First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Mississip Passes Law Against Gays
7096 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mississippi
Offline
Posted 2/19/16 , edited 2/19/16
I don't understand why it's a radical concept that a business should be allowed to choose who it does business with.

It makes good business sense to accept money from anyone willing to give it to you, if they're stupid enough to refuse business to someone that's their prerogative. Plenty of businesses out there that will do business with you.

Not like a locksmith will show up to help you get into your house and ask if you're gay before opening your lock.

If people don't want to cater or officiate a gay wedding because they're butthurt at the idea of two people of the same sex liking each other, that's their problem, find someone else.
Posted 2/19/16
I am not surprised, it only ratified the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery) in 2013, 148 years after it's passage.
224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116 / F
Offline
Posted 2/19/16

namealreadytaken wrote:

unconstitutional, and if people challenge the law, it will be removed by the Supreme Court, as someone above said.
sadly, challenging the law is expensive...someone has to pay for the paperwork, attorney fees, etc.


True, but eventually it will still get taken to court because of the seriousness of the issue. You ignore a serious issue like that, and it breeds desent against the government, that's just history.
7096 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mississippi
Offline
Posted 2/19/16

nooneinparticular wrote:

I am not surprised, it only ratified the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery) in 2013, 148 years after it's passage.


Mississippi's constitution made slavery in state illegal in 1869 anyway. Not like it was legal before ratification of the 13th.
13041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Uk (Southwest Eng...
Offline
Posted 2/19/16
Damn what a backward ass ruling, I live in the UK equivalent of the backwoods and even here something like that would get next to no support. Hope it gets overturned soon.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 2/19/16

relt95 wrote:

Isn't there already a law that says an owner of a business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason?

What would this law even do?


There are certain laws business practices need abide by--most pertinently anti-discrimination law--of which this law is trying to circumvent.

These laws a largely a reaction to a recent executive order that outlawed anti-discirmination in hiring and housing for LGBT people, since before states were trying to get by using laws that said to be "RFRA"-like laws. This legal battle isn't exactly new, but because the laws are becoming more direct they'll be harder to hold up in court. For these laws in particular,
11782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / McDonough
Offline
Posted 2/19/16
Love the generalization. All states in the south are racist and prejudice? Yeah, okay... You have fun thinking that.
1150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M
Offline
Posted 2/19/16
That's what you get for smack dab in the middle of the bible belt.
5124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / MS
Offline
Posted 2/20/16
As a resident of Mississippi, Mississippi is backwards fucking stupid.
47868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/16 , edited 2/20/16
Does this law apply to government services or all services? I mean, if I'm running a business, I don't see why it would be a problem if, say, I don't want to take someone's money because I don't like their tie. "I don't like your tie, so I don't want to sell you my product." It's idiotic business practice, and speaks very soundly against the good sense of the establishment. But it's his/her stuff to sell. Why is he required to sell his products to anyone?

If the law in question is a government mandate to government employees, then I'd say it's a terrible one indeed, but to tell private business owners they are not required to sell their property seems like common sense to me.

I mean you are, financially and ethically, a shitty business owner if you don't sell to people that are gay, but it does seem to me that you have the right to be shitty business owner in this case. No?
Posted 2/20/16 , edited 2/20/16

theYchromosome wrote:

Does this law apply to government services or all services? I mean, if I'm running a business, I don't see why it would be a problem if, say, I don't want to take someone's money because I don't like their tie. "I don't like your tie, so I don't want to sell you my product." It's idiotic business practice, and speaks very soundly against the good sense of the establishment. But it's his/her stuff to sell. Why is he required to sell his products to anyone?

If the law in question is a government mandate to government employees, then I'd say it's a terrible one indeed, but to tell private business owners they are not required to sell their property seems like common sense to me.

I mean you are, financially and ethically, a shitty business owner if you don't sell to people that are gay, but it does seem to me that you have the right to be shitty business owner in this case. No?


