Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religion, values, etc. I've said nothing about politics as far as I know. It seems your problem is with these bills defining owners and businesses as "individuals". That a far better point than to be saying you're more entitled than people you disagree with to be able to be open about your values.

You're the one who brought up neo-Nazis. These bills came about because some people who work in the wedding industry objected to serving gay peoples who needed cakes or photography for their wedding ceremonies. These people claimed a religious objection to that and so Republicans started pushing these laws as a way to avoid lawsuits, I guess. Another possible fallout for laws such as this is that it could lead to people who work in health care citing religious beliefs as a way to refuse to provide certain services to people.

This has nothing to do with protecting the rights of minorities. It's just the opposite. It's about protecting right-wing Christians. It has nothing to do with helping other people out. This bill in Mississippi started out as basically a clone of the Arizona bill but has gone through a couple of revisions that have made it very vague and so it's hard to determine what exactly the bill would do.

 

[1137]

You're the one who brought up neo-Nazis. These bills came about because some people who work in the wedding industry objected to serving gay peoples who needed cakes or photography for their wedding ceremonies. These people claimed a religious objection to that and so Republicans started pushing these laws as a way to avoid lawsuits, I guess. Another possible fallout for laws such as this is that it could lead to people who work in health care citing religious beliefs as a way to refuse to provide certain services to people.

This has nothing to do with protecting the rights of minorities. It's just the opposite. It's about protecting right-wing Christians. It has nothing to do with helping other people out. This bill in Mississippi started out as basically a clone of the Arizona bill but has gone through a couple of revisions that have made it very vague and so it's hard to determine what exactly the bill would do.

Actually it isn't, it is about protecting the rights of people. I used the neo-nazi and Klan examples to (vainly) try and help you and other members see why a bill like this is not some horrible thing that is a blight upon America. Quite the opposite, I'm impressed to see governments going to such misunderstood lengths to protect the rights of people, whether their intentions are good or not.

Someone working in the healthcare industry is not running an individual business, they have to answer to their superiors. By law, places like hospitals are required to see whoever walks in the door and treat as necessary - this is a government thing, not a personal thing. Whereas my examples are actually relevant, yours are - still - strawman due to a bigoted hatred of those who made the bill and disagree with you as well as a lacking understanding of what the bill does.

 

[1137]

This debate is going in the circles all debate go in when hatred and bigotry is involved, I have other things to worry about than going in circles. People who's views you are so bigoted against that you would take away their first amendments rights are not going to lose their first amendment rights. Get over it (or go somewhere else).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually it isn't, it is about protecting the rights of people. I used the neo-nazi and Klan examples to (vainly) try and help you and other members see why a bill like this is not some horrible thing that is a blight upon America. Quite the opposite, I'm impressed to see governments going to such misunderstood lengths to protect the rights of people, whether their intentions are good or not.

Someone working in the healthcare industry is not running an individual business, they have to answer to their superiors. By law, places like hospitals are required to see whoever walks in the door and treat as necessary - this is a government thing, not a personal thing. Whereas my examples are actually relevant, yours are - still - strawman due to a bigoted hatred of those who made the bill and disagree with you as well as a lacking understanding of what the bill does.

I'd like to know where exactly you're getting this ideas from because these bills are completely about religion, not about anything else. It's called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Actually bother to read the bill and read about the bill before you continue to repeat your misunderstandings.

Here, since you seem to be so confused about what it actually is:

Mississippi's governor signed into law Thursday a measure that allows individuals and organizations to sue the government over laws that they feel thwart their ability to practice religion.
...

This year, several other states considered joining the 18 that already have religious freedom laws. Each has been criticized because it could pave the way for businesses to legally refuse to serve gays and lesbians. The law passed in Mississippi is similar to what Arizona has on its books -- and had sought to expand as part of a controversial proposal that was recently vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

The thrust of Senate Bill 2681 says no law should impose a "substantial burden" on someone's "exercise of religion" unless there is a "compelling interest" and a lack of less burdensome alternatives.

The bill was amended several times in recent weeks as gay rights supporters lobbied lawmakers and brought in stars, including former 'N Sync singer Lance Bass, to boost their cause. The second half of the bill adds the phrase "In God we trust" to the state seal, which features an eagle with a shield.

...

For example: A healthcare worker could use the new law to help defend his or her decision in court to deny fertility treatments to a lesbian couple because it would be in conflict with the worker's religious beliefs, Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel with the ACLU, told the Los Angeles Times this week.

