Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[Shadow Wolf]

You're driving down the road at night and there's a man standing there. He's wearing black robes, a strange geometrical pendent, has a large bag with him, and is covered in something dark and sticky that you can assume is blood. You're well versed, and you make the safe assumption that this man has participated in something you certainly want no involvement in and you keep driving.

The next day there is a knock on your door. A man asks you to confirm the incident and you do so. He then turns you around and arrests you for discrimination. The man was offended that you chose not to pick him up and grabbed your license number. You're living in the world YOU created, and so are arrested for discrimination.

You enjoy that.

Yes, because as everyone knows homosexuals are a bunch of murderers, pedophiles, and zoophiliacs. There is a very clear and distinct difference between seeing a suspicious looking character covered with blood and telling someone you will not serve them because you are just too high up on your moral horse to do so.

 

[1137]

Yes, because as everyone knows homosexuals are a bunch of murderers, pedophiles, and zoophiliacs. There is a very clear and distinct difference between seeing a suspicious looking character covered with blood and telling someone you will not serve them because you are just too high up on your moral horse to do so.

Straw man. I'm giving an example of the slippery slope this line of thought rolls down, not comparing homosexuals to murderers.

You enjoy your straw men.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Mississippi Approves Religious Freedom Bill, Governor Signs It Into Law

Sad but true news. I have a fist with Phil Bryant's name on it.

I would put a sign up in my shop saying thus:

Spoiler: Language

Still. It's kind of ironic coming from a state with the highest percentage of downloads of gay pornography in the US.

When it comes to private organizations, let the staff run it the way they want - homophobically, racist-ly, anti-religiously...

 

[1137]

When it comes to private organizations, let the staff run it the way they want - homophobically, racist-ly, anti-religiously...

Shhhhh, the pseudo-progressives want special treatment to be who they are and not let others do the same!

 

[Drolefille]

You're driving down the road at night and there's a man standing there. He's wearing black robes, a strange geometrical pendent, has a large bag with him, and is covered in something dark and sticky that you can assume is blood. You're well versed, and you make the safe assumption that this man has participated in something you certainly want no involvement in and you keep driving.

The next day there is a knock on your door. A man asks you to confirm the incident and you do so. He then turns you around and arrests you for discrimination. The man was offended that you chose not to pick him up and grabbed your license number. You're living in the world YOU created, and so are arrested for discrimination.

You enjoy that.

Hitchhiking is illegal.

Also, there are some specific laws that pertain to renting a room in one's own home: You do have a right to be more "discriminating" - for example a woman who is renting out a second apartment in house where she lives can in fact choose to only rent to another woman, because it's her residence and not just a business. Picking someone up in your car would be, if legal, under a similar law vs. being a taxi service.

If you're a taxi that picks people up on the side of the road, no you can't not pick up dude in a black robe - who is far more likely to be a Star Wars fan in Sith robes than a serial killer- as long as he can pay your fare.

What exactly is your solution to the gay man who lives in MS not being able to find a place to live?

Shhhhh, the pseudo-progressives want special treatment to be who they are and not let others do the same!

Sorry, you like to ignore where I said that everyone should be held to the same standard in favor of mockery and sarcasm.

 

[1137]

Hitchhiking is illegal.

Also, there are some specific laws that pertain to renting a room in one's own home: You do have a right to be more "discriminating" - for example a woman who is renting out a second apartment in house where she lives can in fact choose to only rent to another woman, because it's her residence and not just a business. Picking someone up in your car would be, if legal, under a similar law vs. being a taxi service.

If you're a taxi that picks people up on the side of the road, no you can't not pick up dude in a black robe - who is far more likely to be a Star Wars fan in Sith robes than a serial killer- as long as he can pay your fare.

What exactly is your solution to the gay man who lives in MS not being able to find a place to live?

Sorry, you like to ignore where I said that everyone should be held to the same standard in favor of mockery and sarcasm.

A privately owned business is different than renting out a room how, exactly? You own it, you choose the rules.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Straw man. I'm giving an example of the slippery slope this line of thought rolls down, not comparing homosexuals to murderers.

You enjoy your straw men.

If that is how you want to debate, by throwing out words of defeat than attempt a real rebuttal, than that is your prerogative. Like it or not, America was established to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This case, of letting religious loons trample on the minority just to appease their pathetic and disgusting notion of "rights," is unAmerican.
And where do you draw the lines? Obviously you think businesses can discriminate all they want. What about "separate but equal?" Should the government have stepped in or should black people still be expected to tolerate a world that craps on them that includes frequent reminders that some white people see them as lower than a dog and it's socially and legally acceptable to treat them like that? Should businesses still be allowed to discriminate against women because they may need time off for maternity leave? Should a "right" be so strong that for the same reasons businesses should be able to discriminate, should schools allow bullying that is carried out because some hell-bound hypocrite believes it is his right to bully another student who lives a life that fails to meet his standards of morality?

