Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[nazz]

People or owners of that mindset would want the legislation to just that. To discriminate for being gay. When companies are being vocal about their opinions what is to stop them from using the law to take it further? What would be the basis for someone refusing service to homosexual, their race?

Other laws would kick in then to address that kind of discrimination. It would not be allowed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

the reason you are not allowed to yell "fire" (if there is no fire) is due to the injury that would occur. The WBC is being limited simply because people consider their message offensive. Hardly the same thing.

Doing what the WBC does at someone's funeral could be considered a form of emotional terrorism, harassment or bullying, which is not protected by law.

 

[idav]

I'm of the opinion that private businesses should be able to choose who they wish to serve.

For example, a gay business owner should have the right to refuse service to a christian fundamentalist if he so desires.

Exactly.

 

[nazz]

Doing what the WBC does at someone's funeral could be considered a form of emotional terrorism, harassment or bullying, which is not protected by law.

I have harassed anti-gay activists. Would you deny me that right?

 

[idav]

Other laws would kick in then to address that kind of discrimination. It would not be allowed.

That's what the law is addressing. Religious don't want other laws kicking in taking their protection, they want the right to discriminate when their religion says its ok.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have harassed anti-gay activists. Would you deny me that right?

You don't have a right to harass people, period.

 

[nazz]

That's what the law is addressing. Religious don't want other laws kicking in taking their protection, they want the right to discriminate when their religion says its ok.

Once again, I am not aware of any business that has requested legal protection to be allowed to deny gays their goods or services on the basis on them being gay. If you know of such a case I'd like to hear about it.

 

[nazz]

You don't have a right to harass people, period.

Well the police did not nothing to stop me. And they were right there when I blew whistles in the ears of the anti-gay activists.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well the police did not nothing to stop me. And they were right there when I blew whistles in the ears of the anti-gay activists.

Then they weren't doing their jobs. Police are notorious for that sort of thing, you know, not doing their jobs.

 

[nazz]

Then they weren't doing their jobs. Police are notorious for that sort of thing, you know, not doing their jobs.

Well, I'll grant you it was a bit over the top even for me. But I should certainly have a right to picket in front of the WBC holding a sign and using a megaphone. Even if they consider it harassment.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, I'll grant you it was a bit over the top even for me. But I should certainly have a right to picket in front of the WBC holding a sign and using a megaphone. Even if they consider it harassment.

Still not the same as protesting as a family's funeral.

Are you really going to defend some ******** protesting at a family's funeral? Is that something you feel is so inalienable? That's just nonsense and offensive. This is the sort of ridiculousness that comes out of taking concepts of rights to their extreme, either way. The best position is somewhere in the middle with common sense. We should have liberty to express ourselves but not to the extreme of stomping on others.

 

[nazz]

Still not the same as protesting as a family's funeral.

Are you really going to defend some ******** protesting at a family's funeral? Is that something you feel is so inalienable? That's just nonsense and offensive. This is the sort of ridiculousness that comes out of taking concepts of rights to their extreme, either way. The best position is somewhere in the middle with common sense. We should have liberty to express ourselves but not to the extreme of stomping on others.

based on what though? what the majority wants? that is the danger Jefferson saw.

Seems a simple solution. Cemeteries, being private property, can make rules against it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

based on what though? what the majority wants? that is the danger Jefferson saw.

Seems a simple solution. Cemeteries, being private property, can make rules against it.

How about based on simple human decency? I hate this country. Bunch of little bickering children who think it's an inalienable right to treat others like garbage and then want to whine and rave about "tyrants" and act like they're little freedom fighters over the Internet.

I'm done with this topic. Bye.

 

[nazz]

How about based on simple human decency?

If there were a universal, objective standard? Sure. But there isn't so...

 

[idav]

Once again, I am not aware of any business that has requested legal protection to be allowed to deny gays their goods or services on the basis on them being gay. If you know of such a case I'd like to hear about it.

Didn't some business recently go to court over flowers? People are obviously not going to spell it out, depends on their motives which we can only guess about. If anything the law will allow them to be more vocal about why they are kicking someone out of their business.

 

[nazz]

And while we are at it why should we exempt ministers, rabbis, imams, etc from officiating at same sex weddings?

Nobody? Why am I not surprised?

You know if people would just admit they hate the view that homosexuality is a sin and will do anything to oppose that instead of arguing the fairness or legality issue I would not have a problem with that. At least it would be honest.

 

[idav]

Nobody? Why am I not surprised?

You know if people would just admit they hate the view that homosexuality is a sin and will do anything to oppose that instead of arguing the fairness or legality issue I would not have a problem with that. At least it would be honest.

It isn't even about that. I hate being refused service for any reason but it's going to happen. I just don't want the religious to have an upper hand regarding that ability. People already suck enough without help from the law.

 

[1137]

Still not the same as protesting as a family's funeral.

Are you really going to defend some ******** protesting at a family's funeral? Is that something you feel is so inalienable? That's just nonsense and offensive. This is the sort of ridiculousness that comes out of taking concepts of rights to their extreme, either way. The best position is somewhere in the middle with common sense. We should have liberty to express ourselves but not to the extreme of stomping on others.

Well, you're against a line of thought that would allow privately own cemataries or places of worship to ban such protests, which would be a middle ground in freedom of speech. Everyone who's been arguing against these bills make contradictions like this constantly for some reason. What I dislike about this culture is not that people feel entitled to equal treatment and free speach (which I think is a stupid thing to dislike) but the horrible lack of using reasons. People will contradict themselves a day long to prevent changing their position.

How about based on simple human decency? I hate this country. Bunch of little bickering children who think it's an inalienable right to treat others like garbage and then want to whine and rave about "tyrants" and act like they're little freedom fighters over the Internet.

I'm done with this topic. Bye.

"You're all acting like bickering little children", he declared in a bickering, fallacious manner before storming off in a fit of rage.

 

[Father Heathen]

Isn't open enmity better than a forced and fake tolerance? It let's customers know where businesses actually stand and allows customers to take into consideration who they do business with (personally, if someone loathed me I would rather not give them my money, anyway). Let the businesses put their reputation on the line. This freedom should apply to any business for whatever reason, not just religious justifications. For example, a Jewish deli should be allowed to refuse to serve a holocaust denier, or a transgendered bakery owner should be allowed to deny service to a transphobic customer, etc.

 

[averageJOE]

Isn't open enmity better than a forced and fake tolerance? It let's customers know where businesses actually stand and allows customers to take into consideration who they do business with (personally, if someone loathed me I would rather not give them my money, anyway). Let the businesses put their reputation on the line. This freedom should apply to any business for whatever reason, not just religious justifications. For example, a Jewish deli should be allowed to refuse to serve a holocaust denier, or a transgendered bakery owner should be allowed to deny service to a transphobic customer, etc.

But would you honestly want to live in a world like that?