Miss. Passes anti gay discrimination law.

[WorldWatcher]

Agreed. Though the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to make such restrictions

As long a the producer sells intrastate only, once products are sold across state lines then there are arguments to be made based on the commerce clause.


>>>>

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't **** around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

Now, just apply it correctly.
I already have. It would be nice if the world could work in the way you wish, where everyone was treated equally without government interference, but people aren't that fair, left to their own devices, it seems. I do know this: If blacks, gays, what-have-you, had all been treated fairly to begin with, had not had their equal rights to liberty messed with, the government wouldn't be involved.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am repeating myself and so are you.

It isn't the way of liberals to leave people that are happy alone, since many liberals cannot find their own happiness. That is why the go out of their way to constantly interfere in the lives of others. The liberals say they are the champions of the colored people, yet today with a white black man in office, there is more poverty and murder in that sector of America today. They say they are for LBGTQWXYZ yet they are allowing ISIS terrorists into this country and these guys will thrown the alphabet people off the roof or stone them. Women too will be subjugated to these Fanatics, yet women and LBG's vote for the same people who want Muslims to come here. This is a self destructive process, and at one time, I would defend them. Today, I don't care because if this is what women and LBG's want then vote for liberals. Elections have consequences.

 

[eddiew]

Guess Mississippi was upset about other red states stealing their bigotry heritage .

What gets me, this has nothing to do wh "religious beliefs". Religion is just a bullshit cover for people to express their hatred. Bunch of fake Christians should be ashamed .

Mississippi governor signs law allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples and others

Mississippi's governor signed a law that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples and others based on the employers' religious beliefs.

poorest least educated state in the union and they need protection from gays? lol

 

[Clementine]

Guess Mississippi was upset about other red states stealing their bigotry heritage .

What gets me, this has nothing to do wh "religious beliefs". Religion is just a bullshit cover for people to express their hatred. Bunch of fake Christians should be ashamed .

Mississippi governor signs law allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples and others

Mississippi's governor signed a law that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples and others based on the employers' religious beliefs.

Hmm, the title of the thread makes it sound like there is discrimination against "anti-gay" people. Grammar is everything.

You make this sound worse than it is. It merely allows Christians not to participate in things that go against their religion. Gays will not be denied service in places. The big change will be that caterers don't have to attend gay weddings. You know damn well that many would refuse to cater KKK meetings and it would be their right. Who in their right mind would offer their services to them? Yet, liberals would not complain if people like them were run out of every business in town.

Meanwhile, you guys still can't bring yourself to criticize the Muslims, who are far more discriminating. At least be consistent and stop picking on one group because they don't agree with you.

Who would want to do business with someone who disapproves of you? And why would you want to force them? The thing is, the left wants laws that put people out of business for not subscribing to their views. Well, except Muslims.

I suggest that gays and anyone who disagrees with the practices of any business simply go elsewhere. It's all about choice.

 

[bendog]

Guess Mississippi was upset about other red states stealing their bigotry heritage .

What gets me, this has nothing to do wh "religious beliefs". Religion is just a bullshit cover for people to express their hatred. Bunch of fake Christians should be ashamed .

Mississippi governor signs law allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples and others

Mississippi's governor signed a law that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples and others based on the employers' religious beliefs.

poorest least educated state in the union and they need protection from gays? lol

Only those with college educations. LOL

 

[bendog]

Guess Mississippi was upset about other red states stealing their bigotry heritage .

What gets me, this has nothing to do wh "religious beliefs". Religion is just a bullshit cover for people to express their hatred. Bunch of fake Christians should be ashamed .

Mississippi governor signs law allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples and others

Mississippi's governor signed a law that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples and others based on the employers' religious beliefs.

Hmm, the title of the thread makes it sound like there is discrimination against "anti-gay" people. Grammar is everything.

You make this sound worse than it is. It merely allows Christians not to participate in things that go against their religion. Gays will not be denied service in places. The big change will be that caterers don't have to attend gay weddings. You know damn well that many would refuse to cater KKK meetings and it would be their right.

Meanwhile, you guys still can't bring yourself to criticize the Muslims, who are far more discriminating. At least be consistent and stop picking on one group because they don't agree with you.

Who would want to do business with someone who disapproves of you? And why would you want to force them? The thing is, the left wants laws that put people out of business for not subscribing to their views. Well, except Muslims.

I suggest that gays and anyone who disagrees with the practices of any business simply go elsewhere. It's all about choice.

Oh shite. This law would prohibit banning burkas.

