Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[idav]

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.

Yes this was already happening with businesses but with hearing outrage for stating it. There is an issue with employees under the owner. Is the owner there at the jewish deli or the employee with protected religious rights counter to that of the owner. Man I cant wait to see some of these in court.:thud:

 

[dawny0826]

This bill reads differently from the AZ and KS bills, in my opinion, and emphasizes the government's responsiblity to uphold First Amendment rights, without substantially burdening people for exercising their religious freedoms.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2014/pdf/history/SB/SB2681.xml

So many are jumping to the conclusion that this automatically translates to a green light to discriminate against LGBTQs. I'm not reading this.

This reads to me that state government cannot discriminate against the people through action and law that would violate religious freedoms.

There is nothing in the bill that nulls anti-discrimination law, fair housing and other laws that protect against discrimination - at least from what I've read and understood of it. I don't know how a court of law will read this, but, it seems unfeasible, based upon what I've read, that this translates to a permission of sorts to discriminate against LGBTQs.

 

[idav]

This bill reads differently from the AZ and KS bills, in my opinion and emphasizes the government's responsiblity to uphold First Amendment rights, without substantially burdening an individual's exercise of freedom.

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2014/pdf/history/SB/SB2681.xml

So many are jumping to the conclusion that this automatically translates to a green light to discriminate against LGBTQs. I'm not reading that at all from the bill itself.

This reads much more to me as an emphasis on prohibiting the government from violating the rights of the people.

There is nothing in the bill that nulls anti-discrimination law, fair housing and other laws that protect against discrimination. I don't know how a court of law will determine this law, but, it seems unfeasible based upon what I've read, that this translates to a permission of sorts to discriminate against LGBTQs. This bill doesn't mention homosexuals, specifically, at all unlike one (or both, I don't remember) of the others.

That would be the case if you ignore the word 'religion' in the bill. It violates seperation of church and state. There is no need to re-enact religious freedom, nobodies right to practice is being violated.

 

[dawny0826]

That would be the case if you ignore the word 'religion' in the bill. It violates seperation of church and state. There is no need to re-enact religious freedom, nobodies right to practice is being violated.

Should the government be able to lawfully force a Sikh to remove his turban because he's entered a court room? This, would, in my opinion, serve as an example of unsubstantiated burden.

 

[idav]

Should the government be able to lawfully force a Sikh to remove his turban because he's entered a court room? This, would, in my opinion, serve as an example of unsubstantiated burden.

Is he forced to practice a state religion?

 

[dawny0826]

Is he forced to practice a state religion?

I'm not following you.

A man should not have to leave his beliefs at the door of a courtroom, when he's not harming anyone. Wearing a turban because you have to isn't comparable to holding church service in the lobby of a government building.

 

[idav]

I'm not following you.

A man should not have to leave his beliefs at the door of a courtroom, when he's not harming anyone. Wearing a turban because you have to isn't comparable to holding church service in the lobby of a government building.

To practice isnt being violated. The way I see it my rights fly out the window when I walk into a state building. No cell phones, right to carry gets violated etc. Nothing comparable to mandating religions in civilian life.

 

[nazz]

That would be the case if you ignore the word 'religion' in the bill. It violates seperation of church and state. There is no need to re-enact religious freedom, nobodies right to practice is being violated.

the hell it isn't.

 

[idav]

the hell it isn't.

Last I checked people are free to practice whatver religion or lack of they want. People still have to deal with opposing religious views!

 

[dawny0826]

To practice isnt being violated. The way I see it my rights fly out the window when I walk into a state building. No cell phones, right to carry gets violated etc. Nothing comparable to mandating religions in civilian life.

In this case, it would be, as the turban is a religious requirement. A public school is a government building too. Should a teacher be forced to remove her hijab while teaching, assuming that she's not promoting her religion through her teaching? Should a student be forced by the government to remove their pentagram or cross jewelry?

 

[idav]

In this case, it would be, as the turban is a religious requirement. A public school is a government building too. Should a teacher be forced to remove her hijab while teaching, assuming that she's not promoting her religion through her teaching? Should a student be forced by the government to remove their pentagram or cross jewelry?

I draw the line with strip searches. Why pick on federal buildings where our rights are violated equally , has nothing to do with their religion. What about in the streets? We wanna open up free reign of stuff like that?

 

[Mycroft]

In this case, it would be, as the turban is a religious requirement. A public school is a government building too. Should a teacher be forced to remove her hijab while teaching, assuming that she's not promoting her religion through her teaching? Should a student be forced by the government to remove their pentagram or cross jewelry?

But if christians were forced to remove their crosses due to the possibility of it offending other religions/atheists, you can see that there would be an outcry.

 

[dawny0826]

But if christians were forced to remove their crosses due to the possibility of it offending other religions/atheists, you can see that there would be an outcry.

We don't have a right to be free from offense in the United States.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should the government be able to lawfully force a Sikh to remove his turban because he's entered a court room? This, would, in my opinion, serve as an example of unsubstantiated burden.

