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

[Deleted]

Supremacy Clause, anyone?
It does say laws made in pursuance, meaning that it cannot violate it.
Incidentally, this is where anti-discrimiation laws run afoul of the First. The reason they've held up is the shelf-life of Justices.

- - - Updated - - -



Technically it was Jewish mobs who wanted him dead. Pilate himself found neither fault nor reason to do so.

So now you are trying to prove im right!? That is a new thing... Yes, the supremacy clause, now lets link that to the first amendment and what do we get!???!!!!!!! Tadaaa you can't make laws based on religious dogma, ergo, you can't make a law that states that it is okay to discriminate against people because their believe tels them to.

Oh but, Pilatus still did it, not the Jews.

[Felya]

Lol yea, next page he will probably be blaming the radical Muslims for the crucifixion of Jusus, you know, just to get things straight.

He is arguing that history has 'ups and downs' to avoid being specific. Completley ignoring that for what he is saying to be true, the peaks have to equal valleys. There are quite a few things that have higher peeks than valleys. Far more of those exist through history, than the equality his claim depends on. Rendering what he is saying completley meaningless...

[Nobar]

He is arguing that history has 'ups and downs' to avoid being specific. Completley ignoring that for what he is saying to be true, the peaks have to equal valleys. There are quite a few things that have higher peeks than valleys. Far more of those exist through history, than the equality his claim depends on. Rendering what he is saying completley meaningless...

Someone failed geometry.
I said elliptical, not circular. I don't argue that ups and downs were equal in number, in fact we have more lows than highs, and that is the nature of history.

- - - Updated - - -

So now you are trying to prove im right!? That is a new thing... Yes, the supremacy clause, now lets link that to the first amendment and what do we get!???!!!!!!! Tadaaa you can't make laws based on religious dogma, ergo, you can't make a law that states that it is okay to discriminate against people because their believe tels them to.

Oh but, Pilatus still did it, not the Jews.

You can't prohibit the free exercise, or perhaps you think that that clause doesn't exist.

[breadisfunny]

Supremacy Clause, anyone?
It does say laws made in pursuance, meaning that it cannot violate it.
Incidentally, this is where anti-discrimiation laws run afoul of the First. The reason they've held up is the shelf-life of Justices.

- - - Updated - - -



Technically it was Jewish mobs who wanted him dead. Pilate himself found neither fault nor reason to do so.

no it wasn't the roman state wanted to make an example of him.

[Nobar]

It is worded like that, but based on interpretation by the courts it's more like "Cannot prohibit the reasonable free exercise"

Its unreasonable to restrict free association based upon perceived or actual biases.

[Felya]

Someone failed geometry.
I said elliptical, not circular. I don't argue that ups and downs were equal in number, in fact we have more lows than highs, and that is the nature of history.

Elliptical is circular... You cannot be serious...

[Nobar]

Elliptical is circular... You cannot be serious...

Note the difference.

[Oktoberfest]

no it wasn't the roman state wanted to make an example of him.

Not true

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...7&version=NKJV

[Deleted]

Someone failed geometry.
I said elliptical, not circular. I don't argue that ups and downs were equal in number, in fact we have more lows than highs, and that is the nature of history.

- - - Updated - - -



You can't prohibit the free exercise, or perhaps you think that that clause doesn't exist.

Elliptical would still argue that ups and downs are equal in number.... History does repeat it self, that is true, but not in the way you are suggesting. It means that errors made in the past will be made again if we are not vigilant. It doesn't mean that history goes round and round, and it certainly doesn't imply that we will go back to the dark ages.

But you also can't make law based on doctrine, so therefore the law that is being discussed can never be and will be overruled by the federal law. And you can't make a law prohibiting their faith, but serving a gay person is not "prohibiting their faith" in any way. Their religious freedom ends where it erodes on the freedoms of others.

[Nobar]

Elliptical would still argue that ups and downs are equal in number.... History does repeat it self, that is true, but not in the way you are suggesting. It means that errors made in the past will be made again if we are not vigilant. It doesn't mean that history goes round and round, and it certainly doesn't imply that we will go back to the dark ages.

