Mississippi passes religious freedom bill

Well I'm going to take the stance at this as an attack against LBGT people, while I'm sure there are others effected I'll talk about what I have experience with.

Ummm didn't we decide that yes, yes you do have to leave your objections at door based upon personal beliefs with the civil rights laws?  You can't refuse service to a person of color, or who is Asian, etc... 

I don't know if it is the case with this bill either, but some of them allow those working at government service jobs to refuse service to people based on their religious beliefs.  I'm sure I could come up with a specific example, but I'm lazy right now.  I may be wrong on this, but don't think so.

I just don't understand where these people are coming from.  I for the life of me can not fathom it.  Ugh it is frustrating.

As far as putting "in God We Trust" on the state flag.  Really?, there is nothing better to be doing with your time? 

I think the only thing remotely controversial about the law is putting "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the state seal for obvious reasons.

As for discriminating against people and/or refusing service type of arguments this law has absolutely nothing to do with that as far as I can tell.  It simply uses language of the Federal religious freedom act in that nobody can discriminate against an individual's religious freedoms or impose a law that compels them to go against their religion.  I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that unless they want to force people to act against their religion and/or discriminate against them.

Here's the law itself.  It's a quick read:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2014/pdf/SB/2600-2699/SB2681PS.pdf

I don't know what the earlier version of it said, but it sounds like there was some language that was more controversial in earlier versions of the bill that was removed before it's passage.

fixed that for ya.  I don't think he had the typo in the bill.  ;-)

I don't have time to read the bill right now.  But I will take a stab at what you said.  Because if you are hired to do a job, or provide a service to people you should do it regardless of your religious beliefs.  Case in point pharmacists - the ones that refuse to dispense any medications (emergency contraception) based on their religious beliefs should be fired.

Because if your beliefs go against my beliefs (I wouldn't call it a belief either it's who I am) who's in the right? 

Orrr.... the pharmacist could just find an employer that agreed with him... and customers could decide where they want to go. 

First... I think it is as silly to get worked up over "In God We Trust" being placed as it is to get worked up over it not being placed. Really, that is the most serious problem we have to fight over right now. 

what I find funny is that we need an "Act" to say what the Bill of Rights already does.... that the Federal Government better have a darn good reason to restrict freedoms.... and most of the time they don't. It's sad we need the RFRA to state the obvious... but we do. It's equally silly we need the Civil Rights Act for the same reason.... Duhhh! If religious types... and secular types could just get over trying to legislate their own brand of utopia, maybe we could get some work done. 

The Hobby Lobby thread.... I do not think corporations have rights... but Citizens United said "associations of people" do have rights... they may win. The gay cake... dude was an idiot for denying them for that sole reason.... small business owner all of the country turn down business they don't want every day and they have a variety of ways of doing it. 

I'm tired of the whole thing. So many other problems to work on besides making people accept you. 

Yes the cake guy was an idiot, he could have gone about it much more tactfully, would it be wrong? In my opinion yes, Illegal? Probably not.  Bills like this could give merit to removing some of those protections.

It's not a matter of people accepting you.  I know there are many people out there that will never accept me and I don't care.  They are not losing any sleep over.  It's about making people treat me with dignity.  You may be tired about it, but when these laws keep coming up it's like a punch to the gut.  You're damn right I'm going to voice my opposition to it and defend myself.

Hey Justin....what's the deal with these "laws/bills"? I read it and it doesn't even make sense to me.  How does it affect you?  You know I'm not being sarcastic.....I'm ignorant when it comes to this stuff.

You CAN'T MAKE people treat you with dignity.... you can force them to do stuff they don't want to, you can punish them under penalty of law.... but you can't make them respect you. And it goes both ways... just cause you write something on a building does not mean I am going respect your beliefs. It certainly does not mean I am going to obey them.

I'm not singling you out. I get it... some walk away, some don't... eventually something changes. I can't say you are wrong. What I do know is that there is undoubtedly a cultural war being waged in our legislatures and it has been going for a while now. That isn't what legislation is for. It never works.... the power you seek to legislate others... is the very power being used to legislate against you. All the liberals want to remove God from public view.... guess what, they all want to use the same power to remove liberalism from public view.... it's a bunch of non-sense. 