 

[Drolefille]

A privately owned business is different than renting out a room how, exactly? You own it, you choose the rules.

Because the law says so. Because we've seen what happens without anti-discrimination laws. Because going back to that would suck.

Because it grants you redress against discrimination so you can actually find a place to live. Even if it's only because the landlord doesn't want to get sued because he's a racist old fart.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh my god, and heaven forbid we actually look towards the 9th and realize that you can't legally grant rights to some people and deny them to another.

 

[1137]

If that is how you want to debate, by throwing out words of defeat than attempt a real rebuttal, than that is your prerogative. Like it or not, America was established to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This case, of letting religious loons trample on the minority just to appease their pathetic and disgusting notion of "rights," is unAmerican.
And where do you draw the lines? Obviously you think businesses can discriminate all they want. What about "separate but equal?" Should the government have stepped in or should black people still be expected to tolerate a world that craps on them that includes frequent reminders that some white people see them as lower than a dog and it's socially and legally acceptable to treat them like that? Should businesses still be allowed to discriminate against women because they may need time off for maternity leave? Should a "right" be so strong that for the same reasons businesses should be able to discriminate, should schools allow bullying that is carried out because some hell-bound hypocrite believes it is his right to bully another student who lives a life that fails to meet his standards of morality?

Wait, you're arguing against "separate but equal"? Because then that makes sense. You're the one saying that certain people in disagreement with other groups should have an unequal say. You're the one who wants to force a restaurant owned by African Americans to serve clan members. In fact, why are you arguing against Jim Crow? If you're against this bill, maybe you'd be happier with bills forcing homophobes to use separate bathrooms and go to different schools so their beliefs can't offend you.

Haha, the irony. You can't even hold a consistent position because you're blinded by superiority and straw men. Do us all a favor - understand what the law is actually saying, understand why your position is so ironically hilarious. Return .

I have a friend who's a philosophy professor and we actually tested this. We asked a class in AZ about the bill and most were against it. By the end of the two hours class, after discussing what the law actually says, after provided examples of what it would accomplish, only one student still held his position - and he was relying on media induced straw men because apparently he wasn't listening.

 

[Drolefille]

Wait, you're arguing against "separate but equal"? Because then that makes sense. You're the one saying that certain people in disagreement with other groups should have an unequal say. You're the one who wants to force a restaurant owned by African Americans to serve clan members. In fact, why are you arguing against Jim Crow? If you're against this bill, maybe you'd be happier with bills forcing homophobes to use separate bathrooms and go to different schools so their beliefs can't offend you.

This doesn't make sense.

Haha, the irony. You can't even hold a consistent position because you're blinded by superiority and straw men. Do us all a favor - understand what the law is actually saying, understand why your position is so ironically hilarious. Return .

And you're back to shallow ridicule and sarcasm.

I have a friend who's a philosophy professor and we actually tested this. We asked a class in AZ about the bill and most were against it. By the end of the two hours class, after discussing what the law actually says, after provided examples of what it would accomplish, only one student still held his position - and he was relying on media induced straw men because apparently he wasn't listening.

This really doesn't mean anything other than college students are easily swayed.

Look, we get it, you're libertarian - at least in this- but you're also ignoring every question asked to you about what you would do about the people who would be hurt by this sort of law. You claim it would only be positive and ignore the negative entirely.

I don't really think it would be positive in the slightest. And I would be opposed to even a black restaurant refusing service to a Klan member who wants nothing more than to walk in, sit down and eat. (Why they would choose to do this is another matter.) So stop crowing about hypocrisy and pseudo progressivism and whatever other rude comment you can make next, and actually have the discussion.

 

[1137]

Because the law says so. Because we've seen what happens without anti-discrimination laws. Because going back to that would suck.

Because it grants you redress against discrimination so you can actually find a place to live. Even if it's only because the landlord doesn't want to get sued because he's a racist old fart.

We aren't going back, we are simply allowing people to be ignorant bigots. If you're in this much of an outrage over 1st amendment issues you're probably in the wrong country.

I mean, what if you had to shop at all stores equally? You don't want to allow business owners to choose who to serve, so why can you choose where to buy? You can't have it both ways - are people allowed to live their own lives or not? You're not some special, entitled princess so stop acting like.

If I walk into a restaurant and get kicked out - whether it's because there's a man on my arm, a pentagram around my neck, a Jewish afro on my head, or any reason - oh no, what will I do. Oh, I'll avoid giving my money to bigots, spread word and create a loss in profit for them, and eat somewhere else.

