Mississippi next state to push anti-gay bill

[A2SG]

Am I an outlaw if I don't follow the laws I don't like,
don't know or don't believe are legal?

Of course, I am.

So why don't you pray in the direction of Mecca 5 times a day?

As for deity, there can be only one. Not Highlander, either.
I'm satisfied with the one who fits the description.

But there are many different deities people can believe in, and all of them have different rules to follow. Some of those rules contradict others.

You can't obey them all.

-- A2SG, such a dilemma.....

 

[A2SG]

The objection is to your misunderstanding as to the source, the provision, in the Constitution, of the right of same sex marriage. The provision was not the Equal Protection Clause. The provision was the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The majority then relied upon the Equal Protection Clause to hold State laws prohibiting marriage on the basis of sexual orientation burdened a fundamental right of same sex marriage.

It sounds like a difference that makes no difference, to be honest.

Again, finality is not the equivalent of being right or correct. Having the final say is not the same as being correct. President Obama may have the final say in a plethora of decisions but this does not render his decision as correct. Parents may have the final say in relation to their children but this does not render their decision as correct. Bosses may have the final say but this does not suggest the bosses' decision is correct. The Supreme Court may have the final say but this is not the same as their decision being correct.

I meant "correct" to mean the official, final decision.

One you seem to disagree with. And that's fine, you have the right to disagree.

But the official decision is what the SCOTUS says. Substitute "official" for "correct," if it makes you feel better.

Once you can properly understand what the Court did and said in the opinion, then we can have a dialogue as to the strength of the majority's reasoning.

Thanks, but I think I'll decline that honor at this time.

-- A2SG, but I sure do appreciate your granting this boon to little ol' me.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

That isn't an answer. Say I was left a business by a friend
who retired.

Either run it or sell it.

 

[NotreDame]

It sounds like a difference that makes no difference, to be honest.



I meant "correct" to mean the official, final decision.

One you seem to disagree with. And that's fine, you have the right to disagree.

But the official decision is what the SCOTUS says. Substitute "official" for "correct," if it makes you feel better.



Thanks, but I think I'll decline that honor at this time.

-- A2SG, but I sure do appreciate your granting this boon to little ol' me.....

It sounds like a difference that makes no difference, to be honest.

This makes sense? So, the fact there are different provisions in the 14th Amendment, which say different things, and operate differently than other provisions in the 14th Amendment, and the Court relied upon two separate provisions which operate differently from the other, is a difference without a difference? On what logical level?

I meant "correct" to mean the official, final decision.

One you seem to disagree with. And that's fine, you have the right to disagree.

But the official decision is what the SCOTUS says. Substitute "official" for "correct," if it makes you feel better.

Well, that is a funny understanding of the word "correct." However, I digress, and I've been stating repeatedly their decision is final as a matter of law.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

The Anti-Christian bias in subject line reporting is apparent. As is the atmosphere that hopes to create here.
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, lets not concede to give what is sought from us. Let us address this in matters of Christian charity, loyalty to the word and righteousness of God and of course the spirit of peace in community.

(*This thread title/bill is actually old news. The Governor signed this into law April 6. The law takes effect July 1,2016)

What's in the bill?
The law says it protects from discrimination claims anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are reserved solely for marriage, and that the terms male and female pertain only to a person's genetics and anatomy at birth.
Under the law, religious organizations will be able to deny LGBT people marriage, adoption and foster care services; fire or refuse to employ them; and decline to rent or sell them property. Medical professionals will be permitted to refuse to participate in treatments, counseling and surgery related to "sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning."
Among those who could deny wedding services under HB 1523:
• DJs

* Photographers and videographers

• Poets

• Wedding planners

• Printers and publishers

• Florists

• Dressmakers

• Cake or pastry artists

• Venue rental companies

• Limousine and car rental companies

• Jewelry sales and service firms

• Religious organizations




The actual true title of the House bill in question is,
The Bill Link:HOUSE BILL NO. 1523
(As Passed the House)

AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM
GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS
REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION
FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO
DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO
PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A
CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO
REQUIRE A PERSON BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THIS ACT TO DO SO NOT
LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTION WAS TAKEN; TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.....

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Anti-Christian bias in subject line reporting is apparent. As is the atmosphere that hopes to create here.
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, lets not concede to give what is sought from us. Let us address this in matters of Christian charity, loyalty to the word and righteousness of God and of course the spirit of peace in community.

(*This thread title/bill is actually old news. The Governor signed this into law April 6. The law takes effect July 1,2016)

What's in the bill?
The law says it protects from discrimination claims anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are reserved solely for marriage, and that the terms male and female pertain only to a person's genetics and anatomy at birth.
Under the law, religious organizations will be able to deny LGBT people marriage, adoption and foster care services; fire or refuse to employ them; and decline to rent or sell them property. Medical professionals will be permitted to refuse to participate in treatments, counseling and surgery related to "sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning."
Among those who could deny wedding services under HB 1523:
• DJs

* Photographers and videographers

• Poets

• Wedding planners

• Printers and publishers

• Florists

• Dressmakers

• Cake or pastry artists

• Venue rental companies

• Limousine and car rental companies

• Jewelry sales and service firms

• Religious organizations




The actual true title of the House bill in question is,
The Bill Link:HOUSE BILL NO. 1523
(As Passed the House)

AN ACT TO CREATE THE "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM
GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT"; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS
REGARDING A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION
FOR PERSONS, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS; TO
DEFINE A DISCRIMINATORY ACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO
PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY ASSERT A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS A
CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT; TO PROVIDE CERTAIN REMEDIES; TO
REQUIRE A PERSON BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THIS ACT TO DO SO NOT
LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTION WAS TAKEN; TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.....

