Mississippi Legislature passes another Religious Freedom Bill

Mad Max · April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 01, 2016, 04:28:16 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:26:10 PM
What happens when the expression of your rights infringes upon the rights of someone else?
Refusing to cater a wedding doesn't infringe on the rights of anybody. Gay people don't have the right to demand services from anybody.

And what right does a business owner have to deny their good or service to a customer based on something entirely unrelated to the good or service the business provides?

I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability. That's not unreasonable. Why does that not extend to sexual orientation?

The job of a business owner is to provide their good or service to a customer. The only cases in which they should deny their good or service is when the customer's request is unreasonable, or the business is not able to meet the needs of the customer.

April 01, 2016, 04:31:37 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 01, 2016, 04:28:16 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:26:10 PM
What happens when the expression of your rights infringes upon the rights of someone else?
Refusing to cater a wedding doesn't infringe on the rights of anybody. Gay people don't have the right to demand services from anybody.

They have the right to demand the same amenities that straight people have. Just as black people have the right to demand the same amenities that white people have.

Luciana · April 01, 2016, 04:33:56 PM

I feel like we've descended into cakedom and forgot about the bill itself >_>

maverick · April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM

I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.

I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.

Mad Max · April 01, 2016, 04:37:26 PM

I'm curious as to where in any religious text is Part C referenced

Quote

The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523CS.htm

Mad Max · April 01, 2016, 04:38:22 PM

Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.
I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.

Gee, it's almost as if we tried that already, which resulted in entire areas where certain people would not be served by any business, which is how we arrived at the need to have these laws on the books to begin with.

maverick · April 01, 2016, 04:47:06 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:38:22 PM

Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.
I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.
Gee, it's almost as if we tried that already, which resulted in entire areas where certain people would not be served by any business, which is how we arrived at the need to have these laws on the books to begin with.

I figured you were going to take us back to Jim Crow with your response. We don't live in the '50s any more; it's not like your description is even plausible in today's society. The few businesses that deny services to homosexual weddings get ridiculed by the public and just put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Seems entirely unnecessary to get the state involved.

Luciana · April 01, 2016, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.
I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

I feel you should give that a read.

Mad Max · April 01, 2016, 04:50:00 PM

Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:47:06 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.
I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.
Gee, it's almost as if we tried that already, which resulted in entire areas where certain people would not be served by any business, which is how we arrived at the need to have these laws on the books to begin with.
I figured you were going to take us back to Jim Crow with your response. We don't live in the '50s any more; it's not like your description is even plausible in today's society. The few businesses that deny services to homosexual weddings get ridiculed by the public and just put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Seems entirely unnecessary to get the state involved.

What makes you think entire areas of the South wouldn't all refuse services to LGBT people, just like entire areas refused services to blacks?

Luciana · April 01, 2016, 04:50:03 PM

Well yeah someone is gonna bring it up when you said something as basic and vague as "Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not."

"regardless of whether they're wrong or not."

There needs to be a basic set of rules to follow

Mordo · April 01, 2016, 04:52:41 PM

Quote from: Luciana on April 01, 2016, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: I have no friendsrick on April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
I think we can all agree which is businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.
I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

I feel thou should give which is a read.

Not comparable in the fucking slightest.

Jim Crow was mandated by the government, and enforced pretty much every business to engage in patently immoral discriminatory activities.

Literally no one here is advocating that. What we're positing is that individual businesses reserve the right to serve whatever kind of customer activity they want. The beauty of the free market is that there will always be organizations which will cater to your every need, and if there are a handful that don't, so what? Deal with it.

Luciana · April 01, 2016, 04:55:31 PM

But the government is quite literally advocating people are allowed to choose and pick with the passing of these bills, specifically in North Carolina more so.

Though you do bring up a good point that Jim Crow was more so a demand rather than a suggestion.

I'm more so playing devils advocate (or maybe just doing a shitty job at it). I honestly don't find it out of control the whole cake thing. I thought the whole thing was personally stupid.

maverick · April 01, 2016, 04:58:54 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:50:00 PM

Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:47:06 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 04:36:10 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
I think we can all agree that businesses should not legally be allowed to discriminate against customers based on sex, race, religion, age, or disability.
I disagree with this. Being able to deny business seems like a pretty basic right for a businessowner to me, regardless of whether they're wrong or not.
Gee, it's almost as if we tried that already, which resulted in entire areas where certain people would not be served by any business, which is how we arrived at the need to have these laws on the books to begin with.
I figured you were going to take us back to Jim Crow with your response. We don't live in the '50s any more; it's not like your description is even plausible in today's society. The few businesses that deny services to homosexual weddings get ridiculed by the public and just put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Seems entirely unnecessary to get the state involved.
What makes you think entire areas of the South wouldn't all refuse services to LGBT people, just like entire areas refused services to blacks?