 

[OldLady]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't **** around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

Now, just apply it correctly.
I already have. It would be nice if the world could work in the way you wish, where everyone was treated equally without government interference, but people aren't that fair, left to their own devices, it seems. I do know this: If blacks, gays, what-have-you, had all been treated fairly to begin with, had not had their equal rights to liberty messed with, the government wouldn't be involved.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am repeating myself and so are you.

It isn't the way of liberals to leave people that are happy alone, since many liberals cannot find their own happiness. That is why the go out of their way to constantly interfere in the lives of others. The liberals say they are the champions of the colored people, yet today with a white black man in office, there is more poverty and murder in that sector of America today. They say they are for LBGTQWXYZ yet they are allowing ISIS terrorists into this country and these guys will thrown the alphabet people off the roof or stone them. Women too will be subjugated to these Fanatics, yet women and LBG's vote for the same people who want Muslims to come here. This is a self destructive process, and at one time, I would defend them. Today, I don't care because if this is what women and LBG's want then vote for liberals. Elections have consequences.

Jesum Crow! By ensuring blacks and gays equal rights which you cannot interfere with despite your racist views (not your personally, mind) I am about to be raped and put in a burka? Steady on, friend.

 

[TNHarley]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't **** around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

Now, just apply it correctly.
I already have. It would be nice if the world could work in the way you wish, where everyone was treated equally without government interference, but people aren't that fair, left to their own devices, it seems. I do know this: If blacks, gays, what-have-you, had all been treated fairly to begin with, had not had their equal rights to liberty messed with, the government wouldn't be involved.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am repeating myself and so are you.

The government wouldn't be involved? They were LAWS made by THE GOVERNMENT.
I mean seriously, out of 30 million businesses, how many do you think sell their product to people based on personal prejudices? I mean, come on. Jim crow, slavery some states had laws banning gays from doing certain things etc.
Forcing people solves nothing and only causes rebellion. We are humans.
You might deny that, but I bet of lot of people that agree with you on this PA law issue, use that argument for drugs!

 

[ogibillm]

the good people of mississippi need to refuse services to anyone that supports the law -starting with the governkr and legislature.

 

[TNHarley]

Insecurity is one of the main drivers behind this emotional stance.

 

[martybegan]

If you went into a Muslim Restaurant and demanded to be served Pork and Beer, is it the obligation of that restaurant to provide for you? Or does it go against the Muslims religion? Double standards, without them, liberals would have no standards at all.

Oh Jez, not this shit again.

If a Muslim Restaurant does not have pork on the menu, then they don't have to sell pork to anyone.

If a Muslim Restaurant DOES have pork on the menu, then they cannot refuse service based on the religion, race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation (in some states), marital status (in some states), or veterians status (in some states) of the customer.



>>>>

Lets try it from another angle, can a local or state government ban halal or kosher slaughter?

Depends.

Can they ban religoius ceremonies during the slaughter process? No.

Can they ban specifics about the slaughtering process not based on religion to support a compelling government interest relating to health and safe of meat and poultry sold to the public? Yes.


>>>>>

The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.

So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?

 

[Seawytch]

And yet Title II of the CRA protects more than race doesn't it? It's the same "hammer" used for race, color, religion, and national origin. Either add gays or get rid of the rest.

Why? Although I think the time has long passed that government needs to make sure minorities are not discriminated against. It's a different day, even back in Reagan's heyday minority races were only about 18%. Now it's around 30. No smart business is going to turn that down.

However, demanding business go along with your sexual preferences is not even in the same ballpark, no matter how badly activists want to attach themselves to it. It's unfortunate that states are having to pass protection laws for freedom of choice. The left isn't as pro-choice as they would have us believe.

What business has to "go along" with a "sexual preference"? How does that manifest itself? You're saying it's not okay for a gay person to fire someone who is Christian or not bake them a cake, but it's okay for them to do that to a gay person?

How did you arrive at that? You see, it's your twisted views that is the primary problem here, you try desperately to twist everything to fit into your rebellious world. Which is probably why you are gay in the first place. Human sexuality is a manifestation of who we really are.

I said people should be free to do business or not with whomever. Now read that simple sentence as many times as you need to for it to finally finally soak in.

But people are not free to do that. I cannot fire a person for being a Christian. I can't refuse to bake them a cake, make them a floral arrangement, serve them at my establishment or kick them out of my apartment complex...but they can to me in over half the states. You're okay with that?

The solution is to give you the equal right to refuse to bake them a cake, make them a floral arrangement, serve them at your establishment or kick them out of your apartment complex.

