Mississippi governor signs religious freedom bill into law.

[Henrin]

Oh really? Sit back and watch. The caca us about to hit the aerator.

:lamo Dude, seriously, a corporation is not just going to leave behind the profits they make from an entire state. Why you would even think their threat is anything more than empty is beyond me.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm not arguing in favor of state officials not doing their jobs or even the state being able to discriminate, but in favor of private entities deciding on their own who they wish to associate with, who they wish to trade their property with, and who they wish to provide their labor. I don't agree with the law itself, but I do agree that people have the right to discriminate in their business arrangements because of their faith.

We have been though that period in our history, on repeat.

I am not thrilled that we need protections like this in our economy and society, but this is what happens when we have people pretending to stay "true to their faith" but really giving themselves a license to act judgmental, discriminatory, and socioeconomically foolish.

One day people are going to realize that freedom of faith is for the individual, not the State to create a series of classes for social and economic participation by exclusion intentions.

 

[tres borrachos]

I found a summary of a few of the aspects of this bill.

Assessing what kind of discriminatory situations this would enable is easy, because the bill spells those out as well. So long as individuals are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” any of the following behaviors would have the endorsement of the government:
Religious organizations can decline to solemnize any marriage or provide any services related to recognizing that marriage.
Religious organizations can refuse to hire, fire, and discipline employees for violating the organization’s religious beliefs.
Religious organizations can choose not to sell, rent, or otherwise provide shelter.
Religious organizations that provide foster or adoptive services can decline service without risking their state subsidies.
Any foster or adoptive parent can impose their religious beliefs on their children.
Any person can choose not to provide treatment, counseling, or surgery related to gender transition or same-sex parenting.
Any person (including any business) can choose not to provide services for any marriage ceremony or occasion that involves recognizing a marriage, including:
Photography
Poetry
Videography
Disc-Jockey Services
Wedding Planning
Printing
Publishing
Floral Arrangements
Dress Making
Cake or Pastry Artistry
Assembly-Hall or Other Wedding-Venue Rentals
Limousine or Other Car-Service Rentals
Jewelry Sales And Services
Any person can establish “sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming,” and can manage the access of restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.
Any state employee can openly express their beliefs without consequence.
Any state employee can choose not to authorize or license legal marriages by recusing themselves from those duties.

Anybody who takes advantage of any of these opportunities to discriminate would be protected from any tax penalty, any loss of contract or grant, any loss of benefit, any fine or penalty, any license or certification, any custody award or agreement, or any setback in employment.

Furthermore, these protections extend even if the disagreement does not involve the government as a party. In other words, anybody can cite their religious beliefs to justify their discriminatory behavior if sued by the victims of that discrimination. When they do, they are entitled not only to victory in court, but compensatory damages as well.

Thanks, comprehensive list but too much to respond to, except for this:

Any foster or adoptive parent can impose their religious beliefs on their children.

I detest the wording of that. "Impose". Parents, whether people like or not, have the right to have minors under their care and under the roof live by rules. If the parents go to church and require the minors to do so, I don't think that's a problem. Not sure why "adoptive" parent is singled out as if it's any different than a birth parent. I have a few friends who adopted children. Those kids are just as much their children as the 3 I had c-sectioned out of me.

 

[Chomsky]

SMH

Mississippi OKs religious bill decried as anti-LGBT - CNN.com

What exactly does it do?

There's been a lot of complaints about CNN being exceptionally banal and 'fluffy' lately, and I think this article exemplifies this!

It says virtually nothing about the content of the law! :doh

It seems like one of the main tenets of the law (according to on-air MSNBC coverage) is to allow government employees to opt-out of providing government services to the citizens based upon their personal religious convictions.

It differs from what went down with the recent Kentucky marriage license fiasco, in that the state claims they will find a way to cover for the employees who object to performing their duties, but I've seen no description yet of the mechanics of finding alternate ways to provide these services.

