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

[Dren The Black]

You have still not answered why offering a service is somehow coerced out of you. The business owner chose to enter into business as a place of public accommodation.

There are many things supposedly against the religion's dogma, they don't seem to really care about all but one.

Using that logic, we can say that people can't divorce because they entered a marriage to be together until death.

See, what you don't understand is that when someone offers a service it's "offered". Offers can be withdrawn. If they withdraw the offer to serve based on whatever they decide, using the government to bully someone to serve you is coercion. It's tyrannical.

Also, who cares how devout "they" are? That has nothing to do with anything.

They prioritized industry over agriculture. Similar to why so many starved in China under communism. Greater good itself was not the root cause. But the reason given as people perished.

You're comparing offering services at a pre-determined price as slavery? You've got some screws loose.

Because you didn't understand the first time. It becomes slavery once a offer to serve is withdrawn and governmental coercion to force the person to preform the offer is implemented.

[Deleted]

While other states and cities in the east backed away, Mississippi said we are modern, foward-thinking, and most importantly - we believe in personal and business freedom! We believe in CHOICES! So if someone wants to refuse 4% or 50% or 100% of customers, well, it is their right.

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

I fixed your post; thank me.

[Dren The Black]

I fixed your post; thank me.

3 weeks too late.

[Lenonis]

Using that logic, we can say that people can't divorce because they entered a marriage to be together until death.

Except for the whole part where marriage is just a legal contract.

Also, who cares how devout "they" are? That has nothing to do with anything.

It matters because people are using religious freedom to defend these actions. If they aren't actually following their doctrine then it isn't actually motivated by religious beliefs, and thus the concept of religious freedom doesn't apply.

I'm, frankly, rather surprised that people are willing to give folks such a leeway in being hypocritical about their beliefs when they are using those so-called beliefs to try to shape the law. In any other conceivable scenario this level of hypocrisy in legal and political manners would have people calling for resignations.

[wheresmywoft]

Using that logic, we can say that people can't divorce because they entered a marriage to be together until death.

See, what you don't understand is that when someone offers a service it's "offered". Offers can be withdrawn. If they withdraw the offer to serve based on whatever they decide, using the government to bully someone to serve you is coercion. It's tyrannical.

Also, who cares how devout "they" are? That has nothing to do with anything.



Because you didn't understand the first time. It becomes slavery once a offer to serve is withdrawn and governmental coercion to force the person to preform the offer is implemented.

The divorce analogy is very poorly thought out. As the owner could renounce the business license and stop operating.

"Government is bullying me and not allowing me to bully others!" Where have I heard this before...

Yea, which makes it a bullshit claim.

You're not even being genuine here. Withdrawing the offer to server would be to close up shop. As the shop is still open, the offer to server is still open. They just want to be selective. You can't even draw proper analogies, I can't even say with certainty that you even understand the topic.

[Masark]

Using that logic, we can say that people can't divorce because they entered a marriage to be together until death.

See, what you don't understand is that when someone offers a service it's "offered". Offers can be withdrawn. If they withdraw the offer to serve based on whatever they decide, using the government to bully someone to serve you is coercion. It's tyrannical.

They are not being prevented from withdrawing their offer. They are not being forced to remain open.

[Phlegethon]

The people who banned gay marriage were saying the exact same thing.

If you vote for a bible, you are too dumb to vote and should be banned from doing just that.
Easy.
Nobody should even be allowed to vote for a bible.

[Machismo]

If you vote for a bible, you are too dumb to vote and should be banned from doing just that.
Easy.
Nobody should even be allowed to vote for a bible.

Banning someone for voting for their beliefs is voting for your beliefs. You'd be doing the same thing they did.

[Phlegethon]

Banning someone for voting for their beliefs is voting for your beliefs. You'd be doing the same thing they did.

It's not a belief. It's having a brain that works. (at least a bit)