So how is this anything but carte blanche for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals?

 

[A2SG]

This makes sense? So, the fact there are different provisions in the 14th Amendment, which say different things, and operate differently than other provisions in the 14th Amendment, and the Court relied upon two separate provisions which operate differently from the other, is a difference without a difference? On what logical level?

On the logical level that, no matter how you interpret the ruling or Justice Kennedy's opinion, banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Well, that is a funny understanding of the word "correct." However, I digress, and I've been stating repeatedly their decision is final as a matter of law.

And that's what I meant.

-- A2SG, but congrats for being able to out-pedantic me....that takes some doing!

 

[The Cadet]

Under the law, religious organizations will be able to deny LGBT people marriage, adoption and foster care services; fire or refuse to employ them; and decline to rent or sell them property. Medical professionals will be permitted to refuse to participate in treatments, counseling and surgery related to "sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning."

Now do me a favor - explain to me what "religious organizations" means in the context of this bill.

 

[rjs330]

I think the bill is too broad. If you are denying services solely on homosexuality I completely disagree under the current context of the laws of the US. Businesses and organizations should not be able to refuse service to homosexuals unless it involves specific acts. I would have limited the law to allow them to not have to,participate in weddings or civil unions or parties that celebrate homosexuality. Businesses shouldn't be able to fire or not hire homosexuals unless it is a bona fide religious organization such as a church or private religious school or Christian charitable organization etc. As far as renting or selling to,homosexuals they should not have to rent to homosexual couples, but should have to rent to a single homosexual. And as far as counseling is concerned a Christian counselor should have to provide counseling to a homosexual unless it entails marital counseling to same sex couples. And he should be able to counsel them that it is a mental disorder and try and help them overcome the disorder.

No one should be able to deny medical treatment to homosexuals. But they should be able to not offer transgender sex operations or treatment.

That way djs, florists, bakers etc couldn't tell a,homosexual no for just being homosexual.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Four Angels Standing]

I think the bill is too broad. If you are denying services solely on homosexuality I completely disagree under the current context of the laws of the US. Businesses and organizations should not be able to refuse service to homosexuals unless it involves specific acts. I would have limited the law to allow them to not have to,participate in weddings or civil unions or parties that celebrate homosexuality. Businesses shouldn't be able to fire or not hire homosexuals unless it is a bona fide religious organization such as a church or private religious school or Christian charitable organization etc. As far as renting or selling to,homosexuals they should not have to rent to homosexual couples, but should have to rent to a single homosexual. And as far as counseling is concerned a Christian counselor should have to provide counseling to a homosexual unless it entails marital counseling to same sex couples. And he should be able to counsel them that it is a mental disorder and try and help them overcome the disorder.

No one should be able to deny medical treatment to homosexuals. But they should be able to not offer transgender sex operations or treatment.

That way djs, florists, bakers etc couldn't tell a,homosexual no for just being homosexual.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Everything that appears in the law pertains to those services that would be employed to serve a gay wedding.
Excerpted from the article: "Mississippi's law will allow clerks and their deputies to be provided a process for recusing themselves from licensing marriages, and judges, magistrates, justices of the peace and their deputies will be given a similar process for recusing themselves from performing marriages, based on their religious beliefs."

 

[The Cadet]

Everything that appears in the law pertains to those services that would be employed to serve a gay wedding.
Excerpted from the article: "Mississippi's law will allow clerks and their deputies to be provided a process for recusing themselves from licensing marriages, and judges, magistrates, justices of the peace and their deputies will be given a similar process for recusing themselves from performing marriages, based on their religious beliefs."

That's only a small fraction of the law, though. Please read... well, you know, the first post.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Are you able to worship the God of your choosing?
Are you able to attend the church of your choosing?
Is your church able to define it's own theology?
Is your church allowed to choose who is a member and who they marry?
Are you able to teach your children, the religion of your choosing?
Are you able to not allow anyone in your home, or private club you choose?

When the answer to any of the questions above is no, I will be the first to cry foul on your behalf.

But you see, when a person with a certain religious faith, voluntarily opens their doors to the public, their religious rights end, where the rights of the person they invited in their door, begin.

These are the precepts that are indeed under test. I submit that when the answer to anyone of these is no, then the answer to all of them becomes no, and it's all over. You fight battles to protect your group from losing their place. Not regain a place already lost. That is a losing battle. We would have nothing to talk about or discuss, and wouldn't be allowed to, even if we did. There are a couple on your list that are dangerously close to being no. This is the time to fight the barbarians at the gate.

 

[The Cadet]

There are a couple on your list that are dangerously close to being no.

