Mississippi next state to push anti-gay bill

[The Cadet]

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1523PS.pdf

This time, there's no legal waffling about it.

(1) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization: [...] (b) Makes any employment-related decision, including but not limited to, the decision whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act; or (c) Makes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.​

If this doesn't sound bad to you, it's probably because you don't realize that qualifying as a "religious organization" is trivially easy - Hobby Lobby qualified, and the only regulations on this within the law are as stated:

(4) "Religious organization" means: (a) A house of worship, including, but not limited to, churches, synagogues, shrines, mosques and temples; (b) A religious group, corporation, association, school or educational institution, ministry, order, society or similar entity, regardless of whether it is integrated or affiliated with a church or other house of worship; and (c) An officer, owner, employee, manager, religious leader, clergy or minister of an entity or organization described in this subsection (4).​

So what does it take to qualify as a "religious group"? As far as I can tell, nothing more than the owner of the company saying, "I am religious". And while this is shameful, it's also fairly standard stuff. No, the really nasty stuff is what's different: provisions protecting parents who subject their children to abusive ex-gay therapies, provisions protecting doctors who refuse to apply the current standard of care to their transgendered patients, and more.

To quote Human Rights Campaign:

Tax-payer funded faith-based organizations could: refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for provision of critical services including emergency shelter; deny children in need of loving homes placement with LGBT families including the child’s own family member; and refuse to sell or rent a for-profit home to an LGBT person -- even if the organization receives government funding. As introduced, H.B. 1523 would also give foster families the freedom to subject an LGBTQ child to the dangerous practice of “conversion therapy,” and subject a pregnant unwed girl to abuse, without fear of government intervention or license suspension. It would even allow individuals to refuse to carry out the terms of a state contract for the provision of counseling services to all eligible individuals, including veterans, based on the counselor's beliefs about LGBT people or single mothers.

Furthermore, schools, employers and service providers could implement sex-specific dress and grooming standards, as well as refuse transgender people access to the appropriate sex-segregated facilities, consistent with their gender identity -- all in conflict with the United States Department of Justice’s enforcement of federal law. H.B. 1523 even legalizes Kim Davis-style discrimination by allowing government employees to abdicate their duties and refuse to license or solemnize marriages for LGBT people.
​

But I'm sure the analogue in Georgia is not about discrimination either.

 

[super animator]

So where are our cooperate overloads threatening to boycot?

 

[The Cadet]

So where are our cooperate overloads threatening to boycot?

I'm not aware that Mississippi has much in terms of the film or tech industry. Or much of anything - their economy is kind of crap. Hard to threaten to leave a state when you're not really there to begin with.

 

[super animator]

I'm not aware that Mississippi has much in terms of the film or tech industry. Or much of anything - their economy is kind of crap. Hard to threaten to leave a state when you're not really there to begin with.

How long do you think that this will end up in SC?

 

[Paulos23]

All the people worried about Sharia Law being passed in the US, but not worried about being able to use their religion to treat others like second class citizens.

There is a disconnect there I think.

 

[cow451]

So where are our cooperate overloads threatening to boycot?

If large corporations boycotted Mississippi, would anybody notice?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

How long do you think that this will end up in SC?

Without a tiebreaker it will be sent back to the states, no matter what happens. They need to fill that last seat.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

If large corporations boycotted Mississippi, would anybody notice?

Boycotting is not the answer, since both sides can do this. The bottom nline is you can't continually force others to do or say something unless you stay there. Corporations are fed by money and if enough pressure is given, they will fold.
We need an amendment to the constitution that can't become a political football for the parties involved. If we don't get that, every four years we will find ourselves returning to this, without results.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If large corporations boycotted Mississippi, would anybody notice?

or care?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Boycotting is not the answer, since both sides can do this.

Yes, but it's the side that has the money that tends to be successful.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Yes, but it's the side that has the money that tends to be successful.

No. The side that has the revenue has the power. Banks have money money but having it set there isn't quite as profitable is using it.
the power of public is not in its wealth but it's voice. You get enough fence sitters irritated about activism and they tend to support the opposition. Remember what happened at Chick Fillet?

 

[mark46]

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1523PS.pdf

This time, there's no legal waffling about it.

(1) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization: [...] (b) Makes any employment-related decision, including but not limited to, the decision whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act; or (c) Makes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.​

If this doesn't sound bad to you, it's probably because you don't realize that qualifying as a "religious organization" is trivially easy - Hobby Lobby qualified, and the only regulations on this within the law are as stated:

(4) "Religious organization" means: (a) A house of worship, including, but not limited to, churches, synagogues, shrines, mosques and temples; (b) A religious group, corporation, association, school or educational institution, ministry, order, society or similar entity, regardless of whether it is integrated or affiliated with a church or other house of worship; and (c) An officer, owner, employee, manager, religious leader, clergy or minister of an entity or organization described in this subsection (4).​

So what does it take to qualify as a "religious group"? As far as I can tell, nothing more than the owner of the company saying, "I am religious". And while this is shameful, it's also fairly standard stuff. No, the really nasty stuff is what's different: provisions protecting parents who subject their children to abusive ex-gay therapies, provisions protecting doctors who refuse to apply the current standard of care to their transgendered patients, and more.

