- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mississippi wins right to enforce religious exemptions law
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:12 pm to Dale51
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:12 pm to Dale51
quote:
Where has this been applied??
No idea. Just answering your question.
quote:
I take it you're against that part?
Consider me pessimistic that local courts are going to hold the same standards across religions
1
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:12 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Yep.
I know that people will scream "RACISM" over this. But it isn't.
Here's reality. We ALREADY apply this to race. And sex. Oh, I know what the EEOC says. But we have to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge it's a lie.
I mean, they do fricking news stories on businesses with "all black" or "all women" leadership. They do the stories so everyone can praise them. No one gives a shite that achieving that result REQUIRED discrimination based on race. And ya know what? I don't care either
I tend to agree. I think the free market will take care of it on its own. If you don't want to serve a particular race, business may or may not suffer as a result. Let the market decide.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:13 pm to MastrShake
quote:
you either adhere to these religious beliefs or youre subject to open and legally protected discrimination from anyone who chooses to do so.
LOL. You apparently don't know English.
You shouldn't have a RIGHT to someone else's labor.
I realize you fricking idiot leftists think that's rational.
It isn't.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:14 pm to Salmon
quote:
to be fair, I would think this law protects muslims as well, no?
It should, it should apply to all religions that are in accordance with our laws.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:14 pm to MastrShake
quote:There's a reason why it is necessary to define terms in a debate, otherwise you start talking past each other while using the same exact language.
were not talking about "terms", were talking about laws. if a law has its basis in religion, it means everyone is legally required to adhere to those tenants of that religion.
thats fricked up.
if it were islamic law we were talking about, people like you would lose their minds. just because this one happens to be about the religion you like doesnt make it right.
Let's take murder for an example. If everyone in the country is a Christian and wants to outlaw murder because it violates their beliefs, does that mean all non-Christians are being forced to believe the Christian reasoning for the law?
There are many people who don't support gay marriage and are not religious. They think it's unnatural, weird, isn't good for furthering the human race, or something else that might not be based on the Bible. They don't have to accept a religious reason for a law that bans gay marriage if the law aligns with their own beliefs.
Each law needs to be evaluated by itself to be determined as Constitutional. Just because there are religious reasons supporting a law doesn't make the law unconstitutional on its face.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:15 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
The exposure to state action comes from your own actions - i.e. smoking pot or not baking the cakes.
So. You are in favor of involuntary servitude? If only there was an amendment about that...
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:16 pm to MastrShake
quote:
if it were islamic law we were talking about, people like you would lose their minds. just because this one happens to be about the religion you like doesnt make it right.
Incorrect. A Muslim person should not be required to serve any customers they don't wish to serve either.
Or an atheist even. If an atheist opened up a restaurant and hang a sign up that read "No Christians will be served here" fine by me.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:18 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:This. Anti-discrimination laws should be for the government and life-saving professions only (a hospital can't turn away a dying person because they are gay or black or something), but otherwise all other individuals should choose how they do business or interact with others with the understanding that they may face backlash from their customers for it.
Incorrect. A Muslim person should not be required to serve any customers they don't wish to serve either.
Or an atheist even. If an atheist opened up a restaurant and hang a sign up that read "No Christians will be served here" fine by me.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:19 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
I wouldn't get getting supper excited over this just yet. The Fifth merely ruled that there was no standing for the plaintiffs to bring the case. They didn't rule on the merits, which means another case challenging this law will make it's way up soon and who knows what they will do then.
Personally, I think this law is superfluous. MS has had on the books forever that you private businesses can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
Personally, I think this law is superfluous. MS has had on the books forever that you private businesses can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:20 pm to Salmon
quote:
Consider me pessimistic that local courts are going to hold the same standards across religions
Thanks for the honest answers!
Whether one is optimistic or pessimistic is not the question. Do you agree with a local board or group deciding whether or not an individual is a "witch" or a holy person based on the boards or local groups judgement? I wonder what the tests will be composed of?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:25 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This. Anti-discrimination laws should be for the government and life-saving professions only (a hospital can't turn away a dying person because they are gay or black or something), but otherwise all other individuals should choose how they do business or interact with others with the understanding that they may face backlash from their customers for it.
This gets you 'whites only' restaurants etc in the south. It's the definition of regressive policies. You're saying here that you'd be ok with a restaurant putting up a 'No Blacks' sign?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:26 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
You're saying here that you'd be ok with a restaurant putting up a 'No Blacks' sign?
Yes.
As well as "No Whites", "No Christians", "No Muslims", "No Women", "No CIS males", etc.
If people are dumb enough to turn away paying customers, so be it.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:26 pm to udtiger
quote:What? I'm asking you a serious question.
You are in favor of involuntary servitude?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:27 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:Morally? No. Legally? Yes.
This gets you 'whites only' restaurants etc in the south. It's the definition of regressive policies. You're saying here that you'd be ok with a restaurant putting up a 'No Blacks' sign?
This is a different age we live in. We have the ability to communicate and organize more quickly than any time in history and that would be the response to businesses that are acting in a way society doesn't like. Don't serve blacks? Fine, I won't patronize your store, either. That's how it should work.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 3:54 pm to MastrShake
quote:That's simply not true.
you either adhere to these religious beliefs or youre subject to open and legally protected discrimination from anyone who chooses to do so.
If two guys want to get married, they can get married. They just can't get the government to force a Catholic Priest to do it. They are not being forced to adhere to anything. If a JOTP declines, he is going to have to show a sincerely held religious belief in order to avoid having the government force him to perform the ceremony.
If this law is not in place, then you have the open violation of the first amendment.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 4:21 pm to AlxTgr
quote:you think thats what this is about? you think that gay people want to get married in a place that calls them an abomination?
If two guys want to get married, they can get married. They just can't get the government to force a Catholic Priest to do it.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 4:23 pm to MastrShake
quote:
you think that gay people want to get married in a place that calls them an abomination?
You're damn right they do, especially the militant arm of the LGBT. They want to burn these places down and piss on the ashes.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 4:24 pm to MrLarson
quote:so do I. that doesnt mean I want to get married there.
They want to burn these places down and piss on the ashes.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 4:27 pm to anc
And guess who has a track record of protecting religious liberty?
Neil Gorsuch.
Neil Gorsuch.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 4:28 pm to MastrShake
quote:
so do I
Such peaceful people
quote:
that doesnt mean I want to get married there.
Getting married there would be the ultimate "frick you" to them.
Page 7 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News