re: Mississippi gov. signs law allowing service denial to gays

Pretty good article on the bill from the Clarion-Ledger

LINK

Yep. Marriage is a religious event and frankly no marriages should be recognized by a government. Same as a baptism.

quote:

---

it's 2016 and there are still plenty of hicks who believe being gay is a choice.

---

Those same hicks also think it could be a contagious disease that they might catch. I mean, so contagious that a million years of biological needs(sorry 2016 years) are going to suddenly change and shoot for men over perfectly lovely vaginas...

Text of 1523 as signed by Gov.

quote:

---

(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.

---

quote:

---

So you can fire or evict someone for being gay now. This terrible fricking law will be shot down in about five minutes, and more than likely they will make sexual orientation a protected class, just like sex or age.

---

You left out this in your citation of 3. (b), (c):

quote:

---

SECTION 3. (1) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization:

(a) Solemnizes or declines to solemnize any marriage, or provides or declines to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act;

---

The Section 3. (1)(a) states the purpose of the legislation is to protect a religious organization from government infringement of religious freedom.

The bill narrowly delineates the nature and terms of the specific protected religious belief in Section 2.:

quote:

---

SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;

(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and

(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

---

Reading more of the act it seems it protects private persons principally from government coercion in the arena of providing services related to same-sex marriage and Medical providers who decline to participate in services related to gender change or reassignment.

Like others have commented, the protections extended to government employees have some ambiguities. It does however compel a government employee to pre-certify or pre-register their decision to recuse themselves from participation in same-sex marriages. And they are required to do all that is possible to see that a marriage can happen. Not sure what that means and how that will be worked out.

Your citations and the concerns raised respecting hiring, firing, rental and so forth should be understood in the context of a religious organization's response to a request to support a same-sex marriage not as a blanket protection and endorsement of homophobia.

quote:

---

What if every restaurant in your town was owned by blacks?

---

then I would open my own restaurant and get all the white customers

that was easy

quote:

---

What if every restaurant in your town was owned by blacks?

---

Doubt all would have the exact same views, or some may have same views but value green over any other color.

I'm pro free market. Let the people who want to make money, make it.

The government shouldn't even be involved in marriage in the first place. It's none of their concern.

quote:

---

The government shouldn't even be involved in marriage in the first place. It's none of their concern.

---

Libertarians everywhere agree. My question is, why do people get mad when someone who disagrees(baker/photographer), objects to do something because it is something they disagree with? Isn't it their right?

Also, is the tolerant at least admitting to being intolerant now? First step in anything is admitting it.

quote:

---

The government shouldn't even be involved in marriage in the first place. It's none of their concern.

---

I'm sympathetic to that idea, but at this point, I don't see the government ever dropping out of marriage. It would complicate domestic issues too much. What happens in cases of divorce? Issues like child custody, separation of assets, and alimony would be messy without a government-sanctioned union between the partners.

I agree that an alternative model is conceivable, but as things stand right now, it would be too difficult to implement. I think, anyway.