Yes, that would be the "solution" but it's not the one being sought ANYWHERE by ANYONE.

Which just means this is more about hating gays than any bullshit "religious freedom "

 

[OldLady]

The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't **** around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

Now, just apply it correctly.
I already have. It would be nice if the world could work in the way you wish, where everyone was treated equally without government interference, but people aren't that fair, left to their own devices, it seems. I do know this: If blacks, gays, what-have-you, had all been treated fairly to begin with, had not had their equal rights to liberty messed with, the government wouldn't be involved.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am repeating myself and so are you.

The government wouldn't be involved? They were LAWS made by THE GOVERNMENT.
I mean seriously, out of 30 million businesses, how many do you think sell their product to people based on personal prejudices? I mean, come on. Jim crow, slavery some states had laws banning gays from doing certain things etc.
Forcing people solves nothing and only causes rebellion. We are humans.
You might deny that, but I bet of lot of people that agree with you on this PA law issue, use that argument for drugs!

Forcing people solves nothing and only causes rebellion. We are humans.
From my perspective, which I realize isn't as informed as yours since I'm a far-Northerner, forcing people in the 60's to stop discriminating against blacks DID work. It has changed our country much more than you realize. I remember before anti-discrimination laws. I remember the first black kid who went to our school -- no other black family had ever been allowed to buy property in our white suburb before. And I didn't even live in the south. There weren't any black bosses or any black people on tv. It is true that forcing people causes a lot of kicking and screaming, but you'd be amazed how different things are, thanks to it.
Actually, the gay rights fight should be a lot easier, because most Americans have already voted to make it legal for them to marry, adopt children, etc.

 

[martybegan]

I can't really find anything ever written in that era that said that federal laws supercede state laws.

The supremacy clause is what makes the Mississippi Legislature's ("40 hissing possums in a barn" - Jon Stewart) so amusing.

First of all, Mississippi has no PA law, and the fed govt has not passed a PA law saying restaurants or bakers have to serve gays. SOOOOOO, even before our "new" law, nobody had to serve gays. That is, the law accomplishes nothing, beyond letting the possums vote to say they agree with not serving gays.

Secondly,. the act provides:
"3) The purposes of this section are as follows:
(a) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner,374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and....

Basically, the congress and the scotus got into it over whether a law that on it's face does not discriminate against any religion may nevertheless run afoul of the First Amend if it impacts a religion - in that case it was whether Native Americans could use peyote in religious ceremonies. The Scotus said NAY, and the congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedoms Act. The scotus has thus far declined to say Yay or Nay to the RRFA.

But this Act accomplishes nothing. If the scotus overturns the federal RRFA, this law cannot protect any individual from the application of federal law. That is, Mississippi native americans get no peyote ... of course they don't want any .... But god dammit the Hissing Possums must SPEAK

That's the point. The Hissing Possums have a First Amendment right to speak. That's what's really pissing off the gays. They are pissed because the folks in Mississippi are repulsed by them.

I doubt if they needed the Mississippi law to realize some people are repulsed by them. The Hissing Possums have a right to speak and a right to think what they wish. What they don't have the right to do is limit the equal rights of a group they don't like. We are ALL afforded the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of liberty and to be treated equally in public institutions. If you don't like them, think or say what you like, but you can't take action to treat them any differently than you would someone of like mind.

Yes, gays aren't an acceptable group to hate, like Christians or something ...

BTW, no one is proposing to do anything to gays. It's how pathetic and weak the left is. Most people in history would be glad to just be left alone to live their lives. But leftists are so dependent on government that not getting validation and perks to you makes life actually unlivable. You people would have just starved and died at any other point in history

I don't hate Christians. You have never heard me say any such thing. The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with. If the county clerk had gone to her boss and given her resignation, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, half these laws and backlash laws wouldn't have happened. Instead she decided to refuse to do her job as a government employee due to her personal religious beliefs that don't tolerate gay marriage.. That is not acceptable under our constitution, but it gave a lot of steam to people of her mindset. She should have been fired the first day she said she wouldn't do her job. Period.

The laws were enacted to stop massive government endorsed economic and political disenfranchisement, not hurt feelings.

That idiot clerk in Kentucky is an elected official, her "Boss" is the people of her district. She is not a government employee. You would have to impeach her, not fire her.

Get your facts right before you start pontificating.

 

[bendog]

If you went into a Muslim Restaurant and demanded to be served Pork and Beer, is it the obligation of that restaurant to provide for you? Or does it go against the Muslims religion? Double standards, without them, liberals would have no standards at all.

Oh Jez, not this shit again.