To quote Human Rights Campaign:

Tax-payer funded faith-based organizations could: refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for provision of critical services including emergency shelter; deny children in need of loving homes placement with LGBT families including the child’s own family member; and refuse to sell or rent a for-profit home to an LGBT person -- even if the organization receives government funding. As introduced, H.B. 1523 would also give foster families the freedom to subject an LGBTQ child to the dangerous practice of “conversion therapy,” and subject a pregnant unwed girl to abuse, without fear of government intervention or license suspension. It would even allow individuals to refuse to carry out the terms of a state contract for the provision of counseling services to all eligible individuals, including veterans, based on the counselor's beliefs about LGBT people or single mothers.

Furthermore, schools, employers and service providers could implement sex-specific dress and grooming standards, as well as refuse transgender people access to the appropriate sex-segregated facilities, consistent with their gender identity -- all in conflict with the United States Department of Justice’s enforcement of federal law. H.B. 1523 even legalizes Kim Davis-style discrimination by allowing government employees to abdicate their duties and refuse to license or solemnize marriages for LGBT people.
​

But I'm sure the analogue in Georgia is not about discrimination either.

Here were not taking about cakes. We are talking about the right to deny to eat to humanists and homosexuals, and anyone else that offends our personal sensibilities.

 

[mark46]

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1523PS.pdf

This time, there's no legal waffling about it.

(1) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization: [...] (b) Makes any employment-related decision, including but not limited to, the decision whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act; or (c) Makes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.​

If this doesn't sound bad to you, it's probably because you don't realize that qualifying as a "religious organization" is trivially easy - Hobby Lobby qualified, and the only regulations on this within the law are as stated:

(4) "Religious organization" means: (a) A house of worship, including, but not limited to, churches, synagogues, shrines, mosques and temples; (b) A religious group, corporation, association, school or educational institution, ministry, order, society or similar entity, regardless of whether it is integrated or affiliated with a church or other house of worship; and (c) An officer, owner, employee, manager, religious leader, clergy or minister of an entity or organization described in this subsection (4).​

So what does it take to qualify as a "religious group"? As far as I can tell, nothing more than the owner of the company saying, "I am religious". And while this is shameful, it's also fairly standard stuff. No, the really nasty stuff is what's different: provisions protecting parents who subject their children to abusive ex-gay therapies, provisions protecting doctors who refuse to apply the current standard of care to their transgendered patients, and more.

To quote Human Rights Campaign:

Tax-payer funded faith-based organizations could: refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for provision of critical services including emergency shelter; deny children in need of loving homes placement with LGBT families including the child’s own family member; and refuse to sell or rent a for-profit home to an LGBT person -- even if the organization receives government funding. As introduced, H.B. 1523 would also give foster families the freedom to subject an LGBTQ child to the dangerous practice of “conversion therapy,” and subject a pregnant unwed girl to abuse, without fear of government intervention or license suspension. It would even allow individuals to refuse to carry out the terms of a state contract for the provision of counseling services to all eligible individuals, including veterans, based on the counselor's beliefs about LGBT people or single mothers.

Furthermore, schools, employers and service providers could implement sex-specific dress and grooming standards, as well as refuse transgender people access to the appropriate sex-segregated facilities, consistent with their gender identity -- all in conflict with the United States Department of Justice’s enforcement of federal law. H.B. 1523 even legalizes Kim Davis-style discrimination by allowing government employees to abdicate their duties and refuse to license or solemnize marriages for LGBT people.
​

But I'm sure the analogue in Georgia is not about discrimination either.

This is a clear violation of the Housing section of the federal Civil Rights Act.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

or care?

Would Mississippi care. How many in that state support this. I heard somewhere that the state of the Educational level in that state was a direct result of institutionalized racism. How long was it after the Civil war did the blacks there actually become free? 1865 as opposed to 1965.

 

[Arcangl86]

At least you have to give Mississippi credit for not bothering with pretending. And honestly, I would like this case to make it to the current SOCTUS. Worst case scenerio is that the law stands, but without precedental value.

 

[JusticeIsBlind]

At least you have to give Mississippi credit for not bothering with pretending. And honestly, I would like this case to make it to the current SOCTUS. Worst case scenerio is that the law stands, but without precedental value.

Sounds unconstitutional. I too would like to see a SCOTUS ruling on this.

 

[Arcangl86]

Looking at the bill, MS might have just shot themselves in the foot. It's way too broad and opens up the door for discrimination against women. Currently that is only intermediate scrutiny, which this might pass, but then again it might not.

 

[cow451]

The whole thing is a political gambit. The legislators know it won't pass muster and are just pandering in an election year.

 

[Armoured]

All the people worried about Sharia Law being passed in the US, but not worried about being able to use their religion to treat others like second class citizens.

There is a disconnect there I think.

Thank you! This is my default first thought any time I see anyone banging on about sharia law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you! This is my default first thought any time I see anyone banging on about sharia law.

My default first thought is usually, "they're jealous."