Discrimination Is Now Legal In Mississippi

[buckeye45_73]

Discrimination is discrimination and it doesn't matter if it's race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc.

Well then we shouldnt descriminate against murderers, pedos, rapists, and other people. What a ******* moron.

Because you think there is NO difference between gay people and those.

wait, so are you saying descrimination is allowed. Because the guy before said descrimination is descrimination and should never be allowed. So i want to know, are there cases its ok?

 

[OKTexas]

While they haven't been treated exactly like blacks, they have been discriminated and legislated against and still are.

Two wrongs don't make a right - but you are commiting a wrong against one person to uphold the rights of another person.

What's also pathetically laughable about this batch of laws coming down the pipe is that one amendment would have required business' that didn't want to serve gays on religious principles to put a sign up stating that. The amendment didn't pass. So we have religious groups wanting the right to discriminate, but not publically and we have people going into establishment with no idea whether or not they will be served.

The bolded is where you have it wrong. The customers right does not begin where it infringes on the rights of the owner.

And when the rights of the owner infringe on the rights of the individual?

In this case - the rights of the owner to "freedom and liberty" vs the rights of the individual to fair treatment and equality.

The rights of the owner include the right to be free of any individual they don't want to be associated with, all people have that right whether they own a business or not.

 

[Flopper]

Looks like there have been about 80 posts commenting on this bill. Does anyone know what's in SB 2681 or is that immaterial to the discussion?

Apparently the contents of the bill which is the subject is irrelevant.

 

[OKTexas]

Looks like there have been about 80 posts commenting on this bill. Does anyone know what's in SB 2681 or is that immaterial to the discussion?

Apparently the contents of the bill which is the subject is irrelevant.

There is a pdf in an earlier post, from what I read it's no big deal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like there have been about 80 posts commenting on this bill. Does anyone know what's in SB 2681 or is that immaterial to the discussion?

I actually read the bill, and even posted a link. So far not a single person who objects to it has even commented on the actual bill.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because individual liberty, freedom of association means squat to leftists.

Define these words then?

Because I've seen some people claim that freedom is freedom from seeing people do what they want to do and not what you want them to do. I wouldn't call that freedom.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Looks like there have been about 80 posts commenting on this bill. Does anyone know what's in SB 2681 or is that immaterial to the discussion?

I actually read the bill, and even posted a link. So far not a single person who objects to it has even commented on the actual bill.

That's because they think "you're an [insert insult of choice]", therefore there would be no point in discussing things when they can "win" by just doing something else.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Because individual liberty, freedom of association means squat to leftists.

Define these words then?

Because I've seen some people claim that freedom is freedom from seeing people do what they want to do and not what you want them to do. I wouldn't call that freedom.

Isn't that the entire leftist agenda? Freedom is only freedom if you do what they tell you to.

 

[Crystalclear]

Because individual liberty, freedom of association means squat to leftists.

Define these words then?

Because I've seen some people claim that freedom is freedom from seeing people do what they want to do and not what you want them to do. I wouldn't call that freedom.

Invidual liberty means doing what you want to do.

 

[Katzndogz]

When someone goes into an establishment they will be served under an assortment of different laws. What they cannot do is command a personal service that requires anyone to commit an act or engage in a message that violates their personal principles.

 

[Political Junky]

poor thing, you don't like it don't frikken move to Mississippi

California is calling you or Iran, China, North Korea

It's the Right that's looking like those countries.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

When someone goes into an establishment they will be served under an assortment of different laws. What they cannot do is command a personal service that requires anyone to commit an act or engage in a message that violates their personal principles.

You will make gay people their wedding requests, You will pay for abortions, you will go against all of your religious beliefs because the government has told you to. Oh, in addition you will purchase government approved insurance. This is freedom in 2014.

 

[Tank]

You can't be treated equal, if you're not

 

[frigidweirdo]

Isn't that the entire leftist agenda? Freedom is only freedom if you do what they tell you to.

Do you understand how rights work?

Essentially you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

Now, if you want to stop gay people marrying, i'd ask, how do two gay people marrying harm you? The answer, clearly, is that it doesn't, in fact it's none of your business. So.....

And it would appear the right, more than the left, want to restrict people's freedoms, though this isn't exclusive on the part of the right.

Does the right want to restrict alcohol to those over 21? Who introduced the constitutional amendment banning alcohol in the USA? Two states refused to ratify the amendment, Connecticut and Rhode Island, liberal or conservative? Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky were the first 3 to ratify, conservative or liberal?

