Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

[Machismo]

Racial discrimination has nothing to do with their religion and belief system. Gay/Trans is a lifestyle choice that people of religion disagree with and have deep rooted religious feelings that living that way is wrong. Whether you agree or not, being able to exercise ones religion is a 1st amendment protected right, and the federal government infringing on that is flat out wrong and unconstitutional.

The problem arises when a GOVERNMENT chooses to discriminate based on religious beliefs. This law allows the governments in Mississippi doto do just that.

And yes, anyone who chooses to discriminate against gay people based on their religious belief is nothing but a hateful bigot.

[Mentia]

because they actually don't have that right. and your only argument seems to be "because my religion says so." even though it doesn't. anywhere.

If that's what you choose to believe then so be it.

[GennGreymane]

If that's what you choose to believe then so be it.

You can always send the exact part where it states what you mean in a direct msg to bread and others.

[Arganis]

so cute resorting to petty insults and name calling are we? and yes it is do you even understand how moving works or are you still in middle/high school? i'm asking that as a serious question because if your an adult and you don't understand how moving works than your gonna be in a world of pain should you ever want to move. also please insert more insulting and derogratory comments in your posts i'm sure that'll bolster your argument.

if your not arguing for them why are you blaming the victim for something the racists and bigots are trying to get passed?

I'm calling you a drama queen because you're acting like one. Purchasing an entire house in advance is not required to move and if you think it is, then you're the one who doesn't know anything. Also, not a few post ago you were telling me about how poor people are there and how they can't even afford a car and now you're arguing nobody can go anywhere without having a house purchased in advance across state? Get real.

You people are the one's telling me I'm "victim blaming", last I checked I never said anything about gays being responsible for their predicament. It sucks to be surrounded by hateful biggots but life happens. They're constantly doing stuff like this in places like Mississippi and when they're not busy acting out against you, they're still silently hating your guts, so for the love of jesus, save a little money, look for a job you can do in a different state that isn't a shithole and leave the bigots to their own resorts, if you can. That's my argument and I don't see how it's "victim blaming". At the end of the day I don't think a law like this will stand but it'll just come back in a different form over and over and over and over and over and the people there will still be hateful in 100 years, it's a lost cause. So move away.

[breadisfunny]

If that's what you choose to believe then so be it.

it's not a belief it's a law. it's called the civil rights act you should read it sometime.

[NoRest4Wicked]

Its not even just against gays, it also says something regarding sexual relations within a proper marriage. So I guess you can refuse single mothers and couples having sex out of wed lock as well, right?

[breadisfunny]

I'm calling you a drama queen because you're acting like one. Purchasing an entire house in advance is not required to move and if you think it is, then you're the one who doesn't know anything.

You people are the one's telling me I'm "victim blaming", last I checked I never said anything about gays being responsible for their predicament. It sucks to be surrounded by hateful biggots but life happens. They're constantly doing stuff like this in places like Mississippi and when they're not busy acting out against you, they're still silently hating your guts, so for the love of jesus, save a little money, look for a job you can do in a different state that isn't a shithole and leave the bigots to their own resorts, if you can. That's my argument and I don't see how it's "victim blaming". At the end of the day I don't think a law like this will stand but it'll just come back in a different form over and over and over and over and over and the people there will still be hateful in 100 years, it's a lost cause.

no i'm stating facts and your getting emotional and upset about them. your answer of "just leave" is not always plausible and is somewhat bigoted in itself in that it assumes the problem is the gay people. and how exactly are they supposed to get a job in a state where they are allowed to deny them based on a law they passed themselves. because remember if they can't enter a public establishment how are they supposed to work at their job? oh thats right THEY CAN'T. hence they have no money to move out since they can't get a job. your arguments are pretty bad and lacking logic and fall into a catch 22 trap. your answer also assumes that the burden is on the gays to move to accomodate the bigots because they are close minded. when it is in fact the bigots burden to not be narrowminded when dealing with the public as per the civil rights act of 1964. which this new law violates.

[Blizzhoof]

Then in this case, I can refuse service to all homophobics and also the governor himself/herself. See? That sounds crazy too just like this shitty ass law that was signed.

