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

[Vanyali]

For the people clinging onto 'religious reasons'.

Pope to church: Be more accepting of divorced Catholics, gays and lesbians

Not to take away from the coolness that is that, but most people in the US clinging to it see the pope as a heathen that ruins the christian faith.

[kenn9530]

discriminating between sexual orientation or religion is stupid, the main reason people have problems is due to religion, the world would be so much better off is people were smart enough to know that religion serves no purpose other than an excuse for hating something.

[Acidbaron]

Not to take away from the coolness that is that, but most people in the US clinging to it see the pope as a heathen that ruins the christian faith.

Yet they are still part of it, regardless if the Bishops there want to distance themselves from the Pope.

[Vanyali]

Yet they are still part of it, regardless if the Bishops there want to distance themselves from the Pope.

? I'm talking non-catholics, which covers a lot of people in the US. Catholicism isn't the major christian group here.

[Damajin]

So why don't the Christians move? If they don't want to serve members of the GLBT community maybe they should move somewhere where there is less of them around?

I'm sure some do, there's a reason people move to the Plain states, Dakotas and such. There's more than just Christians disagreeing with them btw.

- - - Updated - - -

Homophobia isn't just about fear but hate as well.

Well good thing I don't hate them now isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

So which law is the GLBT community trying to get passed that takes religious freedom from christians? It isn't bigoted to want laws repealed that deny civil rights to others. Give me a fucking break.

- - - Updated - - -



Once again it has already been established by SCOTUS that businesses do not have the right to deny service based on discrimination. There is no debate here.

- - - Updated - - -



And the GLBT community just wants go about their lives the same as everyone else but laws like this one prevent that.

They can do that, my disagreement with the entire legal situation is literally with the fact that a store owner isn't legally allowed to say No to them. I'd support gay shop owners saying no to straight people under the exact same circumstances. I think the discretion of the owner/operator is paramount and far more important than what a potential customer wants.

- - - Updated - - -

Preventing people from shopping where they wish simply because of who they are isn't hate or malice?

- - - Updated - - -



The notion that orientation is a choice despite all evidence to the contrary absolutely is homophobic. Denying people the right to shop where they wish absolutely is infringing on their rights. Again the only thing being asked for here is equality. Nothing more nothing less.

No, it's not.

[Daelak]

They can do that, my disagreement with the entire legal situation is literally with the fact that a store owner isn't legally allowed to say No to them. I'd support gay shop owners saying no to straight people under the exact same circumstances. I think the discretion of the owner/operator is paramount and far more important than what a potential customer wants.

Then start up a private, paid membership only bakery.

[Damajin]

Then start up a private, paid membership only bakery.

I'm sure that some might do that, at least until people come to their senses and realize the stupidity of this one sided oppressive 'ruling' that the SC stuck us with.

[Bighud44]

The idea that a religion is designed to discriminate is idiotic.

If someone believes they should refuse service to another person on the grounds of beliefs that have no evidence, they are living in a fairy tale.

If these religious freedom acts had any truth to them, they would just say "believe what you want, the only truth is evidence."

So using your logic its fair to say that since you have no evidence that God doesn't exist, he actually does?

[satimy]

Does not apply to businesses open to the public, and for good reason. Here's a work around, try to file the business as a non-profit organization and simply give products and services to people who donate a certain amount of money. Or just keep the business at home.

The moment you operate up at a non-residential area, you are supposed to open up to the public. Government based segregation was wrong, but it was not the only problem. Allow businesses to ban certain classes of people and you open up the allowance for entire communities to screw over those victims.

- - - Updated - - -



Aquittal for what? Sorry not in the mood to read the past 5 pages.

Open to the public is just some term you made up

[WintersLegion]

Some one used the law to evict a couple because they were an interracial couple.
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/n...uple/82469086/
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/...-marriage.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2587740

[Oktoberfest]

They should just bake cakes that say hateful messages on them. Can't cry about shitty service to someone who told you to fuck off in the first place.

Ideally sexual orientation and religion wouldn't matter, but left wingers seem to want to set w precedent that private property doesn't exist which is the true goals of the far left. Obstruction of private business is a disgrace to liberty

- - - Updated - - -




No anything not explicitly covered by the constitution is left to the states. The civil rights act governed inter state commerce, and is thus illegitimate as the federal government has no authority to govern commerce within a state

Yep but dont tellt hat to the Big Govt people who try to use vague garbage to cram their agendas over the 9th and 10th

[kamuimac]

While other states and cities in the east backed away, Mississippi said fuck it, we are ass backward anyway what are we going to lose

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...405-story.html

good - free speak is free speach - just like gay people should be able to openly admit they are gay and nobody should persecute them for it , other people should be free to refuse to provide services for them if they choose to.

[Deleted]

Some one used the law to evict a couple because they were an interracial couple.
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/n...uple/82469086/
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/...-marriage.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2587740

Who would have seen that coming. Oh, pretty much everyone who thought about the implication of that law for just a minute.
But hey, according to some people here, you should be allowed to discriminate against others, if you don't like what they are doing - so I am sure that's fine too.

I am just waiting for the first news about someone denying service to a white person or Christians. Watch those same people get all upset if that happens.

[Deleted]

good - free speak is free speach - just like gay people should be able to openly admit they are gay and nobody should persecute them for it , other people should be free to refuse to provide services for them if they choose to.

The problem is that citizens in any civilised society have rights. And those rights dictate that nobody has the right to persecute another citizen for thier religion, gender, race or sexual orientation.

[Noradin]

The problem is that citizens in any civilised society have rights. And those rights dictate that nobody has the right to persecute another citizen for thier religion, gender, race or sexual orientation.

No, that isn't the problem, the problem is that some people would rather not live in a civilised society.

[Adam Jensen]

No they shouldn't and SCOTUS has already established that. There is no debate here.

Didn't they decide upon that like 40 years ago. There was this guy named Martin Luther King . . .

What is the difference between refusing service to black people and refusing service to gay people? No seriously. I don't get how one is even different than the other. Both are incidences of bigoted business owners treating an entire group of people as second-class citizens, oppressing them based solely on prejudice. We had this argument before, a long time ago. Only now instead of blacks, its gays. You do not get to discriminate entire groups of people.

[Lenonis]

good - free speak is free speach - just like gay people should be able to openly admit they are gay and nobody should persecute them for it , other people should be free to refuse to provide services for them if they choose to.

What sort of twisted equivalence is that?

Hey, gay people should be able to be open and not persecuted, but on the flip side gay people should be able to be open and be refused goods and services?

WTF?

[Vanyali]

Who would have seen that coming. Oh, pretty much everyone who thought about the implication of that law for just a minute.
But hey, according to some people here, you should be allowed to discriminate against others, if you don't like what they are doing - so I am sure that's fine too.

I am just waiting for the first news about someone denying service to a white person or Christians. Watch those same people get all upset if that happens.

Well obviously they should know that it was INTENDED only to protect them from the evul gays, so using it like this is a complete miscarriage of justice!!!!!!11111

[Jotaux]

Some one used the law to evict a couple because they were an interracial couple.
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/n...uple/82469086/
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/...-marriage.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2587740

I feel bad for the couple but at the same time I can't help laughing, shaking my head at the insanity of this law.

[Deleted]

businesses should be allowed to refuse service to a customer for what ever reason they chose imo, but should be investigated for discrimination if they constantly single out specific groups