What about things like marijuana, why is it the more LIBERAL states that are allowing people to use marijuana?
Restricting abortion is very right wing, Libertarians often say they don't like abortion but want to leave it up to the conscience of the woman to decide, rather than have the govt decide.
The Cold War was perfect for the right, they could be tough on the USSR, have an excuse for more military spending, more restrictions on things. When this disappeared Bush had to make a new common enemy and set out to vilify Islam, so new repressive laws would be easier to pass, and invading countries would also be easier.

I know the right like to say they are for rights, but simply said, they're not. They're for rights that are beneficial for their way of thinking, but not for rights in general.

 

[Katzndogz]

Freedom is like a balloon. Restrict it one place, it bulges out in another.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When someone goes into an establishment they will be served under an assortment of different laws. What they cannot do is command a personal service that requires anyone to commit an act or engage in a message that violates their personal principles.

You will make gay people their wedding requests, You will pay for abortions, you will go against all of your religious beliefs because the government has told you to. Oh, in addition you will purchase government approved insurance. This is freedom in 2014.

The freedoms are there. If you don't want to go against your religion then you should choose your job carefully. If you enter the public domain with a business, then you are agreeing to abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules, don't make your business a public business, make it private.

I've worked for a company which only allowed Jews to be a member, no problem there. Why not? Because they didn't allow just anyone to join their club, you had to go through a series of procedures. Saying that, non-Jews could work there and also be invited by members.

So you have the freedom. if running a business goes against your personal beliefs, THEN DON'T RUN A BUSINESS.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

poor thing, you don't like it don't frikken move to Mississippi

California is calling you or Iran, China, North Korea

It's the Right that's looking like those countries.

Wait what?

How is the right using federal power to make you do anything? We're trying to get the feds to back off so you can enjoy some individual freedom and liberty yet you compare that to the communist/muslim countries?

You make it seem like the right want's you to be demanded by federal law you actually buy insurance the feds demand you have or something. Or even force people to perform gay weddings against their religion, instead of beheading them. And if you ever stood for not supporting gay marriage or government mandated healthcare or any of the other Iran, China, North Korea stances you are some how in your twisted little mind promoting those stances.

 

[OKTexas]

You can't be treated equal, if you're not

For some men and women being treated equal isn't good enough, they have to be special. And in their being special they think others should just toss away their values and beliefs to accommodate them, call me what ever, I say ****'em.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Isn't that the entire leftist agenda? Freedom is only freedom if you do what they tell you to.

Do you understand how rights work?

Essentially you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

Now, if you want to stop gay people marrying, i'd ask, how do two gay people marrying harm you? The answer, clearly, is that it doesn't, in fact it's none of your business. So.....

And it would appear the right, more than the left, want to restrict people's freedoms, though this isn't exclusive on the part of the right.

Does the right want to restrict alcohol to those over 21? Who introduced the constitutional amendment banning alcohol in the USA? Two states refused to ratify the amendment, Connecticut and Rhode Island, liberal or conservative? Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky were the first 3 to ratify, conservative or liberal?

What about things like marijuana, why is it the more LIBERAL states that are allowing people to use marijuana?
Restricting abortion is very right wing, Libertarians often say they don't like abortion but want to leave it up to the conscience of the woman to decide, rather than have the govt decide.
The Cold War was perfect for the right, they could be tough on the USSR, have an excuse for more military spending, more restrictions on things. When this disappeared Bush had to make a new common enemy and set out to vilify Islam, so new repressive laws would be easier to pass, and invading countries would also be easier.

I know the right like to say they are for rights, but simply said, they're not. They're for rights that are beneficial for their way of thinking, but not for rights in general.

I'm running out of time for tonight but wanted to address the bolded and underlined in your post because it so insanely stupid I couldn't sleep tonight leaving it hanging.

Bush actually needed a new enemy and somehow got a bunch of muslim assholes to fly airplanes into the WTC in order to get a new enemy he needed in less than a year in office.

Really? You can't be this stupid.

 

[Iceweasel]

When you have a specific law created to expressly allow a business the right to refuse service for "religious reasons" - then that is a discriminatory law. It's different if it's a religious organization. But it isn't. "Against their morals" is nothing more than a code word to allow open discrimination. In my opinion - it will be interesting to see what happens if it is challenged.

At what point do you draw the line? What if there is no one else in town that provides that service? Can a pharmacest refuse to fill a script for AIDS medications because AIDS is a gay disease? What else?

Do you have evidence that a pharmacist has refused any AIDS medication? No you don't. You called it a gay disease, it once was but now has spread into the general population. I believe anyone trained in pharmaceuticals would know it. Also that's a bit different because of the licensing considerations.

The morning after pill is a different story though and I agree with their freedom to choose on that one, since it has the specific goal of terminating a life.

The law is a response to a overreach into someone else's rights by local authorities. It isn't a Constitutional issue, therefore no rights are being violated by refusing service. Have you never seen a sign that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?