Haven't these places already had these rights in the past? I can't recall ever hearing about a southern coalition come together to not serve the gays. In any case, public opinion of the LGBT group is vastly changing, and like I said they'll just get ridiculed and put at a disadvantage.

challengerX · April 01, 2016, 05:14:39 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Elai · April 01, 2016, 05:22:38 PM

Why would you want to buy a cake from someone who openly doesn't want to make you one, anyway? They could do all sorts of fucked up shit to it and you'd never know.

Just go buy a cake from someone who has no reservations like that, and let the market reward those people.

eggsalad · April 01, 2016, 05:32:41 PM

If you allow business owners to have the freedom to arbitrarily (lolfuckingfundies) deny service to people based on things customers can't control, you open up the opportunity for small communities to largely exclude small demographics from what few services the town has.

Trying to apply high-school level economics to this situation it might seem as simple as "hurr durr just go to different vendor", when really the number of people being excluded in small communities isn't large enough to warrant some magical save the day entrepreneur to start their own business and reap all them amazing cake deals from the whopping handful of gays in the county.

At some point it just forces small demographics to move from those areas to different areas. And a country where demographics have to consider "well we can't move there because our people are hated in that area" is not in a healthy situation. No one should have their freedom of movement limited like that.

"You're discriminating against my ability to discriminate!". Good. Fuck your ability to discriminate.

Flee · April 01, 2016, 06:12:54 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

maverick · April 01, 2016, 06:41:03 PM

Quote from: Flee on April 01, 2016, 06:12:54 PM

Just gotta point out that this last part isn't necessarily true. When chik-a-filet's more anti-gay stance became public, they saw a massive spike in popularity and had some of their most profitable periods in ages (over a 30% increase in profit during those few months), all due to increased support from others with the same opinion who went to eat there just because they were against gay marriage themselves. Below is a picture of the establishment the week after the whole controversy, with people lining up around the block just to support them.

And while I'm sure some businesses went bankrupt because of it, I remember several other instances where small businesses received a lot of support and tens of thousands of dollars in donations from people who were overjoyed by them 'resisting gay marriage' by refusing to serve gay weddings.

Fair enough. I was honestly not aware of this case. I would argue that societies opinion on LGBT issues has changed quite quickly over here in America since 2012, and I'd honestly be surprised to see a similar outcome today. It will only keep improving as time goes on.

Quote

A lot of people are stupid and hateful. That's just reality. And without getting into the particulars of this case, I do believe that sometimes governmental and legislative interference is necessary to combat and overcome that and protect human rights.

I agree with this. If there are situations like some have described on this page, where people are basically oppressed by society, legislation would be called for but I find it to be a bit of a stretch in the world we live in today. I take my position because I don't believe forcing people to take part in services that they aren't comfortable with to be the perfect decision.

DAS B00T x2 · April 01, 2016, 06:55:42 PM

Quote from: Memerick on April 01, 2016, 06:41:03 PM

Fair enough. I was honestly not aware of this case. I would argue that societies opinion on LGBT issues has changed quite quickly over here in America since 2012, and I'd honestly be surprised to see a similar outcome today. It will only keep improving as time goes on.

Not in rural America, it hasn't.

More Than Mortal · April 01, 2016, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:37:26 PM

I'm curious as to where in any religious text is Part C referenced

Quote
The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523CS.htm

Psalm 139:13.

Mad Max · April 01, 2016, 07:17:09 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 01, 2016, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2016, 04:37:26 PM
I'm curious as to where in any religious text is Part C referenced

Quote
The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523CS.htm
Psalm 139:13.

http://biblehub.com/psalms/139.htm

Even in context it's quite a far stretch to say Psalm 139:13 means transgender people aren't real; men are men and women are women.

Cindy · April 01, 2016, 08:23:24 PM

ITT: Saying that I can't freely hate people is bigoted. You're the REAL bigots! Freeze Peach!!!!

Luciana · April 01, 2016, 09:03:32 PM

Quote from: Cindy on April 01, 2016, 08:23:24 PM

Freeze Peach!!!!

Don't freeze Peach, he's an okay member.

Alternative Facts · April 01, 2016, 10:50:25 PM

This whole thread has literally just become a massive clusterfuck.

And both sides are only half right.

More Than Mortal · April 02, 2016, 04:47:51 AM

Quote from: Cindy on April 01, 2016, 08:23:24 PM

ITT: Saying that I can't freely hate people is bigoted. You're the REAL bigots! Freeze Peach!!!!

Are you dumb?

Legislating against hate doesn't make people hate others less. You can't get people to stop being homophobic by outlawing it, even if there is a role for the law to play.

Mattie G Indahouse · April 02, 2016, 05:30:06 AM

In the South everyday is Jim Crow day.

Flee · April 02, 2016, 07:56:05 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Flee · April 02, 2016, 08:05:32 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Luciana · April 02, 2016, 02:05:34 PM

I don't think anyone should take Cindy seriously when she does that crap. She can easily post an intelligent opinion without doing that.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 02, 2016, 02:09:59 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.