Which ones?

 

[stevenfrancis]

Which ones?

If you hadn't conflated your home with private clubs, for one. They are quite different. The private club one may already be no. Doesn't the government stand with clubs having to allow anyone in? I thought there had already been lost test cases with orgs like the scouts, the friars club, some golf country clubs, etc. If not, then certainly it's on the cusp. And if I'm not mistaken, your church being able to choose who to marry is one of the points of the current battle. That would be what I mean about fighting to retain those rights from those who would infringe upon that right. It is currently on the burner. As are at least one which doesn't appear on your list. The right of Christians to observe their faith in the practice and conduct of their lives as citizens, business owners, and employees. This is a living, breathing issue. It is going on right now. While we are doing these posts. Surely you have to have caught some of it on radio or in print somewhere. This is real. This is a stand. It's happening now.

 

[Cute Tink]

And if I'm not mistaken, your church being able to choose who to marry is one of the points of the current battle.

Churches have never been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to. They won't be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. They've won in court before and they will again, if necessary.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Churches have never been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to. They won't be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. They've won in court before and they will again, if necessary.

Well, that's the question. I pray you are correct in your assessment.

 

[The Cadet]

If you hadn't conflated your home with private clubs, for one. They are quite different. The private club one may already be no. Doesn't the government stand with clubs having to allow anyone in? I thought there had already been lost test cases with orgs like the scouts, the friars club, some golf country clubs, etc.

I can't find anything on the friar's club and don't know which country clubs you're talking about. Private clubs don't have to let anyone in. Nobody sued the scouts to let LGBT members take part; that was entirely social pressure, largely from within the scouts membership. In the USA, it is entirely possible to have a private club which forbids membership to homosexuals, african-americans, women, or even gay black transwomen.

If not, then certainly it's on the cusp.

I see no basis for this claim, I'm sorry.

And if I'm not mistaken, your church being able to choose who to marry is one of the points of the current battle.

I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. No church anywhere has been sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage. Heck, there are churches that still refuse to perform interracial marriages, and there's not even a case to be made against them. You're fighting against a boogeyman who doesn't exist.

As are at least one which doesn't appear on your list. The right of Christians to observe their faith in the practice and conduct of their lives as citizens, business owners, and employees. This is a living, breathing issue. It is going on right now. While we are doing these posts. Surely you have to have caught some of it on radio or in print somewhere. This is real. This is a stand. It's happening now.

You have every right to observe your faith in the practice and conduct of your life as a citizen, business owner, or employee. This does not, however, grant you the right to flout antidiscrimination laws, no matter what your religion says about homosexuals.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I can't find anything on the friar's club and don't know which country clubs you're talking about. Private clubs don't have to let anyone in. Nobody sued the scouts to let LGBT members take part; that was entirely social pressure, largely from within the scouts membership. In the USA, it is entirely possible to have a private club which forbids membership to homosexuals, african-americans, women, or even gay black transwomen.



I see no basis for this claim, I'm sorry.



I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. No church anywhere has been sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage. Heck, there are churches that still refuse to perform interracial marriages, and there's not even a case to be made against them. You're fighting against a boogeyman who doesn't exist.



You have every right to observe your faith in the practice and conduct of your life as a citizen, business owner, or employee. This does not, however, grant you the right to flout antidiscrimination laws, no matter what your religion says about homosexuals.

Ah well. We don't see the same things. Different world views I suppose. Not very fruitful, I'm afraid. Not much can be done about the overall point of view that people are informed by. In my world there is plenty of room for caution under the current political climate for Christians in the obvious parts of the world, but the not so obvious ones as well. It's a kind of creep away from ethics, morals and values that few even have the ability to see anymore, I'm afraid. It's not my problem really. I'm nearly 60 and on the downhill slope of these sorts of things. My concerns are for my grandchildren, and future generations. Not much I can do about any of it. You don't see it.....you don't see it. That's how it is. Perhaps some day you will. Perhaps it will affect some portion of your life, or value of yours. If not, well, that's wonderful.

 

[Cute Tink]

Well, that's the question. I pray you are correct in your assessment.

You don't have to. Churches which operate solely as churches enjoy more protection under the First Amendment than businesses do. Same with pastors and other such religious figures.

Businesses, on the other hand, have different rules depending on how the business chooses to operate.

 

[The Cadet]

Ah well. We don't see the same things. Different world views I suppose. Not very fruitful, I'm afraid. Not much can be done about the overall point of view that people are informed by. In my world there is plenty of room for caution under the current political climate for Christians in the obvious parts of the world, but the not so obvious ones as well. It's a kind of creep away from ethics, morals and values that few even have the ability to see anymore, I'm afraid. It's not my problem really. I'm nearly 60 and on the downhill slope of these sorts of things. My concerns are for my grandchildren, and future generations. Not much I can do about any of it. You don't see it.....you don't see it. That's how it is. Perhaps some day you will. Perhaps it will affect some portion of your life, or value of yours. If not, well, that's wonderful.

...You know, I may not see all the same things you do, but one of the nice things about the internet is that most news actually shows up on it. Maybe you can show me what you've seen.