But you also can't make law based on doctrine, so therefore the law that is being discussed can never be and will be overruled by the federal law. And you can't make a law prohibiting their faith, but serving a gay person is not "prohibiting their faith" in any way. Their religious freedom ends where it erodes on the freedoms of others.

I hate to break it to you but no one has a right to be served.

[Nobar]

Citation needed.

"15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.[c] 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.

19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”

20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”

They said, “Barabbas!”

22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”

23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”

But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.[d] You see to it.”

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified."

[Felya]

Note the difference.

You don't know what circular means... An oval and a circle ate both circular, because regardless of the radius of the oval, you will return to the same point you started at, the same as a circle. What you want to say is that it's a wave. Which is why there are so many idioms that talk about waves, when talking about norms... Like breaking the wave... Making waves... Riding the wave...

Elliptical doesn't actually change what circular represents. If you set time at the diameter of two farthest points of an elliptical shape than a circle, all you are saying is that it would take longer than a circle. If you set time at the diameter that is the shortest, you are saying the impact is greater than a circle. You are not actually addressing the circular nature of what you are saying... You mean a wave...

[Deleted]

I hate to break it to you but no one has a right to be served.

But you do have the right to roam freely, and you also have the right to make use of the services that are open to the public.

[Felya]

In fact, the only thing you need to change to make an elliptical shape into a circle, is adjust the increment that time is measured in.

[kail]

It will be their kids or grandkids.
Incidentally, I am a millennial, so I might live to see it.

Well, I can't tell the future but the trend is against you.

- - - Updated - - -

The only "businesses" that should be exempt from serving gay people are churches, imo. Normal businesses shouldn't be morally presiding over their customers, nor does it say anywhere in the bible or Qur'an that serving gays is wrong.

It just says you should kill them :P

Correct. Churches, Temples, Mosques and others are not businesses. They can be use exclusive access. Same goes for other not for profit organizations like the Boy's Scouts.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't prohibit the free exercise, or perhaps you think that that clause doesn't exist.

Free exercise has limits.

[Deleted]

Well, I can't tell the future but the trend is against you.

- - - Updated - - -



Correct. Churches, Temples, Mosques and others are not businesses. They can be use exclusive access. Same goes for other not for profit organizations like the Boy's Scouts.

Temples and churches you can argue about, but not none profits like the boy scouts. They should not be allowed to discriminate on anything imo, they should be open to anyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

[breadisfunny]

Not true

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...7&version=NKJV

citing historical facts from a book based on biased accounts of the event rather than historical fact. that's a paddling.

[Zeek Daniels]

You cant make someone sell you somthing. There also doesnt need to be a law that blocks this kind of thing. Is a restaurant a public or private area? The owners can do w.e they want and people in the area will act according to their morals and values, and maybe that place will take a financial hit or maybe it wont.

[breadisfunny]

You cant make someone sell you somthing. There also doesnt need to be a law that blocks this kind of thing. Is a restaurant a public or private area? The owners can do w.e they want and people in the area will act according to their morals and values, and maybe that place will take a financial hit or maybe it wont.

no they can't. the government has stated you are NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. and for good reason as racists have no place in society.

[kail]

Temples and churches you can argue about, but not none profits like the boy scouts. They should not be allowed to discriminate on anything imo, they should be open to anyone regardless of race, religion or sex.

They are a club (basically). A large one but a club that participates in various activities. As far as I know, they are also not-for-profit where the fees taken by parents are used strictly for funding the staff and activities.

If I make a club, I could restrict access to only my friends or family or whomever I want. Clubs don't service or sell to the public like businesses do, they partake in private activities, like golf, chess, fishing or even video games. Here people are free to let their bigotry loose among each other. I can make a club that freely expresses racism and let anyone join. I can't practice racism or other forms of discrimination if I have a business open to the public.

- - - Updated - - -

You cant make someone sell you somthing. There also doesnt need to be a law that blocks this kind of thing. Is a restaurant a public or private area? The owners can do w.e they want and people in the area will act according to their morals and values, and maybe that place will take a financial hit or maybe it wont.

People need to look up the Civil Right's Act. This is like basic civics. Hint: Look up Title II.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii...accommodations

A link for those too lazy.