My suspicion would be the government will need to include religious objections in their hiring & staffing decisions, and then adjust their staffing accordingly. It sounds like a mess, bringing religion concerns into government employment, so I'll go on the record as being against this. It seems fraught with possible Constitutional issues, more bureaucratic jumbling around, and the possibility of abuse.

I'm dead against co-mingling government and religion, even if only in the arena of (government) employment. But as in Kansas, this trend of government employees refusing to provide services based upon their personal religious convictions seems to be catching-on.

I have not seen anything (as of yet) as to how the content of this law affects non-government business transactions & services.

 

[Henrin]

We have been though that period in our history, on repeat.

I am not thrilled that we need protections like this in our economy and society, but this is what happens when we have people pretending to stay "true to their faith" but really giving themselves a license to act judgmental, discriminatory, and socioeconomically foolish.

One day people are going to realize that freedom of faith is for the individual, not the State to create a series of classes for social and economic participation by exclusion intentions.

No offense dude, but prove a harm, show a right in question, show that this is a serious problem that can't be handled in the social sphere.

 

[Chomsky]

I so look forward to the day when people don't care about the bedroom preferences of other adults.

And maybe they could also care a little less about their fellow citizens' religious preferences, too!

 

[Chomsky]

Try that again please. I'm dizzy with all the negatives.

Are you sure I caused that?

:lamo

 

[azgreg]

One word says it all.


Mississippi

They are excellent vaxers though.

 

[Chomsky]

I found a summary of a few of the aspects of this bill.

Assessing what kind of discriminatory situations this would enable is easy, because the bill spells those out as well. So long as individuals are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” any of the following behaviors would have the endorsement of the government:
Religious organizations can decline to solemnize any marriage or provide any services related to recognizing that marriage.
Religious organizations can refuse to hire, fire, and discipline employees for violating the organization’s religious beliefs.
Religious organizations can choose not to sell, rent, or otherwise provide shelter.
Religious organizations that provide foster or adoptive services can decline service without risking their state subsidies.
Any foster or adoptive parent can impose their religious beliefs on their children.
Any person can choose not to provide treatment, counseling, or surgery related to gender transition or same-sex parenting.
Any person (including any business) can choose not to provide services for any marriage ceremony or occasion that involves recognizing a marriage, including:
Photography
Poetry
Videography
Disc-Jockey Services
Wedding Planning
Printing
Publishing
Floral Arrangements
Dress Making
Cake or Pastry Artistry
Assembly-Hall or Other Wedding-Venue Rentals
Limousine or Other Car-Service Rentals
Jewelry Sales And Services
Any person can establish “sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming,” and can manage the access of restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.
Any state employee can openly express their beliefs without consequence.
Any state employee can choose not to authorize or license legal marriages by recusing themselves from those duties.

Anybody who takes advantage of any of these opportunities to discriminate would be protected from any tax penalty, any loss of contract or grant, any loss of benefit, any fine or penalty, any license or certification, any custody award or agreement, or any setback in employment.

Furthermore, these protections extend even if the disagreement does not involve the government as a party. In other words, anybody can cite their religious beliefs to justify their discriminatory behavior if sued by the victims of that discrimination. When they do, they are entitled not only to victory in court, but compensatory damages as well.

Whoa baby!

No way that can be Constitutional!

Marone! :doh

 

[tres borrachos]

And maybe they could also care a little less about their fellow citizens' religious preferences, too!

That too. And their choice of mate, too. I think the world would be a better place if people held their preferences closer to the vest and didn't give a rat's ass about things that don't concern them.

 

[OrphanSlug]

No offense dude, but prove a harm, show a right in question, show that this is a serious problem that can't be handled in the social sphere.

We already have.

Mississippi effectively allowing "no gays and lesbians allowed" signs to show up in business windows today is no different than what we saw in the 1950's with "no blacks allowed" signs in businesses windows then. It is licensed discrimination. All they have created is a lack of socioeconomic cohesion.