Miss. governor signs religious freedom bill; civil rights groups dismayed - latimes.com

So it is entirely about religion. You're simply misinformed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This debate is going in the circles all debate go in when hatred and bigotry is involved, I have other things to worry about than going in circles. People who's views you are so bigoted against that you would take away their first amendments rights are not going to lose their first amendment rights. Get over it (or go somewhere else).

It's going in circles because you don't know what the bill actually is and are making up a fictional bill in your own head. If you're not going to get on the same page as the rest of us, then there's no point in continuing to discuss this with you. I don't have time to read fear-mongering pseudo-libertarian strawman nonsense about "fascist" governments encroaching on "rights" with copious insults to go along with it.

 

[idav]

I dont like how the bill is written, goes against my idea that everyone's opinion is an unalienable right. Believing in god or belonging to the right type of institution shouldn't be given special rights. Its like saying a person will be a protected @#$hole for being religious.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I dont like how the bill is written, goes against my idea that everyone's opinion is an unalienable right. Believing in god or belonging to the right type of institution shouldn't be given special rights. Its like saying a person will be a protected @#$hole for being religious.

Yes, exactly. :clap

 

[nazz]

Yes, exactly. :clap

You and I are usually on the same page but we could not be further apart on this issue. Special rights? When did freedom of conscience become a "special right"? It's one of the foundations of our country. It seems people want "special rights" to trample over the conscience of others.

 

[1137]

I'd like to know where exactly you're getting this ideas from because these bills are completely about religion, not about anything else. It's called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Actually bother to read the bill and read about the bill before you continue to repeat your misunderstandings.

Here, since you seem to be so confused about what it actually is:
Miss. governor signs religious freedom bill; civil rights groups dismayed - latimes.com

So it is entirely about religion. You're simply misinformed.

You never were taught how to find unbiased sources, huh.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You never were taught how to find unbiased sources, huh.

Oh, I'm sorry, which sites are personally acceptable to you?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You and I are usually on the same page but we could not be further apart on this issue. Special rights? When did freedom of conscience become a "special right"? It's one of the foundations of our country. It seems people want "special rights" to trample over the conscience of others.

If they feel they can't provide a certain service to someone, then they need to rethink their career choices.

 

[1137]

Oh, I'm sorry, which sites are personally acceptable to you?

Think back to high school - as unbiased as possible, external sources, multiple perspectives - not an article published by a single individual in the LA times. Get us some .gov sources which are probably most preferable. I mean cmon, you're joking right? You couldn't have gotten away with that in English 102 back in college

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Think back to high school - as unbiased as possible, external sources, multiple perspectives - not an article published by a single individual in the LA times. Get us some .gov sources which are probably most preferable. I mean cmon, you're joking right? You couldn't have gotten away with that in English 102 back in college

Oh, so I'm the one who has to provide sources when you haven't? You've been making all sorts of wild claims throughout this thread and haven't backed up one of them. I at least posted an article that shows that reputable groups have concerns over this legislation. But I'm supposed to take your ravings in this thread at face value? You're being hypocritical.

 

[1137]

Oh, so I'm the one who has to provide sources when you haven't? You've been making all sorts of wild claims throughout this thread and haven't backed up one of them. I at least posted an article that shows that reputable groups have concerns over this legislation. But I'm supposed to take your ravings in this thread at face value? You're being hypocritical.

Coming from someone who'd force a holocaust survivor to serve Mengle, I couldn't care less.

 

[nazz]

If they feel they can't provide a certain service to someone, then they need to rethink their career choices.

I'm a libertarian, what can I say. Even when it is politically incorrect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Coming from someone who'd force a holocaust survivor to serve Mengle, I couldn't care less.

Lol. What bill are you talking about? It's not the one I'm talking about. We're on two different topics.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm a libertarian, what can I say. Even when it is politically incorrect.

I'm not a libertarian.

 

[1137]

Lol. What bill are you talking about? It's not the one I'm talking about. We're on two different topics.

If you're not willing to follow your position to the extremes you should probably change it.

 

[1137]

I'm not a libertarian.

Obviously.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you're not willing to follow your position to the extremes you should probably change it.

Let me know when you want to actually talk about the subject at hand instead of making up emotional pleading nonsense.

Obviously.

Never said I was.