That doesn't sound crazy, it sounds rational. If it's your business, then the government shouldn't be allowed to force you to provide services or products to anybody. The market should be free. If you refuse to serve homosexuals, whites, blind people, bearded people, or whoever, then somebody will open up a competing store that is willing to serve those people and will make more money than you.

This bill is just reiterating what the First Amendment is already supposed to guarantee. That is that the government shall not make any law preventing the free exercise of religion. Forcing somebody to participate in an activity that they view as morally wrong is evil. This bill shouldn't be needed, but sadly too many leftists are willing to trample on the rights of those they disagree with.

Why do you think it's okay for the government to force a private business owner into indentured servitude just because you disagree with how they want to run their business?

[Draco-Onis]

Racial discrimination has nothing to do with their religion and belief system. Gay/Trans is a lifestyle choice that people of religion disagree with and have deep rooted religious feelings that living that way is wrong. Whether you agree or not, being able to exercise ones religion is a 1st amendment protected right, and the federal government infringing on that is flat out wrong and unconstitutional.

Ok I am not even going to go into the whole argument about Gay/Trans is a choice, religion has been used to justify racial discrimination in the past. Also the law states that if it violates "deeply held religious or moral beliefs" so basically if your strong moral belief says black people are evil then you are legally protected to refuse them housing, jobs, service, etc.

[Darsithis]

That doesn't sound crazy, it sounds rational. If it's your business, then the government shouldn't be allowed to force you to provide services or products to anybody. The market should be free. If you refuse to serve homosexuals, whites, blind people, bearded people, or whoever, then somebody will open up a competing store that is willing to serve those people and will make more money than you.

I don't get why people are focusing so much on this as the government forcing you to do things.

NO ONE is forcing you to open a business catering to the PUBLIC. No one said you have to start one. If you start a business, you need to obey the laws of the country, laws that have existed for decades, laws that provide for public accommodation. That's it. You don't like it, make your business private, membership-only, or close your doors.

[Arganis]

no i'm stating facts and your getting emotional and upset about them. your answer of "just leave" is not always plausible and is somewhat bigoted in itself in that it assumes the problem is the gay people. and how exactly are they supposed to get a job in a state where they are allowed to deny them based on a law they passed themselves. because remember if they can't enter a public establishment how are they supposed to work at their job? oh thats right THEY CAN'T. hence they have no money to move out since they can't get a job. your arguments are pretty bad and lacking logic and fall into a catch 22 trap. your answer also assumes that the burden is on the gays to move to accomodate the bigots because they are close minded. when it is in fact the bigots burden to not be narrowminded when dealing with the public as per the civil rights act of 1964. which this new law violates.

Agree to disagree then. If moving away is impossible, then of course you should fight the law, since you have no other choice. That being said, I don't think the purpose of these so-called "religious liberty" laws is to essentially kill off gays, which is what you're insinuating by constantly saying they'll be without a job, without water, without food, without a house etc etc. It's overly dramatic and silly (hence drama queen). Not everyone in Mississippi is out to exterminate gays and personally I think this law is mostly there so that private business owners with deep-seeded religious beliefs can exercise the right to refuse service in their own establishments to people who are openly gay and make them feel like they might be passively participating in their "sin" by serving them or whatever other nonsense.

Also, I'm not saying gays should move to accommodate the bigots but at the end of the day bigots exist and you can't change the way everyone thinks. If the place you live is so full of biggots that laws like these constantly come up, then you'd be doing yourself a favor by leaving, if you can.

[tehdef]

That doesn't sound crazy, it sounds rational. If it's your business, then the government shouldn't be allowed to force you to provide services or products to anybody. The market should be free. If you refuse to serve homosexuals, whites, blind people, bearded people, or whoever, then somebody will open up a competing store that is willing to serve those people and will make more money than you.

This bill is just reiterating what the First Amendment is already supposed to guarantee. That is that the government shall not make any law preventing the free exercise of religion. Forcing somebody to participate in an activity that they view as morally wrong is evil. This bill shouldn't be needed, but sadly too many leftists are willing to trample on the rights of those they disagree with.

Why do you think it's okay for the government to force a private business owner into indentured servitude just because you disagree with how they want to run their business?

No major US religion outright condemns homosexuality in their written text that has been adopted widespread in current teachings.

Anyone using this is propping up their own personal interpretation of the text to benefit their own paranoia and bias.