If a Muslim Restaurant does not have pork on the menu, then they don't have to sell pork to anyone.

If a Muslim Restaurant DOES have pork on the menu, then they cannot refuse service based on the religion, race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation (in some states), marital status (in some states), or veterians status (in some states) of the customer.



>>>>

Lets try it from another angle, can a local or state government ban halal or kosher slaughter?

Depends.

Can they ban religoius ceremonies during the slaughter process? No.

Can they ban specifics about the slaughtering process not based on religion to support a compelling government interest relating to health and safe of meat and poultry sold to the public? Yes.


>>>>>

The method of slaughter IS the religious ceremony. You can't separate one from the other.

So, can a health code override kosher and halal slaughter? Considering those buying the meat know exactly how it is done, and want it done that way, what right does the health department have in preventing that?

Interesting. The law could override state health regulations. SWEEEEET

 

[OldLady]

The supremacy clause is what makes the Mississippi Legislature's ("40 hissing possums in a barn" - Jon Stewart) so amusing.

First of all, Mississippi has no PA law, and the fed govt has not passed a PA law saying restaurants or bakers have to serve gays. SOOOOOO, even before our "new" law, nobody had to serve gays. That is, the law accomplishes nothing, beyond letting the possums vote to say they agree with not serving gays.

Secondly,. the act provides:
"3) The purposes of this section are as follows:
(a) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner,374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and....

Basically, the congress and the scotus got into it over whether a law that on it's face does not discriminate against any religion may nevertheless run afoul of the First Amend if it impacts a religion - in that case it was whether Native Americans could use peyote in religious ceremonies. The Scotus said NAY, and the congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedoms Act. The scotus has thus far declined to say Yay or Nay to the RRFA.

But this Act accomplishes nothing. If the scotus overturns the federal RRFA, this law cannot protect any individual from the application of federal law. That is, Mississippi native americans get no peyote ... of course they don't want any .... But god dammit the Hissing Possums must SPEAK

That's the point. The Hissing Possums have a First Amendment right to speak. That's what's really pissing off the gays. They are pissed because the folks in Mississippi are repulsed by them.

I doubt if they needed the Mississippi law to realize some people are repulsed by them. The Hissing Possums have a right to speak and a right to think what they wish. What they don't have the right to do is limit the equal rights of a group they don't like. We are ALL afforded the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of liberty and to be treated equally in public institutions. If you don't like them, think or say what you like, but you can't take action to treat them any differently than you would someone of like mind.

Yes, gays aren't an acceptable group to hate, like Christians or something ...

BTW, no one is proposing to do anything to gays. It's how pathetic and weak the left is. Most people in history would be glad to just be left alone to live their lives. But leftists are so dependent on government that not getting validation and perks to you makes life actually unlivable. You people would have just starved and died at any other point in history

I don't hate Christians. You have never heard me say any such thing. The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with. If the county clerk had gone to her boss and given her resignation, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, half these laws and backlash laws wouldn't have happened. Instead she decided to refuse to do her job as a government employee due to her personal religious beliefs that don't tolerate gay marriage.. That is not acceptable under our constitution, but it gave a lot of steam to people of her mindset. She should have been fired the first day she said she wouldn't do her job. Period.

The laws were enacted to stop massive government endorsed economic and political disenfranchisement, not hurt feelings.

That idiot clerk in Kentucky is an elected official, her "Boss" is the people of her district. She is not a government employee. You would have to impeach her, not fire her.

Get your facts right before you start pontificating.

The laws were enacted to stop massive government endorsed economic and political disenfranchisement, not hurt feelings.
I have no idea what that means.

That idiot clerk in Kentucky is an elected official, her "Boss" is the people of her district. She is not a government employee. You would have to impeach her, not fire her.
Thanks for setting me straight. However, she was free to resign as she should have in the first place.

 

[Seawytch]

Mississippi already lost 400 jobs over their bigotry.

 

[TNHarley]

AGAIN, another one thinks that my liberty ends at their noses, while theirs shoots out of my ass and continues going..
I think you need to figure out what individual liberty is, first off.
Second off, please show me what "constitutional rights" you speak of.

I honestly don't understand your metaphor. Can you reword? I know what individual liberty is. It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs. It is that simple, as much as you seem to want to make yourself a victim because you have been told no, you can't interfere with the equal rights of others.
You know exactly what I mean by our constitutional rights, don't **** around playing smart lawyer.
Good luck with your pizza, by the way.

