969 posts) -

@hailtothequeen said:

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Ah so its okay to discriminate against groups that you approve of personally. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

Both he and flubbs are trolls.

lol yea you got me

#43 Edited by Braun_Roid_Rage (719 posts) -

@hailtothequeen said:

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Ah so its okay to discriminate against groups that you approve of personally. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

Both he and flubbs are trolls.

LOL, you troll anyone that doesn't bow down to queers.

#44 Edited by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@toast_burner said:

@hailtothequeen said:

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Ah so its okay to discriminate against groups that you approve of personally. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

Both he and flubbs are trolls.

LOL, you troll anyone that doesn't bow down to queers.

Yep, which is why he is ignored by me and I never bother responding to him. There are like 7-10 people on these forums that get that kind of treatment from me. If you can't have a grownup conversation, I see no reason to read their post, let alone reply to them.

#45 Posted by toast_burner (21449 posts) -

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@toast_burner said:

@hailtothequeen said:

@Braun_Roid_Rage said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

This

If it discriminates against ethnic minorities though I have a problem with it.

Ah so its okay to discriminate against groups that you approve of personally. Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that.

Both he and flubbs are trolls.

LOL, you troll anyone that doesn't bow down to queers.

Yep, which is why he is ignored by me and I never bother responding to him. There are like 7-10 people on these forums that get that kind of treatment from me. If you can't have a grownup conversation, I see no reason to read their post, let alone reply to them.

Pretty sure you're a troll as well. or just incredibly stupid.

Ironic that you mention having a grown up conversation. Have you ever said anything that contains any logic or facts? I assume you're just a 13 year old boy who knows nothing about society or politics other than what your daddy has told you.

#46 Edited by bforrester420 (1364 posts) -

Fuck the south.

#47 Edited by bforrester420 (1364 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

Yeah, you should be able to turn away anyone but white people if you want...

I can't believe some of the responses here that basically boil down to "It's okay to pick and choose who we discriminate against."

#48 Edited by Flubbbs (2969 posts) -

@bforrester420 said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

Yeah, you should be able to turn away anyone but white people if you want...

I can't believe some of the responses here that basically boil down to "It's okay to pick and choose who we discriminate against."

:(:(.. if you dont like that then you should go somewhere else

#49 Posted by bforrester420 (1364 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

@bforrester420 said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

Yeah, you should be able to turn away anyone but white people if you want...

I can't believe some of the responses here that basically boil down to "It's okay to pick and choose who we discriminate against."

:(:(.. if you dont like that then you should go somewhere else

If you want a country run by religion, move to Iran.

#50 Posted by Primordialous (1276 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

@bforrester420 said:

@Flubbbs said:

you should be able to serve or not serve whoever you want

Yeah, you should be able to turn away anyone but white people if you want...

I can't believe some of the responses here that basically boil down to "It's okay to pick and choose who we discriminate against."

:(:(.. if you dont like that then you should go somewhere else

If you want a country run by religion, move to Iran.

If you want a secular govenment, move to the Soviet Union (when it still existed)