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

[Oktoberfest]

If the law suddenly sided with that idea, society would be more separated and fragmented than ever. Imagine towns that are run mostly by Catholics, or Muslims that only allow clients that share their religion. Or areas that collectively agree to discriminate against blacks or whites. This puts hardships on those of the receiving end of discrimination, not sure why anyone wants that kind of society.

Making discrimination legal again is like a parent or teacher letting their kids bully others, because you think it's their "right". The practice is immoral and socially damaging.

The world would not fall apart.

I could really care less about someones feelings being hurt.

The most social damaging thing to come along in ages is Political Correctness. Im fucking sorry I ever engaged in it in the past. The cure is more deadly than the disease it sought to cure.

Nailed it

[kail]

It doesn't really matter what the club considers its members to be, they do provide a service, this same service is provided world wide by them. It is in no stretch the same as any other social club, it would be more like a sporting club not wanting to have blacks or something like that.
As i have said, Christianity might have hijacked it in America, but it has no basis what so ever in Christianity. Robert Baden-Powel came back from the second boerwar as a specialist in scouting and wrote a little pocket book about it. Young people would reenact these stories of him through this pocket book. When this became a hit under the young people Robert was encouraged to write a "playbook" about it. To test his method he organized the first "scouts camp" in august 1907, after the camp the scouts book was to come out in parts.

What you might be thinking of is the "boys brigade" that has its roots in Christianity, but not the boy scouts.

I'm simply talking about the BSA, which is the popular boy scouts everyone knows about. There are others. I am ignorant in the BSA's founding but I know that for a long time, they have affiliated themselves with the Christian faith. That or it's just coincidence they are located in Churches mostly and have banned memberships by many up till now, white Christians never receiving the ban.

What is considered a service seems to be a gray area. ATM the boys scouts can always claim they are just partaking in their own activities among their members. They are nonprofit and are recognized by the IRS as such.

[Barnabas]

Would be better if the "hate" was simply kept in check or mature out of it. I would prefer that than to acknowledge it and base law and society on that type of hate.

Sure but the world isnt this utopia you speak of. One group doesn't want another group forced on them while the other wants people that hate them to help them. It's ridiculous. So the solution is that they just don't deal with each other. It's like gays live in this fantasy world that just because they can now get married that everyone else is just supposed to suddenly toss their religious beliefs that have been going on for thousands of years out the window over it?

[Deleted]

I'm simply talking about the BSA, which is the popular boy scouts everyone knows about. There are others. I am ignorant in the BSA's founding but I know that for a long time, they have affiliated themselves with the Christian faith. That or it's just coincidence they are located in Churches mostly and have banned memberships by many up till now, white Christians never receiving the ban.

What is considered a service seems to be a gray area. ATM the boys scouts can always claim they are just partaking in their own activities among their members. They are nonprofit and are recognized by the IRS as such.

That might be so in America, but not across the pond, so that would mean that Christians hijacked it. That is one big reason as to why they should not be allowed to discriminate like this. Hijacking something like the boy scouts for religious purposes should be downright illegal imo.

[kail]

The world would not fall apart.

I could really care less about someones feelings being hurt.

The most social damaging thing to come along in ages is Political Correctness. Im fucking sorry I ever engaged in it in the past. The cure is more deadly than the disease it sought to cure.

Nailed it

I fully agree with that video (and most of what Carlin says), not a fan of how people want to alter speech and language because it sounds insulting to them. Doesn't really apply to this discussion though.

Discrimination isn't just outlawed because it hurts feelings. It is considered immoral and immature, which can damage societies as I already explained. You are pre-judging someone because of their skin color, or religion. If the few Hispanics are completely discriminated in a certain area, they lost their right to life and liberty.

You're response may be the usual "oh well, too bad for them", when this country and many other countries are trying to evolve from that. Everyone should have the opportunity to live happily, discrimination hinders that opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure but the world isnt this utopia you speak of. One group doesn't want another group forced on them while the other wants people that hate them to help them. It's ridiculous. So the solution is that they just don't deal with each other. It's like gays live in this fantasy world that just because they can now get married that everyone else is just supposed to suddenly toss their religious beliefs that have been going on for thousands of years out the window over it?

So why don't we continue to work towards the "utopia", like we've been doing for the past decades? Why allow the irrational "hate" to remained practiced? Because of thousand year old religions?

And where do get the ideas that gays want others to stop practicing their religions? They just don't want to be discriminated against, no one does. Better for zero discrimination than complete allowance over it.

[Barnabas]

I fully agree with that video (and most of what Carlin says), not a fan of how people want to alter speech and language because it sounds insulting to them. Doesn't really apply to this discussion though.

Discrimination isn't just outlawed because it hurts feelings. It is considered immoral and immature, which can damage societies as I already explained. You are pre-judging someone because of their skin color, or religion. If the few Hispanics are completely discriminated in a certain area, they lost their right to life and liberty.

You're response may be the usual "oh well, too bad for them", when this country and many other countries are trying to evolve from that. Everyone should have the opportunity to live happily, discrimination hinders that opportunity.

- - - Updated - - -



So why don't we continue to work towards the "utopia", like we've been doing for the past decades? Why allow the irrational "hate" to remained practiced? Because of thousand year old religions?

And where do get the ideas that gays want others to stop practicing their religions? They just don't want to be discriminated against, no one does. Better for zero discrimination than complete allowance over it.

Because forced acceptance isn't going to do anything but create more of a divide. We should make a law that says the bloods and crips must work together and love each no matter what. It will totally work right?