Ironically, this very bill repeats a theme we saw in the 1950's Mississippi with racism. They used to say "we want white tenants in our white community"... now they will operate as if it says "we want religious tenants in our religious community." This bill literally reinforces Mississippi standard, where it is legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in providing employment, housing and public accommodation.

Mississippi will get treated harshly in economic backlash for this foolishness, nothing can stop that now. Their religious licensed bigotry will be on display.

 

[Chomsky]

Oh really? Sit back and watch. The caca is about to hit the aerator.j

:lamo

 

[tres borrachos]

Whoa baby!

No way that can be Constitutional!

Marone! :doh

I'm weirdly not really opposed to these:

Any state employee can openly express their beliefs without consequence.
Any state employee can choose not to authorize or license legal marriages by recusing themselves from those duties.


Feel free to frown on gay couples, divorcees, adulterers, Kody Brown and his 4 wives, and so on. Hate all you want. I don't eat meat and I hate butchers and people in slaughterhouses, but who the hell am I to stop them and stomp on the rights of others? Just don't ****ing interfere with the process and their rights.

 

[Chomsky]

We have been though that period in our history, on repeat.

I am not thrilled that we need protections like this in our economy and society, but this is what happens when we have people pretending to stay "true to their faith" but really giving themselves a license to act judgmental, discriminatory, and socioeconomically foolish.

One day people are going to realize that freedom of faith is for the individual, not the State to create a series of classes for social and economic participation by exclusion intentions.

Your bolded is very well stated, IMO.

 

[ludin]

What exactly does it do?

Basically it says the government cannot harass or punish persons, businesses or individuals that
refuse to participate in a celebration that goes again the held religious beliefs.

IE a restaurant can't stop a gay person from eating there, however if the owners are Christians and believe that marriage is between an man and a women.
then they have the legal right not to hold a gay wedding.

it basically certifies what the 1st amendment already says, but they have to do this because courts refuse to uphold the 1st amendment.
it basically protects people of faith from militant atheist and gay groups from pushing their agenda of judicial acceptance.

 

[ludin]

If you want to buy into this "uphold their own rights" bit be my guest, but ultimately what we are really talking about here is State sponsored social and economic discrimination. Mississippi is now saying private businesses and faith-based organizations can refuse to serve someone they think is gay or lesbian on religious grounds, and the State just allowed county clerks a shield from State action (they cannot prevent Federal action) if they decide to deny a marriage license to someone gay or lesbian.

actually that isn't what the bill says at all.

The legislation says that businesses, social workers and public employees cannot be punished for denying services based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that "sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." It also protects individuals who believe gender is determined at birth.

According to the bill, the government would not be allowed to prevent organizations from refusing to marry a same-sex couple, from firing an individual whose "conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization" or from blocking the adoption of a child because of religious beliefs.

the last just got undone but could be challenged again.

This is going to end up challenged, as it should. Mississippi is encouraging discrimination, hiding behind religion to do so.

it might be challenged but a judge will have a hard time throwing it out without throwing out the 1st amendment as well.
I would dare a judge to do that.

What is really sad is that we *still, in 2016,* need to protect various groups from the actions of others in the name of religion. That is what makes no sense, but our hands are forced by today's brand of bigotry that will end up in the history books next to those in the 1950's and 1960's arguing for segregation for the same religious reasons.

what is sad is that people are being fired, throwing out of their homes, sued, etc ... all in the name of standing up for their 1st amendment and other rights
that they have. the fact that those rights are being trodden on in the name of political correctness is what should make you angry.

religious bigotry is still bigotry and it is more active today than at any other time and people wonder why there is a fight going on.

 

[Top Cat]

:lamo Dude, seriously, a corporation is not just going to leave behind the profits they make from an entire state. Why you would even think their threat is anything more than empty is beyond me.