No, they don't really have that right. They enacted right of the federal or so government government to regulate commerce, which they've used to well....regulate commerce. They've used this to publicly desegregate in terms of race, so I don't know why this doesn't apply to gays. I'm guessing back then it becomes a problem when everyone does it to the point that it might as well be institutionalized. One could also so operating in a place of public property that discriminating on the basis of discriminating of a prejudice you have, rather than something which has something to do with your business, is violating whatever social contract the government deems appropriate to set for all businesses. Personally, I think the right to be served doesn't violate the right to be prejudice in business. I could just as easily say I have a right to make lewd jokes in the presence of a woman but that doesn't make it any more of a right than to be prejudice in a financial setting. Think of all the precedents that could be set by allowing religious discourse in public settings.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 2/20/16

Southern55 wrote:

Love the generalization. All states in the south are racist and prejudice? Yeah, okay... You have fun thinking that.


I realize that not all, if most folks down South are like this(trust me, PA ain't no picnic either), but even you have to admit that things like this doesn't help the South's image.

I can't understand these laws...how are you supposed to know someone's gay...wear a rainbow star?
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/20/16 , edited 2/20/16
"Mississippi passes law against anti-religious bigotry" would have been a better tittle for this thread. What a good, reasonable, and yes ...constitutional law(s)! Liberals and homosexual activists will not be able to victimize people of faith FORCING them to adopt their own sexual beliefs.

"with a preference toward boys" ....um, that is illegal.

Unlike the backward regime in Oregon, religious people won't be destroyed by homosexual activists working (illegally) in conjunction with governmental officials to COMPEL or destroy a family that will sell cakes to homosexuals but not participate in their same sex ceremony.

Religious adoption charities who place children with married couples (which means male/female for the confused) won't be shut down and FORCED by intolerant leftists who can't abide that policy even though private and governmental agencies exist who do place with same sex couples.

An elderly couple opening a B&B in their home won't be FORCED to violate their beliefs by a lesbian couple? Now THAT is real tolerance!

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion; this law does not violate the 14th. OBERGEFELL was a bad decision (that will be overturned) that created a new right outside the legislative process.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 2/20/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:

Does this law apply to government services or all services? I mean, if I'm running a business, I don't see why it would be a problem if, say, I don't want to take someone's money because I don't like their tie. "I don't like your tie, so I don't want to sell you my product." It's idiotic business practice, and speaks very soundly against the good sense of the establishment. But it's his/her stuff to sell. Why is he required to sell his products to anyone?

If the law in question is a government mandate to government employees, then I'd say it's a terrible one indeed, but to tell private business owners they are not required to sell their property seems like common sense to me.

I mean you are, financially and ethically, a shitty business owner if you don't sell to people that are gay, but it does seem to me that you have the right to be shitty business owner in this case. No?


No, they don't really have that right. They enacted right of the federal or so government government to regulate commerce, which they've used to well....regulate commerce. They've used this to publicly desegregate in terms of race, so I don't know why this doesn't apply to gays. I'm guessing back then it becomes a problem when everyone does it to the point that it might as well be institutionalized. One could also so operating in a place of public property that discriminating on the basis of discriminating of a prejudice you have, rather than something which has something to do with your business, is violating whatever social contract the government deems appropriate to set for all businesses. Personally, I think the right to be served doesn't violate the right to be prejudice in business. I could just as easily say I have a right to make lewd jokes in the presence of a woman but that doesn't make it any more of a right than to be prejudice in a financial setting. Think of all the precedents that could be set by allowing religious discourse in public settings.


I think you've brought up a lot of really good points, PV.

Touching on the issue of race, imagine the shitstorm that'd brew if someone was declined services because of their race. Rightly so - it would be a pretty despicable thing to do, to deny someone a service that you offer openly simply because of a quality about them that is inherent and doesn't affect who they are.

Now pressing upon to topic of rights of either party: I think it is important to weigh the importance, fairness, and benefit/harm of "rights" before really trying to apply them. To me, it makes much more sense for people to have the right to be treated fairly than it is for people to have the right to treat other people unfairly. Nobody is harmed if a business is made to serve both black and white people, just as no one is harmed if gays are given the right to be served just as a straight person would be.

On the surface, it makes sense to say that a business should be allowed to refuse service or goods on whatever basis they wish - but allowing such a thing enables segregation and other horrible offenses, offenses that serve only to separate and harm human beings.

Richard Feynman said, "I think human beings should treat human beings like human beings." It's really on the nose, but I think it holds value. We are all basically equal - all come from the same stock. Why should people be allowed to discriminate?
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/20/16
Wow, just wow. You damn Yanks make me ashamed that my country is on the same continent as yours. Get your shit together already and join the freaking 21st century ya dig.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.