Mississippi has taken a bold step to defend religious liberty

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

You know LFR, I continue to be amazed at this stuff.  I need to come to grips with the fact that there's no end to it, but my mind can't comprehend.  It's similar to the infinity of space.  To our minds, it has to end somewhere.  

On the plus side, when taking a vacation, there's now two states that will be on my list to visit.   What I don't understand, since the whole LGBT community is relatively small, why do Big Businesses like NFL, Disney, and Coke, get involved and risk alienating the majority of the public?   Anyone?

[TxHoops]

I find it no surprise that this bill was passed by the arguably the most backward arse state in this country.  Their educational record supports that assertion by the way.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I know guys.  Just when we were starting to agree on some things.  

[TxHoops]

On April 11, 2016 at 11:36 AM, REBgp said:

You know LFR, I continue to be amazed at this stuff.  I need to come to grips with the fact that there's no end to it, but my mind can't comprehend.  It's similar to the infinity of space.  To our minds, it has to end somewhere.  

On the plus side, when taking a vacation, there's now two states that will be on my list to visit.   What I don't understand, since the whole LGBT community is relatively small, why do Big Businesses like NFL, Disney, and Coke, get involved and risk alienating the majority of the public?   Anyone?

Because while although the majority of the public aren't LGB or T, the majority of the public isn't anti-LGBT.   As is well-established, the majority of the citizens of this country supports same sex marriage.  It's been that way for a few years now and the number climbs every year.  

[Hagar]

6 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Because while although the majority of the public aren't LGB or T, the majority of the public isn't anti-LGBT.   As is well-established, the majority of the citizens of this country supports same sex marriage.  It's been that way for a few years now and the number climbs every year.  

I see your point on the majority supporting.  And since I haven't read the law itself, and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, I can't speak to legality, only the "intent" as seen by those that think there has to be a line to protect religious beliefs/convictions somewhere.   As much as I dislike the Muslim religion, I would not go into a restaurant owned by a Muslim and order bacon, simply out of respect for the owners belief.  

Is there a legal "border" that can be drawn to protect both sides?  Does a small business owner have any legitimate reason to refuse anyone (exception being a bar having to refuse a drunk a drink) - the old, no shirt, shoes/service just wishful thinking?  

BTW, as you know, my questions above are legitimate, not used to make a point.  My Matlock shows didn't cover this area   

 

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I find it no surprise that this bill was passed by the arguably the most backward arse state in this country.  Their educational record supports that assertion by the way.  

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I know guys.  Just when we were starting to agree on some things.  

This bill simply shows that Mississippi is less backward than most states...poor and uneducated does not make a state "backward".

I grew up in the state and you obviously know nothing about it...other than test scores.

If I own a business and choose not to bake a cake or perform a wedding for a gay couple, I should be able to.

I am not infringing on anyone's rights, they are free to find somewhere else to do business.

Your "well-established" support of gay marriage is bogus...just google how the voting has gone in states.

By the way, never saw anyone in a KKK robe until I moved from MS to Texas...would I be so silly as to brand everyone here backward because of that, no.

 

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This bill simply shows that Mississippi is less backward than most states...poor and uneducated does not make a state "backward".

I grew up in the state and you obviously know nothing about it...other than test scores.

If I own a business and choose not to bake a cake or perform a wedding for a gay couple, I should be able to.

I am not infringing on anyone's rights, they are free to find somewhere else to do business.

Your "well-established" support of gay marriage is bogus...just google how the voting has gone in states.

 

Individual States were not referenced by me. Only "a majority of the citizens of this country."  Of course, maybe these Gallup people are new to this thing called polling and it really is bogus.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[TxHoops]

And as for the "poor and uneducated" State you grew up in that is not backward, we just want you guys to continue to move forward with the times, not "backwards."  If we left it up to Mississippi, they wouldn't be serving "coloreds" either...

[TxHoops]

34 minutes ago, REBgp said:

I see your point on the majority supporting.  And since I haven't read the law itself, and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, I can't speak to legality, only the "intent" as seen by those that think there has to be a line to protect religious beliefs/convictions somewhere.   As much as I dislike the Muslim religion, I would not go into a restaurant owned by a Muslim and order bacon, simply out of respect for the owners belief.  

Is there a legal "border" that can be drawn to protect both sides?  Does a small business owner have any legitimate reason to refuse anyone (exception being a bar having to refuse a drunk a drink) - the old, no shirt, shoes/service just wishful thinking?  

BTW, as you know, my questions above are legitimate, not used to make a point.  My Matlock shows didn't cover this area   

 

It's a tricky area and your questions are valid.  You can still refuse business for the old no shirt, no shoes, etc because it does not discriminate against a legally protected class of people.  The question is whether those protections extend to cover sexual orientation/identity.  My prediction is this law passed by the Mighty Mississips will eventually be flipped and do more to extend the protections of those folks than limit them as intended.  Oh the irony...

[TxHoops]

37 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This bill simply shows that Mississippi is less backward than most states...poor and uneducated does not make a state "backward".

I grew up in the state and you obviously know nothing about it...other than test scores.

If I own a business and choose not to bake a cake or perform a wedding for a gay couple, I should be able to.

I am not infringing on anyone's rights, they are free to find somewhere else to do business.

Your "well-established" support of gay marriage is bogus...just google how the voting has gone in states.

By the way, never saw anyone in a KKK robe until I moved from MS to Texas...would I be so silly as to brand everyone here backward because of that, no.

 

And actually, LRF, this is an area I struggle with. I don't disagree with some of what you say above, nor were some of those things illegal or prohibited before this law.  In general, I, like you, favor states handling social issues and find merit in your argument that there are always 49 other states to choose from.  This is one reason why I would likely never choose to live in MS and I'm sure you would never choose to live in CA.  If I were hearing a challenge to this law in my court, I'm really not sure how I would rule.  I guess I would start with actually reading the bill itself.  Like my buddy RebGP, I only know what I've seen and read through various news outlets (which we all can agree is dangerous). 

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

And actually, LRF, this is an area I struggle with. I don't disagree with some of what you say above, nor were some of those things illegal or prohibited before this law.  In general, I, like you, favor states handling social issues and find merit in your argument that there are always 49 other states to choose from.  This is one reason why I would likely never choose to live in MS and I'm sure you would never choose to live in CA.  If I were hearing a challenge to this law in my court, I'm really not sure how I would rule.  I guess I would start with actually reading the bill itself.  Like my buddy RebGP, I only know what I've seen and read through various news outlets (which we all can agree is dangerous). 

Dangerous is saying nothing and allowing progressives to have their way.

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, TxHoops said:

And as for the "poor and uneducated" State you grew up in that is not backward, we just want you guys to continue to move forward with the times, not "backwards."  If we left it up to Mississippi, they wouldn't be serving "coloreds" either...

Being a minority and being homosexual have nothing to do with one another. One is who you are and the other is a lifestyle choice...to equate the two is backward.

[5GallonBucket]

Whats so wrong with refusing service. 

I find it so funny and hypocritical of people pushing this agenda on Christians.

If someone didn't want me to spend money in their place I wouldn't want to spend money there.....I would go somewhere else.

too many people wearing tight panties that are in a not.

[westend1]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Being a minority and being homosexual have nothing to do with one another. One is who you are and the other is a lifestyle choice...to equate the two is backward.

Lifestyle "choice"   Please.  Nobody would choose that difficult road.   

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, westend1 said:

Lifestyle "choice"   Please.  Nobody would choose that difficult road.   

Sure they would...happens all the time.

[Hagar]

10 hours ago, TxHoops said:

It's a tricky area and your questions are valid.  You can still refuse business for the old no shirt, no shoes, etc because it does not discriminate against a legally protected class of people.  The question is whether those protections extend to cover sexual orientation/identity.  My prediction is this law passed by the Mighty Mississips will eventually be flipped and do more to extend the protections of those folks than limit them as intended.  Oh the irony...

Since "they" are a legally protected people (that classification in itself seems discriminatory to me towards anyone not in these groups) I see the legal problem.   But since religious are also in that class, do you think that would be used in the States defense?   Based on current political climate, I doubt it'll make any difference.   What sets this group apart is their "in your face" attitude.  

I do totally agree with you on States deciding social issues.   My last comment is just a personal one.   Since more small businesses fail than succeed, I admire the folks that take that big gamble and make it.  Then to have them be told they Have to go against their religious beliefs by the Govt, just isn't right.  I'm sure pedofiles (sp) will someday enter this legal classification also.   And yes, oh the irony...

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Sure they would...happens all the time.

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

Not sure...how do you explain homosexuals that go straight?

[bullets13]

9 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not sure...how do you explain homosexuals that go straight?

I would guess they were bisexual to begin with.  I know I could not make the choice to be attracted to men.  I'm not wired that way.  that was never a choice for me.  

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I would guess they were bisexual to begin with.  I know I could not make the choice to be attracted to men.  I'm not wired that way.  that was never a choice for me.  

You would guess, guess being the key word.

So on the basis of a guess, progressives want to force laws on folks.

I, for one, am pleased to see the pushback...folks have rights to their religious beliefs.

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

I have spoken with multiple folks who were attracted to the same sex for as long as they can remember.  Difficult "choices" for small children to make. 

Not to throw the dreaded scientific element against the regressives theories...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[westend1]

8 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

You would guess, guess being the key word.

So on the basis of a guess, progressives want to force laws on folks.

I, for one, am pleased to see the pushback...folks have rights to their religious beliefs.

Just stop.  You are guessing with your opinions.  I am guessing that you don't know a damn thing about it.

[5GallonBucket]

yeah we all make choices everyday.  we make bad ones and good ones.  WHy is that not a choice now?

 

[LumRaiderFan]

33 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Just stop.  You are guessing with your opinions.  I am guessing that you don't know a damn thing about it.

I'm sure I know just as much about it as you do...so why don't you stop.

The only difference is my opinion carries no legislation that says someone must do something that goes against their beliefs.

I am GUESSING that your liberal progressive opinion would.

[5GallonBucket]

7 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I have spoken with multiple folks who were attracted to the same sex for as long as they can remember.  Difficult "choices" for small children to make. 

Not to throw the dreaded scientific element against the regressives theories...

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

yeah life is hard and unfair......sin makes it that way

And with today's  progressive movement it confuses a child even more.