Otherwise, everyone should refrain from working on Sunday, not eat certain things, never mix the textile of your clothing, etc.

Shit's fucking dumb. People are selective as hell in this country and only want to apply the text of their religion to things they don't like.

We had this problem with discrimination against people. We gave them their own bathrooms, they sat in the back of the bus, denied service, and they typically got chained and whipped. Finally we realized we were dicks to do that to someone no different than us.

[Darsithis]

This bill is just reiterating what the First Amendment is already supposed to guarantee. That is that the government shall not make any law preventing the free exercise of religion. Forcing somebody to participate in an activity that they view as morally wrong is evil. This bill shouldn't be needed, but sadly too many leftists are willing to trample on the rights of those they disagree with.

Free exercise of religion is not free exercise to discriminate. No one is stopping you from being a Christian, going to a Christian church, not having an abortion, waiting until marriage for sex, marrying the opposite sex, etc.

[Annoying]

That doesn't sound crazy, it sounds rational. If it's your business, then the government shouldn't be allowed to force you to provide services or products to anybody. The market should be free. If you refuse to serve homosexuals, whites, blind people, bearded people, or whoever, then somebody will open up a competing store that is willing to serve those people and will make more money than you.

This bill is just reiterating what the First Amendment is already supposed to guarantee. That is that the government shall not make any law preventing the free exercise of religion. Forcing somebody to participate in an activity that they view as morally wrong is evil. This bill shouldn't be needed, but sadly too many leftists are willing to trample on the rights of those they disagree with.

Why do you think it's okay for the government to force a private business owner into indentured servitude just because you disagree with how they want to run their business?

First, and again: The government isn't forcing anyone to do anything. There's no right to own a business. If you don't want to serve certain people based on protected classes, then you're free to quit/close down/become a private club.

Second: "somebody will open up a competing store" leads to "whites only" and "blacks only". We had that once. We got rid of it. Not to mention that 50% of the country lives in rural areas and tons of places won't have that "somebody" to open up a competing store.

Third: Nothing about the free exercise of religion has anything to do with running a business or serving people. Neither of those involve somehow taking away your right to exercise your religion.

Fourth: If your business is open to the public, you're not a "private business owner." You own a public-facing business and have to serve the general public without being arbitrarily discriminatory.

[Anastacy]

Racial discrimination has nothing to do with their religion and belief system. Gay/Trans is a lifestyle choice that people of religion disagree with and have deep rooted religious feelings that living that way is wrong. Whether you agree or not, being able to exercise ones religion is a 1st amendment protected right, and the federal government infringing on that is flat out wrong and unconstitutional.

Being Christian is a lifestyle choice, too.

[Jaylock]

The problem arises when a GOVERNMENT chooses to discriminate based on religious beliefs. This law allows the governments in Mississippi doto do just that.

And yes, anyone who chooses to discriminate against gay people based on their religious belief is nothing but a hateful bigot.

So it makes me a hateful bigot to tell a gay couple: "im sorry I don't believe in that lifestyle, so I won't make a cake for you based on my religious beliefs, however down the street there is an athiest bakery that specializes in making cakes for gay couples"??

I don't think respectfully telling someone "no" is being a hateful bigot. It just means because of my religious beliefs (speaking if I were a cake owner who didn't feel right about making a cake for a gay couple in mississippi) I don't feel right about performing a service that is enabling to that lifestyle.

Nothing about that is bigoted. The real bigoted part is telling someone "F-U! YOU HAVE TO MAKE THIS CAKE REGARDLESS OF YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM" That is bigoted. Telling a person they are not allowed to exercise their religious beliefs, and therefore not make the cake, is not only bigoted, its hypocritical.

If gays want to be treated with respect and acceptance then they must do the same to people of belief.

- - - Updated - - -

Free exercise of religion is not free exercise to discriminate. No one is stopping you from being a Christian, going to a Christian church, not having an abortion, waiting until marriage for sex, marrying the opposite sex, etc.

So forcing someone to do something contrary to their religious and moral beliefs is somehow okay then?

Do you realize the hypocritical nature of the statement you just made?

[Blizzhoof]

We all know they are cherry picking from their beliefs. Its bigotry covered in religion. They don't care about divorce, adulterers or out of wedlock children. The fact that one time I said; "Lebron James is God".

