• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mississippi governor signs religious freedom bill into law.

JoeTrumps said:
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.
Click to expand...

yet they don't want people pushing their views on them LOL
It is the liberal hypocrisy.
 
JoeTrumps said:
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.
Click to expand...

When all else fail, make **** up.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

They didn't lose 400 existing jobs, but they lost 400 jobs they would have had, so it's basically the same thing.
 
MrT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
azgreg said:
Mississippi's New Anti-LGBT Bill Claims That Women Can Be Fired for Wearing Pants
Click to expand...

Thanks. The article you linked has a link to the House bill, and not the version passed by the Senate and then signed by the Governor. Do you know if the Senate changed anything? Or is the House bill the same one that the Senate passed and the Governor signed?

That wearing pants thing is a Pentecostal thing. I do some work for a company from time to time that's owner is big in the Pentecostal church in Mississippi, and I know for a fact that they have a VERY powerful lobby in Mississippi regarding state government.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Thanks. The article you linked has a link to the House bill, and not the version passed by the Senate and then signed by the Governor. Do you know if the Senate changed anything? Or is the House bill the same one that the Senate passed and the Governor signed?

That wearing pants thing is a Pentecostal thing. I do some work for a company from time to time that's owner is big in the Pentecostal church in Mississippi, and I know for a fact that they have a VERY powerful lobby in Mississippi regarding state government.
Click to expand...

Here's the Mississippi bill trail.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2016/pdf/history/HB/HB1523.xml

I haven't gone through it yet and don't know when I will. :2razz:
 
Beaudreaux said:
Thanks. I did my normal speed reading that I use on laws and regs for my first run through and the way this law was worded just disgusts me. I'll review the other versions and let you know if it results in any less disgust on my part - doubt it though.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose that Mississippi, N Carolina, and Arkansas all got on a conference call before they acted? :2razz:
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does if you are familiar with the concept of opportunity cost.
 
For a while I'd wondered how on earth a business would plan on enforcing public restroom stuff. Junk check at the door?

But then I realized it was never really about the restrooms, like it was never really about the drinking fountains.
 
Deuce said:
For a while I'd wondered how on earth a business would plan on enforcing public restroom stuff. Junk check at the door?

But then I realized it was never really about the restrooms, like it was never really about the drinking fountains.
Click to expand...

mW2TX69.jpg
 
azgreg said:
They didn't lose 400 existing jobs, but they lost 400 jobs they would have had, so it's basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

If PayPal pulled out of NC because of a high crime rate or something non-PC, I don't think Think Progress would be bemoaning "lost jobs". JMO. It's not as if anyone was even working there. These were going to be newly created jobs. When the jobs aren't there to begin with, I struggle to label them as "lost". Just like if someone interviewed to work at IBM and didn't get hired, I doubt he'd say "I lost my job at IBM today". But it's purely semantics anyway. I just see TP as being uber dramatic with that screaming headline.
 
tres borrachos said:
If PayPal pulled out of NC because of a high crime rate or something non-PC, I don't think Think Progress would be bemoaning "lost jobs". JMO. It's not as if anyone was even working there. These were going to be newly created jobs. When the jobs aren't there to begin with, I struggle to label them as "lost". Just like if someone interviewed to work at IBM and didn't get hired, I doubt he'd say "I lost my job at IBM today". But it's purely semantics anyway. I just see TP as being uber dramatic with that screaming headline.
Click to expand...

You can label it whatever you want. It comes down to that there won't be 400 jobs that would have been there before the legislation.
 
azgreg said:
Do you suppose that Mississippi, N Carolina, and Arkansas all got on a conference call before they acted? :2razz:
Click to expand...

In terms of the legislation, it isn't just coincidence that all of these states passed very similar legislation at roughly the same time. There are groups that essentially "shop" around the language that most of these bills end up including in their legislation.
 
azgreg said:
mW2TX69.jpg
Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue. It's the sort of thing that is impossible to enforce without committing sexual assault.
And they know this but try anyway. Because it's not actually about the bathroom.
 
azgreg said:
mW2TX69.jpg
Click to expand...

That sex part of this bill was just the cover to pass what they really wanted passed in North Carolina.

Tucked inside is language that strips North Carolina workers of the ability to sue under a state anti-discrimination law, a right that has been upheld in court since 1985. "If you were fired because of your race, fired because of your gender, fired because of your religion," said Allan Freyer, head of the Workers’ Rights Project at the North Carolina Justice Center in Raleigh, "you no longer have a basic remedy."

"The LGBT issues were a Trojan horse," added Erika Wilson, a law professor at the University of North Carolina who co-directs a legal clinic for low-income plaintiffs with job and housing discrimination claims. The broader change hasn't received much attention, she said, because "people were so caught up in [the LGBT] part of the law that this snuck under the radar."

Conservative-leaning groups have trying for decades to reduce the number of civil lawsuits in the states. In HB 2, lawmakers accomplished this by adding a single sentence to the state’s employment discrimination law that says: "[No] person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein."

link...​
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The products will be sold, just not made in or with product from the State.
The economic costs will just increase as time goes on.
 
ludin said:
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.



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 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.
Click to expand...

What is sad, is not what you mentioned.
 
JANFU said:
The products will be sold, just not made in or with product from the State.
The economic costs will just increase as time goes on.
Click to expand...

Do you really think they will move operations out of the state for something that doesn't affect their bottom line? Do you have any idea how much all this stuff would cost them? Like I said, all that is happening is that some businesses are running their mouth.

If someone really takes their operations out of the state for this then I honestly want to know why they don't do jack **** the vast majority of the time when things affect their bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean like the anti-religious folks, those bigots? Intolerant folk that you say will/should yank jobs, not visit, myriad ways they will try to hurt the state because someone is able to exercise their first Amendment right and adhere to their own sincere religious beliefs? Your side gets to stand up for what you believe, but nobody else, that it? That sort of intolerance, my brother, is pure bigotry.

Besides, Occam's Razor, simplest solution where less people will be affected by this, the small LGBT community, than will be large potential numbers of religiously discriminated against, so its ultimately for the better good. Viola'
 
Henrin said:
Do you really think they will move operations out of the state for something that doesn't affect their bottom line? Do you have any idea how much all this stuff would cost them? Like I said, all that is happening is that some businesses are running their mouth.

If someone really takes their operations out of the state for this then I honestly want to know why they don't do jack **** the vast majority of the time when things affect their bottom line.
Click to expand...
Do you think they will expand, do you think they will invest. Everything from less investments to tourist dollars. Conventions, called off. You just do not get it.
Who wants to visit a State that just went back to the dark ages, except now it is regarding Gays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom