Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Drolefille]

To get this back on track, doesn't this have to do with people using their religion as an excuse to refuse service to people? So this is really just pandering to the bigoted beliefs of right-wing Christians who want to refuse service to LGBT people.

Which is exactly the problem with it. Some people did realize this would let people discriminate against Christians as well and that it was bad.

Businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, the fact that LGBT people aren't protected classes in most states means that this is pre-emptive against that changing.

 

[1137]

To get this back on track, doesn't this have to do with people using their religion as an excuse to refuse service to people? So this is really just pandering to the bigoted beliefs of right-wing Christians who want to refuse service to LGBT people.

The spirit of it? Probably, luckily you'd never pass a bill saying "hating gays is OK". So we get a bill that protects all people's rights not to serve people or interact with all people. It's a right we already have anyways, but the thing in New Mexico freaked people out (and I'd bet the situation was misunderstood in the first place). As I said with it in AZ, the people supporting the bill can't really win or lose because nothing is changing.

 

[nazz]

I don't really think it would be positive in the slightest. And I would be opposed to even a black restaurant refusing service to a Klan member who wants nothing more than to walk in, sit down and eat. (Why they would choose to do this is another matter.)

Why would a gay person want to patronize an anti-gay establishment?

 

[Drolefille]

Why would a gay person want to patronize an anti-gay establishment?

I suspected that would be the question. There's a difference between a person wanting to patronize an establishment that might be anti-them, and a person who is anti-something deliberately patronizing an establishment that is that same something. As an example there's a difference between someone going to a store whose owner doesn't like Christians and someone who doesn't like Christians going to a Christian book store. One makes more sense than the other.



First off, there aren't "No Homo" signs up in shops so it isn't always obvious. Secondly, they probably want to buy a sandwich, flowers, groceries, or rent a room for the night. They're probably not there because or in spite of the personal beliefs of the owner or clerk, they're there because they heard they had good sandwiches, had an emergency and needed to stay in a hotel room, or wanted food in their house.

Also, sometimes, it's the only grocery store in town. Or the only hotel with rooms, or the only gas station within a 30 mile drive. That's why prohibiting discrimination matters - so that people can still be served, even if other people would want to be jerks. This is something often overlooked by people who live in cities, suburbs, etc. If you're rural, you don't really have the same kind of options. And moving away costs even more.

If I have a choice, I would try to support businesses that I like over ones I don't - whether because they sell the best sandwich or use all natural food or whatever. Maybe they have really cool decor. But one of the reasons that I believe anti-discrimination and civil rights laws are so important is because there isn't always a choice.

 

[nazz]

I suspected that would be the question. There's a difference between a person wanting to patronize an establishment that might be anti-them, and a person who is anti-something deliberately patronizing an establishment that is that same something. As an example there's a difference between someone going to a store whose owner doesn't like Christians and someone who doesn't like Christians going to a Christian book store. One makes more sense than the other.



First off, there aren't "No Homo" signs up in shops so it isn't always obvious. Secondly, they probably want to buy a sandwich, flowers, groceries, or rent a room for the night. They're probably not there because or in spite of the personal beliefs of the owner or clerk, they're there because they heard they had good sandwiches, had an emergency and needed to stay in a hotel room, or wanted food in their house.

Also, sometimes, it's the only grocery store in town. Or the only hotel with rooms, or the only gas station within a 30 mile drive. That's why prohibiting discrimination matters - so that people can still be served, even if other people would want to be jerks. This is something often overlooked by people who live in cities, suburbs, etc. If you're rural, you don't really have the same kind of options. And moving away costs even more.

If I have a choice, I would try to support businesses that I like over ones I don't - whether because they sell the best sandwich or use all natural food or whatever. Maybe they have really cool decor. But one of the reasons that I believe anti-discrimination and civil rights laws are so important is because there isn't always a choice.

I certainly see your point though it does not change my mind. Really this type of legislation is not meant to encourage discrimination but to protect people from being forced to violate their own conscience. That is a good thing, IMB. There is a huge difference between a religious objection to providing goods and/or services for a same sex wedding and hanging out a sign that says "no gays allowed".

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see this as a provision where a person is not forced to go against their religious beliefs. Not so much discrimination albiet I suppose someone could argue the point to a degree. At any rate, I would think most businesses could care less as everyones money is the same regardless of disposition and would not turn business away. As others indicated, there are laws protecting a persons affiliation, so I don't think an establishment would necessarily win any rights to discriminate against people for who they are. If they do I doubt the business would win in court.

 

[1137]

I certainly see your point though it does not change my mind. Really this type of legislation is not meant to encourage discrimination but to protect people from being forced to violate their own conscience. That is a good thing, IMB. There is a huge difference between a religious objection to providing goods and/or services for a same sex wedding and hanging out a sign that says "no gays allowed".

But you're talking to someone who has straight up said she'd support the government forcing an establishment owned by African Americans to host a Klan gathering if the KKK wished. Honestly I have no idea where she's coming from because it's obviously not the common critique if these bills where people want special rights.

 

[Drolefille]

I certainly see your point though it does not change my mind. Really this type of legislation is not meant to encourage discrimination but to protect people from being forced to violate their own conscience. That is a good thing, IMB. There is a huge difference between a religious objection to providing goods and/or services for a same sex wedding and hanging out a sign that says "no gays allowed".

But functionally what's the difference?

 

[nazz]

But functionally what's the difference?

If you're gay and you want to buy flowers or catering for your wedding there is no difference for you. But unless you live in a rural area, as you pointed out, you will probably have plenty of other businesses that will have no problem with serving you. But you can still patronize the former business for other occasions. They are not going to refuse you service because you are gay. That's not the point at all.

The difference is for the person providing the service.

 

[Drolefille]

If you're gay and you want to buy flowers or catering for your wedding there is no difference for you. But unless you live in a rural area, as you pointed out, you will probably have plenty of other businesses that will have no problem with serving you. But you can still patronize the former business for other occasions. They are not going to refuse you service because you are gay. That's not the point at all.

The difference is for the person providing the service.

In that they don't have to advertise their beliefs but can keep it quiet? I mean it is all well and good for them say they're not going to refuse service because I'm gay, but when you sell wedding cakes and refuse me service because I'm having a gay wedding, that's functionally the same thing.

If I'm buying a cake, and ask for Alex and Madison put on it, and you don't find out til after I've picked it up that it's for two women, has there been harm?
If not, then there's been no harm if you knew the day I picked it up.
Or the day I placed the order.

I've served racists, I don't understand why it's difficult to serve someone who holds different values than you when serving is what you're paid to do. And I'm presuming this person has said nothing inappropriate, nor caused a scene.

 

[nazz]

I've served racists, I don't understand why it's difficult to serve someone who holds different values than you when serving is what you're paid to do.

I'm saddened you can't understand why it matters. Would you like to be forced to violate your conscience?

 

[Drolefille]

I'm saddened you can't understand why it matters. Would you like to be forced to violate your conscience?

There is nothing about serving a sandwich or a cake to someone that could in violate my conscience unless I had spat in the cake.

I don't understand how selling someone a cake goes against anyone's conscience. God never said "don't sell cake" in any religion I'm aware of. Perhaps I'm wrong. Don't sell cake to sinners wouldn't get any cake sold at all.

Additionally most of the time, these "conscientious" people don't ask if it's a second wedding, a non-church wedding, a wedding with sex before marriage etc. They are morally opposed to all of these and yet the only time the "can't serve you" card gets played is with same-sex weddings. That says to me that this is more than just "conscience." It's very very selective.

And, if it came down to it, and I for some reason could not sell cake to someone, I shouldn't be selling cakes to anyone. I should find a job where my conscience won't be violated. If I couldn't ethically work with my clients, despite disliking a lot of what they do, I shouldn't work in my field. That's how jobs work. Working as a counselor has a lot more restrictions than selling cakes, I wouldn't be allowed to pass on someone because they killed someone. Counselors can only refer people on ethically if it is in the best interest of the client, not themselves.

 

[1137]

In that they don't have to advertise their beliefs but can keep it quiet? I mean it is all well and good for them say they're not going to refuse service because I'm gay, but when you sell wedding cakes and refuse me service because I'm having a gay wedding, that's functionally the same thing.

If I'm buying a cake, and ask for Alex and Madison put on it, and you don't find out til after I've picked it up that it's for two women, has there been harm?
If not, then there's been no harm if you knew the day I picked it up.
Or the day I placed the order.

I've served racists, I don't understand why it's difficult to serve someone who holds different values than you when serving is what you're paid to do. And I'm presuming this person has said nothing inappropriate, nor caused a scene.

But to the cake maker it may be seen as a horrible sin on their behalf. I don't understand how you can be fine with forcing an Jew to serve a Nazi but can't respect a homophobic cake-maker's deeply held religious beliefs. Your position on this makes absolutely no sense.

 

[nazz]

There is nothing about serving a sandwich or a cake to someone that could in violate my conscience unless I had spat in the cake.

I don't understand how selling someone a cake goes against anyone's conscience. God never said "don't sell cake" in any religion I'm aware of. Perhaps I'm wrong. Don't sell cake to sinners wouldn't get any cake sold at all.

Oh, c'mon. I think you're smarter than this but if this the kind of response you are going to make I won't even bother.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wait, you're arguing against "separate but equal"? Because then that makes sense. You're the one saying that certain people in disagreement with other groups should have an unequal say. You're the one who wants to force a restaurant owned by African Americans to serve clan members. In fact, why are you arguing against Jim Crow? If you're against this bill, maybe you'd be happier with bills forcing homophobes to use separate bathrooms and go to different schools so their beliefs can't offend you.

Haha, the irony. You can't even hold a consistent position because you're blinded by superiority and straw men. Do us all a favor - understand what the law is actually saying, understand why your position is so ironically hilarious. Return .

To be straightforward and blunt, it is possible you have some of the worst reading skills I have ever come across. How you ever got that out of what I said is mind boggling.
I could reply about the Klan and the restaurant owner thing, and that if the Klan members are being rude then the owner should be able to kick them out, but if everyone is being civil towards one another, some people do rise above hatred and show they are the better person for not giving into that. But might misread that as well.

To get this back on track, doesn't this have to do with people using their religion as an excuse to refuse service to people? So this is really just pandering to the bigoted beliefs of right-wing Christians who want to refuse service to LGBT people.

The wording of this law is so vague that it can be used for that, it can potentially maybe used for worse. It may be potentially be used as a way for a creationist public school teacher to skip teaching evolution and teach Creationism. What exactly is the standards for the government infringing too far on someone's religious rights? It may potentially be that nothing bad happens, but if that were likely then we really wouldn't need the government to establish anti-discrimination laws.

 

[1137]

To be straightforward and blunt, it is possible you have some of the worst reading skills I have ever come across. How you ever got that out of what I said is mind boggling.
I could reply about the Klan and the restaurant owner thing, and that if the Klan members are being rude then the owner should be able to kick them out, but if everyone is being civil towards one another, some people do rise above hatred and show they are the better person for not giving into that. But might misread that as well.

Wow I was being sarcastic. Don't get angry with me just because you can't understand the irony and hypocracy of your position. My point was to try and show you that your position says "these people should have freedom to live their lifestyle, but these other people shouldn't". THAT is what Jim Crow laws were all about. You want the government to force people - against their deeply held religious or ethical beliefs - to be submissive and participate in things they do not want to do. You believe that homosexuals should have the right to be who they are openly, but not people against homosexuality. You want to force African American business owners to politely serve Klan members an deny them their freedom to choose to lose THEIR OWN PROFITS and to choose who they do or do not serve IN THEIR OWN BUILDING. This is where Jim Crow laws stem from - belief that one group is more entitled to free rights than others - which is what you're supporting.

And you don't even realize it. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Mycroft]

Totalitarian? Promoting freedom is the antithesis of totalitarianism. The entire reason we have a Bill of Rights in our constitution is to prevent runaway government control.

Except this isn't promoting freedom. It's a misappropriation of the word to suit a political agenda.

 

[1137]

Except this isn't promoting freedom. It's a misappropriation of the word to suit a political agenda.

So saying "this group can be who and act how they want (even in places owned by others) despite others taking offense, but this group can't be who and act how they want (even in places THEY own) since if will offend others" is somehow freedom to you? Lol.

 

[Mycroft]

So saying "this group can be who and act how they want (even in places owned by others) despite others taking offense, but this group can't be who and act how they want (even in places THEY own) since if will offend others" is somehow freedom to you? Lol.

People are free to be bigoted if they so choose. But that should not extend to denying services, products and resources to the object of their bigotry.

How would you feel if you desperately needed an operation to save your daughter's life (for example). I was the only doctor in the only hospital capable of carrying out the complex operation necessary to do so. You turn up. I say to you, 'I'm sorry but I can't do the operation for your daughter?' You ask why. I reply, 'Because you worship Lucifer'. Your daughter then proceeds to die. How would you feel?

 

[1137]

People are free to be bigoted if they so choose. But that should not extend to denying services, products and resources to the object of their bigotry.

How would you feel if you desperately needed an operation to save your daughter's life (for example). I was the only doctor in the only hospital capable of carrying out the complex operation necessary to do so. You turn up. I say to you, 'I'm sorry but I can't do the operation for your daughter?' You ask why. I reply, 'Because you worship Lucifer'. Your daughter then proceeds to die. How would you feel?

Straw man - the only "argument" you have, apparently. A hospital is not falling under a privately owned business in this case, along with health insurance and such. In fact a hospital is required by law to treat you.

I'd love to continue but I hate straw men more than any fallacy. You PM me if you ever want to get on topic.