[Acidbaron]

So all you took from Orwell was that he didnt like religion much and that makes it acceptable to use Totalitarian measures to impose moral beliefs upon the religious? I would not comment on my comprehension.

The bolded word does not mean what you think it means in this situation, these rules are in place to prevent it from such forms ever manifesting.
But either you are really this poorly educated on that or are just being dishonest in either case you are quite boring to speak to.

[Devilyaki]

Rather sad, pleased I don't live in the USA

[kail]

Because forced acceptance isn't going to do anything but create more of a divide. We should make a law that says the bloods and crips must work together and love each no matter what. It will totally work right?

No one has to love anyone. And laws like the CRA seem to be working so far. As I mentioned before, society is growing more tolerant over time.

[Barnabas]

No one has to love anyone. And laws like the CRA seem to be working so far. As I mentioned before, society is growing more tolerant over time.

True but you need to have the supreme court decide how religions can practice.

[Noradin]

I honestly don't get this, you should be allowed to deny service to whoever you like...even if it just was not liking someones face.

Would that apply to the person issuing the all clear after checking that your business presents no danger to public savety?
Should they be allowed to deny you service because they do not like your face?
How about the police officer who comes to your home in case you were robbed, should they be allowed to decline because they do not like your name?

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like that doesn't happen as much as suggested.

But then again, I admit I am unaware of life in larger states and how out in the sticks a town may be.

So because "you feel it doesn't happen often" it is not an issue?
Like "I feel you do not get robbed 'often'" so it would be alright to make it legal to rob you specifically.

[Hammerfest]

I don't have a problem with this law. Business owners already have the ability to refuse service to people who misbehave or act indecently anyway.

[breadisfunny]

The world would not fall apart.

I could really care less about someones feelings being hurt.

The most social damaging thing to come along in ages is Political Correctness. Im fucking sorry I ever engaged in it in the past. The cure is more deadly than the disease it sought to cure.

Nailed it

the only cure for racists is extermination. racists and their enablers have no place in this world and all your crying about the civil rights act isn't going to stop the civil rights act.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have a problem with this law. Business owners already have the ability to refuse service to people who misbehave or act indecently anyway.

of course you wouldn't simply because it promotes your religion while stomping over the rights of others it sounds like the kind of law you would eagerly get behind.

[Shinra1]

Yes, I'm going to my prayer closet.

[Machismo]

I'm not the one forcing anything; I'm just stating what the government should, in my opinion, do. Which is apply the same standards for discrimination. And it's not my belief that matters, it's the majorities opinion. The majority is not automatically right, we already had that, but if me thinking that it is in this case makes me some authoritarian hypocrite, that's your opinion and I cba.

I'm out, I need to catch some sleep...

One last time, the government IS force.

- - - Updated - - -

Telling people who they can and can't love/marry is the epitome of using government to force your belief on someone. Let me put it this way, someone using government to gain their own personal freedom is not big government or using government to enforce anything. You using government to use your belief that affects other people's freedoms, not your own, is using force of governance.

That is why I do not support the bigots who banned gay marriage. That is also why I do not support forcing a private entity to serve someone they do not wish to serve. If a prostitute refuses to have sex with someone, is she taking away their rights?

[XangXu]

I think it's funny that some states are choosing to dig themselves into a hole.

When the rest of the world has changed, they will look on those states the way they look on 3rd world countries. If those states are cool with that, that is there prerogative.

- - - Updated - - -

Also can't couples just say they're "good friends"

Does the law state that when a gay couple enters a business, they have to announce their sexuality or something?

What if they get through they're entire meal, pay, and then tell the owner that they're gay. What then? Are the police summoned?

Fucking idiot law.

[Machismo]

Look, willful ignorance of basic English is not an argument, no matter how much you want it to be.

You're just straight-up wrong about what the word means. "Homophobia" has never referred to a "fear". Words with the root of "-phobia", in English, do not exclusively refer to fear reactions. You're pretending that they do, and that's just straight up incorrect.



Nobody's forcing homophobes to NOT be homophobes. Just to stop acting on that homophobia, and infringing on gay people's rights. You've never had a right to do that.

Now, if gay people were trying to ban literally all Christians from getting married, just for being Christian, then you might have an argument. But they aren't, and you don't.

Refusing to serve someone is not restricting their rights.

[Noradin]

I don't have a problem with this law. Business owners already have the ability to refuse service to people who misbehave or act indecently anyway.

If they have that why is this one needed? To give them the ability to refuse people who do not misbehave in any way?

- - - Updated - - -

Refusing to serve someone is not restricting their rights.

It is.
It is restricting their right not to be discriminated against.

[XangXu]

Refusing to serve someone is not restricting their rights.

Refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality is discrimination. It's like not serving someone because they are black.

[Machismo]

If they have that why is this one needed? To give them the ability to refuse people who do not misbehave in any way?

- - - Updated - - -



It is.
It is restricting their right not to be discriminated against.

We discriminate every single day, all of us. You discriminate based on any number of your personal preferences. Some people don't find fat women attractive, should they still be forced to not discriminate, and date them, anyways? After all, those fat women have a "right" to not be discriminated against. Should we be able to force women to have sex with any man who wants to sleep with her,
so as to prevent her from discriminating against any of them? Let me know just how far your desire to force people to not discriminate goes.

- - - Updated - - -

Refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality is discrimination. It's like not serving someone because they are black.

Yes, it is discrimination, and we all do it every single day. I don't like sushi, should I still be forced to eat it so as not to be discriminatory? Should a prostitute be required to have sex with every single customer that comes her way? Should a gay business owner be forced to serve the Westboro Baptist Church. Should a black business owner be forced to serve the KKK?