Turbans are actually a good illustrative example of why I disagree with the approach of this law.

Arguably, turbans aren't a matter of religious obligation. The actual obligation is to keep one's hair and beard uncut. A turban is just a way to keep long hair neat and out of the way.

However, I think this shouldn't matter: I don't want any sort of unjustified burdens on anyone, regardless of whether those burdens are religious or not. In my mind, the fact that removing a turban is a long and involved process, and that culturally, keeping a turban on has nothing to do with the Western practice of "hat honour" and is in no way a sign of disrespect should be enough reason to allow them in courtrooms.

The question of religion shouldn't even enter the picture... especially since, as I touched on, a turban isn't a religious requirement anyhow, strictly speaking.

And it shouldn't matter if it is. All laws should be sensitive to the objectives they're trying to achieve. Removing hats in a courtroom is about showing respect to the court and the judicial process; this objective is still achieved if Sikhs wear turbans in court. OTOH, the objectives of anti-discrimination laws ARE compromised if people can discriminate against gay people on religious grounds.

 

[nazz]

Last I checked people are free to practice whatver religion or lack of they want.

Not if it includes not providing goods and/or services for same sex weddings.

 

[Mycroft]

Not if it includes not providing goods and/or services for same sex weddings.

No, they're still free to pick whatever religion they choose. Not sure why it also thinks it gives them the right to be a bogtrotter about it, though.

 

[1137]

No, they're still free to pick whatever religion they choose. Not sure why it also thinks it gives them the right to be a bogtrotter about it, though.

How about we take away YOUR right to promote YOUR opinion and see how you feel?

 

[Drolefille]

How about we take away YOUR right to promote YOUR opinion and see how you feel?

I don't have that right at my job. An employee can be fired for expressing her opinion at work. Particularly if that opinion is offensive, but even if it isn't or if she doesn't think it is.

Businesses aren't people, despite recent Supreme Court rulings. They don't have the right to discriminate, the law specifically prohibits it. And it's been a net improvement to the country.

No one can ever say what they would do in a small town if businesses were allowed to refuse to serve "them" for whatever population they are. Imagine it as an unofficial sundown law... why is that OK?

 

[dawny0826]

Turbans are actually a good illustrative example of why I disagree with the approach of this law.

Arguably, turbans aren't a matter of religious obligation. The actual obligation is to keep one's hair and beard uncut. A turban is just a way to keep long hair neat and out of the way.

What's important is that there are Sikhs who do consider their turban to be of obligatory religious importance.

However, I think this shouldn't matter: I don't want any sort of unjustified burdens on anyone, regardless of whether those burdens are religious or not.

My opinion on this bill is neutral at this juncture. I'm still attempting to process and understand it and to wrap my brain around certain inferences.

It's here, in the event that you haven't read it.

I find this section interesting:

(c) "Exercise of religion" means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
(5) (a) Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection.

And subsection (b) reads:

(b) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (i) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (ii) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

This reads to me as a reiteration of what the government shouldn't be doing anyway in violation of First Amendment rights.

In this context, do you still disagree with the approach of the bill?

In my mind, the fact that removing a turban is a long and involved process, and that culturally, keeping a turban on has nothing to do with the Western practice of "hat honour" and is in no way a sign of disrespect should be enough reason to allow them in courtrooms.

Agreed. Though, I think it's important to consider and understand that for some, such removal would be more than a mere inconvenience.

The question of religion shouldn't even enter the picture... especially since, as I touched on, a turban isn't a religious requirement anyhow, strictly speaking.

How would you justify this to the man who views his turban as a religious requirement? You're assigning it meaning without regard to the person who is wearing it. Or at least, this is how this reads to me.

And it shouldn't matter if it is. All laws should be sensitive to the objectives they're trying to achieve. Removing hats in a courtroom is about showing respect to the court and the judicial process; this objective is still achieved if Sikhs wear turbans in court. OTOH, the objectives of anti-discrimination laws ARE compromised if people can discriminate against gay people on religious grounds.

I don't completely disagree with you. But, as I've shared with you before, I care about the rights of BOTH the religious business owner and the individual who may pose conflict or hardship to their beliefs. I am of the personal belief that kindness, inclusivity and accommodation is the best way to do business, whilst keeping a good business mind on your shoulders.

But, any way we slice it, we're weighing the value of one person's rights to another and choosing a side.

 

[1137]

I don't have that right at my job. An employee can be fired for expressing her opinion at work. Particularly if that opinion is offensive, but even if it isn't or if she doesn't think it is.

Businesses aren't people, despite recent Supreme Court rulings. They don't have the right to discriminate, the law specifically prohibits it. And it's been a net improvement to the country.

No one can ever say what they would do in a small town if businesses were allowed to refuse to serve "them" for whatever population they are. Imagine it as an unofficial sundown law... why is that OK?

Hey I'm still reeling from you wanting to force a holocaust survivor to serve Mengle. I'll read this later