It gives me and you the right to go about our business so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to go about theirs.
Good, you know what it is. Now, just apply it correctly. You cant support cherry picked liberty. That is preposterous lol. Special rights aren't rights.
No, there isn't any constitutional rights for dealings with private businesses. If I am wrong, please show me. Because what I think you might be referring to, is referring to the government.. NOT an individual.

Now, just apply it correctly.
I already have. It would be nice if the world could work in the way you wish, where everyone was treated equally without government interference, but people aren't that fair, left to their own devices, it seems. I do know this: If blacks, gays, what-have-you, had all been treated fairly to begin with, had not had their equal rights to liberty messed with, the government wouldn't be involved.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am repeating myself and so are you.

The government wouldn't be involved? They were LAWS made by THE GOVERNMENT.
I mean seriously, out of 30 million businesses, how many do you think sell their product to people based on personal prejudices? I mean, come on. Jim crow, slavery some states had laws banning gays from doing certain things etc.
Forcing people solves nothing and only causes rebellion. We are humans.
You might deny that, but I bet of lot of people that agree with you on this PA law issue, use that argument for drugs!

Forcing people solves nothing and only causes rebellion. We are humans.
From my perspective, which I realize isn't as informed as yours since I'm a far-Northerner, forcing people in the 60's to stop discriminating against blacks DID work. It has changed our country much more than you realize. I remember before anti-discrimination laws. I remember the first black kid who went to our school -- no other black family had ever been allowed to buy property in our white suburb before. And I didn't even live in the south. There weren't any black bosses or any black people on tv. It is true that forcing people causes a lot of kicking and screaming, but you'd be amazed how different things are, thanks to it.
Actually, the gay rights fight should be a lot easier, because most Americans have already voted to make it legal for them to marry, adopt children, etc.

Like how you ignored the part I am about to repeat..lol You mean Jim Crow laws that were enacted by the GOVERNMENT?

 

[martybegan]

That's the point. The Hissing Possums have a First Amendment right to speak. That's what's really pissing off the gays. They are pissed because the folks in Mississippi are repulsed by them.

I doubt if they needed the Mississippi law to realize some people are repulsed by them. The Hissing Possums have a right to speak and a right to think what they wish. What they don't have the right to do is limit the equal rights of a group they don't like. We are ALL afforded the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of liberty and to be treated equally in public institutions. If you don't like them, think or say what you like, but you can't take action to treat them any differently than you would someone of like mind.

Yes, gays aren't an acceptable group to hate, like Christians or something ...

BTW, no one is proposing to do anything to gays. It's how pathetic and weak the left is. Most people in history would be glad to just be left alone to live their lives. But leftists are so dependent on government that not getting validation and perks to you makes life actually unlivable. You people would have just starved and died at any other point in history

I don't hate Christians. You have never heard me say any such thing. The people who actually value individual freedoms in this country were forced to enact laws because some intolerant people would not leave their pet hate group alone. The laws protect constitutional rights that no citizen has the right to interfere with. If the county clerk had gone to her boss and given her resignation, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, half these laws and backlash laws wouldn't have happened. Instead she decided to refuse to do her job as a government employee due to her personal religious beliefs that don't tolerate gay marriage.. That is not acceptable under our constitution, but it gave a lot of steam to people of her mindset. She should have been fired the first day she said she wouldn't do her job. Period.

The laws were enacted to stop massive government endorsed economic and political disenfranchisement, not hurt feelings.

That idiot clerk in Kentucky is an elected official, her "Boss" is the people of her district. She is not a government employee. You would have to impeach her, not fire her.

Get your facts right before you start pontificating.

The laws were enacted to stop massive government endorsed economic and political disenfranchisement, not hurt feelings.
I have no idea what that means.

That idiot clerk in Kentucky is an elected official, her "Boss" is the people of her district. She is not a government employee. You would have to impeach her, not fire her.
Thanks for setting me straight. However, she was free to resign as she should have in the first place.

Those people you said supported individual freedoms did indeed support the first Civil rights laws during the 50's and 60's However those were not designed to ruin some random baker over hurt feelings, but to end deep and rooted government mandated systemic discrimination against a sizable group of people in each locality. The object of Jim Crow wasn't separate lunch counters or water fountains, these were merely symptoms. The real goal was to remove economic and more importantly political power from blacks. They were more concerned that they could not vote, or better themselves economically than where they had to sit on a train. That was just a "bonus".

 

[martybegan]

Mississippi already lost 400 jobs over their bigotry.

if you are referring to paypal, wasn't that North Carolina?

And considering paypal has offices in several countries that actually try to imprison or kill off gay, methinks the doth protest too much.