 

[Drolefille]

We aren't going back, we are simply allowing people to be ignorant bigots. If you're in this much of an outrage over 1st amendment issues you're probably in the wrong country.

People can be bigots. They simply must operate their business as if they weren't.

I mean, what if you had to shop at all stores equally? You don't want to allow business owners to choose who to serve, so why can you choose where to buy? You can't have it both ways - are people allowed to live their own lives or not? You're not some special, entitled princess so stop acting like.

I'm not a princess and I'll thank you to keep personal remarks out of this.
You can live your life how you want, but I can't refuse to sell to someone because he's a Muslim if I want to operate a business. There's a difference between your daily life -that effects none but the people around you - and running a business.

If I walk into a restaurant and get kicked out - whether it's because there's a man on my arm, a pentagram around my neck, a Jewish afro on my head, or any reason - oh no, what will I do. Oh, I'll avoid giving my money to bigots, spread word and create a loss in profit for them, and eat somewhere else.

And if it's every landlord in town? Or every restaurant in town? I'm assuming you live in a relatively urban area, or have the financial means to go somewhere else. That isn't an option for everyone.

 

[1137]

This doesn't make sense.


And you're back to shallow ridicule and sarcasm.


This really doesn't mean anything other than college students are easily swayed.

Look, we get it, you're libertarian - at least in this- but you're also ignoring every question asked to you about what you would do about the people who would be hurt by this sort of law. You claim it would only be positive and ignore the negative entirely.

I don't really think it would be positive in the slightest. And I would be opposed to even a black restaurant refusing service to a Klan member who wants nothing more than to walk in, sit down and eat. (Why they would choose to do this is another matter.) So stop crowing about hypocrisy and pseudo progressivism and whatever other rude comment you can make next, and actually have the discussion.

I am having the discussion.

1) boo boo your feelings are hurt. Time to veto gay marriage rights everywhere since a large portion of Americans are hurt over it. Abolishing slavery damaged the economy in the south, I'm sure they were bummed about it, so I guess you'd have shot Lincoln yourself. Time put put on your big boy pants and enter the real world.

2) I have no respect for you at all considering you're all for the government forcing an African american to serve someone who would straight up enslave / kill them if they could. Who's more hurt - a person turned away by someone who dislikes him (who they wouldn't like or respect anyways) or a person fascistly forced by the government to wait on / be submissive to someone who already believes they are wrong, lower, lesser, disgusting, whatever?

I don't see what more there is to discuss, we went through this with the AZ bill. I'm glad college students are able to understand media influence, see through fallacy, and work in grey areas. They'll replace the people like you who would have forced holocaused survivors to serve deli to Mengle.

 

[1137]

Guess what, a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS is on par with living your day to day life. Maybe instead of insulting college students you should try the real world again.

Fascism is bad, but hey you'd force the survivors to wait on Mengle anyways. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Drolefille]

I am having the discussion.

1) boo boo your feelings are hurt. Time to veto gay marriage rights everywhere since a large portion of Americans are hurt over it. Abolishing slavery damaged the economy in the south, I'm sure they were bummed about it, so I guess you'd have shot Lincoln yourself. Time put put on your big boy pants and enter the real world.

2) I have no respect for you at all considering you're all for the government forcing an African american to serve someone who would straight up enslave / kill them if they could. Who's more hurt - a person turned away by someone who dislikes him (who they wouldn't like or respect anyways) or a person fascistly forced by the government to wait on / be submissive to someone who already believes they are wrong, lower, lesser, disgusting, whatever?

I don't see what more there is to discuss, we went through this with the AZ bill. I'm glad college students are able to understand media influence, see through fallacy, and work in grey areas. They'll replace the people like you who would have forced holocaused survivors to serve deli to Mengle.

If you can't avoid personal comments you really shouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Drolefille]

Guess what, a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS is on par with living your day to day life. Maybe instead of insulting college students you should try the real world again.

Fascism is bad, but hey you'd force the survivors to wait on Mengle anyways. Absolutely disgusting.

I didn't insult college students.

And no, it isn't, not in the eyes of the law.


I'd force employees to wash their hands after using the restroom too! I'm infringing on their personal hygiene! Ohno, fascism.

 

[1137]

If you can't avoid personal comments you really shouldn't be having this discussion.

Yup, I'm the one not address point. Goodbye, hope your nauseating world view bites you in the ***.

 

[1137]

I didn't insult college students.

And no, it isn't, not in the eyes of the law.


I'd force employees to wash their hands after using the restroom too! I'm infringing on their personal hygiene! Ohno, fascism.

Yay straw man. Hahaha

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To get this back on track, doesn't this have to do with people using their religion as an excuse to refuse service to people? So this is really just pandering to the bigoted beliefs of right-wing Christians who want to refuse service to LGBT people.