Many people in this thread, including yourself, have been pushing a false premise. In none of these cases where the state oppressed a private business owner on behalf of an offended couple did the business owner refuse to serve homosexuals. In all of the cases, the businesses had served homosexuals and other sinners in the past. They only refused to participate in the ceremony of gay marriage because it is against their religion to do so. Had they been asked to cater a NAMBLA meeting, they would have refused as well.

The fact that you have to twist the facts to make your points, show that your argument is weak.

[breadisfunny]

That doesn't sound crazy, it sounds rational. If it's your business, then the government shouldn't be allowed to force you to provide services or products to anybody. The market should be free. If you refuse to serve homosexuals, whites, blind people, bearded people, or whoever, then somebody will open up a competing store that is willing to serve those people and will make more money than you.

This bill is just reiterating what the First Amendment is already supposed to guarantee. That is that the government shall not make any law preventing the free exercise of religion. Forcing somebody to participate in an activity that they view as morally wrong is evil. This bill shouldn't be needed, but sadly too many leftists are willing to trample on the rights of those they disagree with.

Why do you think it's okay for the government to force a private business owner into indentured servitude just because you disagree with how they want to run their business?

how is bigotry in any way shape or form rational?

[Machismo]

That doesn't sound crazy, it sounds rational. If it's your business, then the government shouldn't be allowed to force you to provide services or products to anybody. The market should be free. If you refuse to serve homosexuals, whites, blind people, bearded people, or whoever, then somebody will open up a competing store that is willing to serve those people and will make more money than you.

This bill is just reiterating what the First Amendment is already supposed to guarantee. That is that the government shall not make any law preventing the free exercise of religion. Forcing somebody to participate in an activity that they view as morally wrong is evil. This bill shouldn't be needed, but sadly too many leftists are willing to trample on the rights of those they disagree with.

Why do you think it's okay for the government to force a private business owner into indentured servitude just because you disagree with how they want to run their business?

But the bill also allows the government to also discriminate based on those same beliefs. That's the real problem with the law, not that is allows private entities to do it.

[pcmedicman]

I haven't read through all these comment so forgive me if repeat something that has already been addressed.

I am from MS and I would think I'm fairly educated (or so my student loans would demonstrate), because I have 4+ years of higher education. I had to take four social sciences: Human Growth and Development, Psychology, Marriage and Family, and Sociology.

Anyway, I remember one particular fun exercise we participated in in Sociology. We all had to go out on the college grounds and form a straight line. Our professor asked many different questions of which you could answer by stepping forward or not...if your gay/bi, step forward, if you own your own car, step forward (to demonstrate being privileged", if your from the south, step forward, if your Christian, step forward, and on and on, etc.

The point of the exercise was when you stepped forward for whatever was mentioned; the professor would read out how the world viewed you (stereotype). When she called out people from the south to step forward she read off that the rest of the world see's you as slow, uneducated, closed minded, etc. Point being, it was just that, stereotyping. There wasn't necessarily any truth to it.

I see a lot of stereotyping here. Racism for example; I've seen plenty of black and white people laugh that people from the north actually still think it's like it is in the movies about MS. Times have changed everyone, just so you understand that. Is there still racism in MS? Of course, but I've seen more in the north if you can believe that...I know it shocked me when I was travelling the states.

I am also a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say I'm Christian. I don't particularly care for the word Religion per say, because just like anything else, there is good and bad people in a Religion. TRUE followers of Jesus Christ forgives and loves, no matter what. If we can't forgive and love, then we don't deserve his love and forgiveness. Any real Christian knows this. If your Gay, I love you, but I don't agree with homosexuallity regardless. If your a known homosexual and your life is in danger and I'm there and can save you, I would give my life for yours, but I still don't except your lifestyle as far as God and my beliefs go.

If you can be refused service for no shirt, shoes, etc; then you can most definitely refuse service for whatever that private business see's fit. If I owned a business and I seen a person I knew was homosexual and I seen them outside in danger, I would come to their aid. This law was born from LGBT's insistence on excepting their lifestyle in which private businesses were destroyed.

Moral of the story is the scales of justice tip both ways. LGBT needs protection just as much as the private businesses that were lost do. We shouldn't force our beliefs on one another no matter what side you fall on.