You too, PM....explain these laws to me.  It's called religious freedom, but then when I read it I can't figure out what the hell they want. I think I'm usually not this dumb.....but who knows?   

I have not read this one, I'll get to it but I just finished reading 15+ resumes reading is the last thing I want to do right now .  But the one in Arizona i think it was, would have allowed people to not provide services to others based on their religious beliefs (including public sector employees).  While it was not singled out against the LBGT community those that have written these bills have been very opposed to LBGT rights.

Could other groups be affected?  Certainly.  I am going to use examples from what I know.  I'm sure there are other minority groups out there that could be just as worried. 

Do I think it would really ever effect me?  Probably not.  But it could, or someone that I care about. 

It means you can make any claim to being burdened you want. The state then has to have a really god reason to want to burden you.... and even then, the State has to use what ever is the least burdensome means available... Really? No chit Cherlock. We already have the 1A, and yes it applies to the states. I have no idea what this does over and above what the 1A does. But they all feel really good about themselves for doing it. 

OK, gotcha.  I was thinking I must be missing something about specifically singling out the LBGT community.  Your explanation clears it up. 

You know, people have been not providing services to people they don't want to provide them to since the beginning of time.  If it's me, and granted, I don't walk in your shoes, I just take my business elsewhere.  You and I are in perfect agreement that it's BS, but you know what?  Fork them!  I just take my business and spend my money with someone who appreciates it.  In this day and age it's easy to get the word out on who to stay away from.  I think that's truly how you gain ground on discrimination.  You can't fix stupid, but you can make it hurt.

Bro.....that may be the best typo EVER!!!  LMAO

That is god. 

Exactly that's what I try and do, take my dollar elsewhere.  I have a list of companies that I wont do business with.  While I may get a bit worked up over these laws in the grand scheme of things after I cool down a bit about hearing about them I really don't think things will really change that much (if at all).

Just to clarify, the MS bill doesn't have anything to do with employers or employees providing services.  It's nothing more than a bill that essentially reiterates the 1st Amendment saying that an individual cannot be discriminated upon based on religious grounds.  That's it besides the "in God we trust" part.

There's not a single sentence in the Bill that somebody could use to justify or defend discrimination towards anyone for any reason.

The Arizona law had a provision in it that was a little more controversial because it essentially made a legal defense that you could refuse service based on your religious beliefs.  In AZ, your argument is absolutely valid, but it's not applicable at all in MS.

I'm sure you're in support of laws that want to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so how is this law any different?  It simply wants to clarify individual protection based on religion.

Little bit of a tangent, but I always tell people when they say "it's who I am" that your sexuality is not "who you are", it's simply a part of you.  You are a man that is no different than me and you should have all the rights that I do.  Beyond that, whatever you or I do is our own business as long as it doesn't break the law or trample on the rights of others.  When that happens LB shows up at your house.  

True that.  

We all get discriminated upon for one reason or another.  I own a business and I have a Bible scripture in my email signature.  I knowingly put my faith out there and I know that there are some people who have chosen to not do business with us because of it.  I have no problem with that at all.
Same with my car; I have a "God is Awesome" license plate frame and I've had a few random "flip off's" since I put it on. 

In some way's there are parallels to having a rainbow sticker on the back of my car, but I also recognize it's different in that going to a movie with my wife would never result in a "stare" whereas if I had a same sex partner I'm sure it would.

People are going to discriminate and hate no matter what it is that makes you "different" from them, it's just a matter of degrees and what their "hang up" is.  I think of it as "their problem" and not mine.  People with low self esteem have to tear others down to feel better about themselves, so I kind of feel sorry for them.

Yeah and I have no problem with that.  It actually appreciate it you stand up for your convictions which is a noble thing.  The difference is when someone uses those convictions against someone else.  Which I think it's pretty safe to assume that you don't do. 

You are correct.  I believe very strongly in what I believe in and you guys often see me trying to defend or explain my beliefs, but I will never say you "have" to believe what I believe or conform to my beliefs.  Yes, I try to convince you to believe what I believe, but that's about as far as I go.