Georgia's 'anti-LGBT' bill: These companies are speaking out the loudest - Mar. 25, 2016

 

[Henrin]

Georgia's 'anti-LGBT' bill: These companies are speaking out the loudest - Mar. 25, 2016

Again, if you think companies like Apple are just going to walk away from the profits they make off of sales of their apple products in the State of Mississippi then you really know nothing about business.

 

[Henrin]

We already have.

Mississippi effectively allowing "no gays and lesbians allowed" signs to show up in business windows today is no different than what we saw in the 1950's with "no blacks allowed" signs in businesses windows then. It is licensed discrimination. All they have created is a lack of socioeconomic cohesion.

Ironically, this very bill repeats a theme we saw in the 1950's Mississippi with racism. They used to say "we want white tenants in our white community"... now they will operate as if it says "we want religious tenants in our religious community." This bill literally reinforces Mississippi standard, where it is legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in providing employment, housing and public accommodation.

Mississippi will get treated harshly in economic backlash for this foolishness, nothing can stop that now. Their religious licensed bigotry will be on display.

Lack of socioeconomic cohesion isn't really a right violation or a harm caused on a person. Just sayin'.

 

[Top Cat]

Again, if you think companies like Apple are just going to walk away from the profits they make off of sales of their apple products in the State of Mississippi then you really know nothing about business.

Only an idiot will think this will stand.

 

[azgreg]

Again, if you think companies like Apple are just going to walk away from the profits they make off of sales of their apple products in the State of Mississippi then you really know nothing about business.

Some companies have already either pulled out of N Carolina or have halted projects as a result of their anti LGBT laws. I believe the same would happen in Mississippi.

NC LGBT law prompts Lionsgate to pull production of new Hulu show from Charlotte | The Charlotte Observer

North Carolina Just Lost 400 Jobs Because Of Its Anti-LGBT Law | ThinkProgress

 

[JoeTrumps]

same thing as usual. an old couple doesn't has a catering business, and if they are religious and refuse to cater a gay wedding the nice, peaceful liberals want these people's business taken away and the old couple to be expelled from society.

libs are MORE hateful than the old couple could ever THINK of being, but it's in the name of "equal rights", so it's fine.

 

[Henrin]

Some companies have already either pulled out of N Carolina or have halted projects as a result of their anti LGBT laws. I believe the same would happen in Mississippi.

NC LGBT law prompts Lionsgate to pull production of new Hulu show from Charlotte | The Charlotte Observer

North Carolina Just Lost 400 Jobs Because Of Its Anti-LGBT Law | ThinkProgress

Job plans are different than sales and pull out of a state. A corporation deciding to not hire more work because of a law happens, but a company just pulling out of a state entirely and not even selling product there because of a law that doesn't even affect their bottom line just doesn't. As for the film producer or whatever, it sounds like they were already hurting and thinking about changing plans.

Frankly though, politically correct hollywood that loves to push their social agendas can jump off a cliff.

 

[tres borrachos]

Some companies have already either pulled out of N Carolina or have halted projects as a result of their anti LGBT laws. I believe the same would happen in Mississippi.

NC LGBT law prompts Lionsgate to pull production of new Hulu show from Charlotte | The Charlotte Observer

North Carolina Just Lost 400 Jobs Because Of Its Anti-LGBT Law | ThinkProgress

Interesting links, but I wish Think Progress wasn't so dishonest with its headline. North Carolina didn't lose any jobs because of that law. PayPal was going to hire 400 people to work in the state, and opted out of that decision. That doesn't equal lost jobs.

 

[Top Cat]

Job plans are different than sales and pull out of a state. A corporation deciding to not hire more work because of a law happens

It's not just jobs. It's hospitality, tourism etc. The impact will be felt. Not to worry bigots will sleep well knowing they are expressing their religious intolerance in the name of Christ. How ironic that Christ himself wouldn't act in this manner.