Religious Freedom Bill passed in Missisippi.

[1137]

Let me know when you want to actually talk about the subject at hand instead of making up emotional pleading nonsense.

This is the topic. You want the government to tell people how to run their businesses - they're privately owned businesses. You don't think people should be allowed to deny service to others. So, you would be fine with the government forcing a holocaust survivor to serve Joseph Mengle in his restaurant. Try to wrap your head around this view, it's not hard. It is what we call a slippery slope.

Never said I was. Problem?

No, I was just surprised it was even considered, lol. Though it's strange to me that a Satanist does not believe people should be allowed to run their own lives, but that's a different topic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is the topic. You want the government to tell people how to run their businesses - they're privately owned businesses. You don't think people should be allowed to deny service to others. So, you would be fine with the government forcing a holocaust survivor to serve Joseph Mengle in his restaurant. Try to wrap your head around this view, it's not hard. It is what we call a slippery slope.

No, I was just surprised it was even considered, lol. Though it's strange to me that a Satanist does not believe people should be allowed to run their own lives, but that's a different topic.

You're still talking about a strawman. At this point, I doubt you'll ever actually talk about the same law that this thread is about. Tsk tsk.

 

[1137]

You're still talking about a strawman. At this point, I doubt you'll ever actually talk about the same law that this thread is about. Tsk tsk.

I'd say I'll spell it out for you, but I already am. S-L-I-P-P-E-R-Y S-L-O-PE. I am addressing the law and the thread and I am asking you to follow your line of thought all the way. We start bringing in the government to tell business owners how they can and cannot run their privately owned businesses - that is your point. According to you, if someone would deny service to a customer they should switch professions, be sued, be embarrassed, etc.

For the 10th time - scenerio: a business own has a small restaurant. The woman was involved in the holocaust and was encamped in one of the many concentration camps. She was one of many who had sick and twisted experiments run on her by the angel of death. 30 years later, after the war, she has a good life and good family. Suddenly a familiar face walks through the door, and it is Joseph Mengle. This is a sick war criminal who personally tortured her, but since she is forced by the government to serve any customer who walks in she is forced to wait on him (obviously this is hypothetical, but I've found extremes necessary when one side isn't willing to listen). You are totally fine with this.

We can go further and say that people like you continue supporting government interventions in the lives of citizens. Red is a common gang color, maybe we cannot wear red any longer. Pentagrams are known to disturb people, toss out your jewelry. Religious forums cause tention and offense from differing opinions, bye bye RF. Maybe you'll be happier when we cannot choose who to serve, what to wear, where to shop, etc

The ironic thing is you were over in the satanic jewelry thread arguing with Cypher about such topics but taking the other side. You feel entitled to say, wear, and do things that may offend others but you don't thing those you are in disagreement with should have the same rights. That is bigotry by definition.

Let's look at passing the bill into law. It starts with people being able to refuse service to others based on religious reasons. As we slide down the slope, it becomes more open to where any owner can refuse any customer for any reason without fear of persecution. Not persecute, not attack, not harm, not belittle, simply refuse service to.

So, we have the government forcing a holocaust survivor to serve Joseph Mengle vs people having full control over their own lives, businesses, and associations.

Pretty easy choice. Of course you'll just ignore all this and refuse to address any points, but anyone else reading is welcome to respond.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'd say I'll spell it out for you, but I already am. S-L-I-P-P-E-R-Y S-L-O-PE. I am addressing the law and the thread and I am asking you to follow your line of thought all the way. We start bringing in the government to tell business owners how they can and cannot run their privately owned businesses - that is your point. According to you, if someone would deny service to a customer they should switch professions, be sued, be embarrassed, etc.

For the 10th time - scenerio: a business own has a small restaurant. The woman was involved in the holocaust and was encamped in one of the many concentration camps. She was one of many who had sick and twisted experiments run on her by the angel of death. 30 years later, after the war, she has a good life and good family. Suddenly a familiar face walks through the door, and it is Joseph Mengle. This is a sick war criminal who personally tortured her, but since she is forced by the government to serve any customer who walks in she is forced to wait on him (obviously this is hypothetical, but I've found extremes necessary when one side isn't willing to listen). You are totally fine with this.

We can go further and say that people like you continue supporting government interventions in the lives of citizens. Red is a common gang color, maybe we cannot wear red any longer. Pentagrams are known to disturb people, toss out your jewelry. Religious forums cause tention and offense from differing opinions, bye bye RF. Maybe you'll be happier when we cannot choose who to serve, what to wear, where to shop, etc

The ironic thing is you were over in the satanic jewelry thread arguing with Cypher about such topics but taking the other side. You feel entitled to say, wear, and do things that may offend others but you don't thing those you are in disagreement with should have the same rights. That is bigotry by definition.

Let's look at passing the bill into law. It starts with people being able to refuse service to others based on religious reasons. As we slide down the slope, it becomes more open to where any owner can refuse any customer for any reason without fear of persecution. Not persecute, not attack, not harm, not belittle, simply refuse service to.

So, we have the government forcing a holocaust survivor to serve Joseph Mengle vs people having full control over their own lives, businesses, and associations.

Pretty easy choice. Of course you'll just ignore all this and refuse to address any points, but anyone else reading is welcome to respond.

I already addressed your emotional rantings over this. I was just wondering if you were ever going to stop beating up scary strawmen you created in your head and actually start to talk about the topic at hand. Obviously you're never going to do that, so I have nothing more to say to you.

I'm done with this topic. Enjoy ranting and raving. I'm not going to read anymore of it.

 

[1137]

I already addressed your emotional rantings over this. I was just wondering if you were ever going to stop beating up scary strawmen you created in your head and actually start to talk about the topic at hand. Obviously you're never going to do that, so I have nothing more to say to you.

I'm done with this topic. Enjoy ranting and raving. I'm not going to read anymore of it.

Yup, ignored the points and can't even face following your line of thought through. Classic bigotry.

 

[idav]

This is the topic. You want the government to tell people how to run their businesses - they're privately owned businesses. You don't think people should be allowed to deny service to others. So, you would be fine with the government forcing a holocaust survivor to serve Joseph Mengle in his restaurant. Try to wrap your head around this view, it's not hard. It is what we call a slippery slope.




No, I was just surprised it was even considered, lol. Though it's strange to me that a Satanist does not believe people should be allowed to run their own lives, but that's a different topic.

The problem with the bill is we are already allowed to be how we want especially as an owner. So why oh why write a bill giving a special liscense to the religious for freedoms they already have. The bill obviously has an agenda. If owners wanna be not so nice they can face public opinion, oh but my secular opinion wont stand in court. Do I have to say god told me so?

 

[1137]

The problem with the bill is we are already allowed to be how we want especially as an owner. So why oh why write a bill giving a special liscense to the religious for freedoms they already have. The bill obviously has an agenda. If owners wanna be not so nice they can face public opinion, oh but my secular opinion wont stand in court. Do I have to say god told me so?

Why are you so stressed over it when you even just said it's changing nothing? It's more a reassurance to the neurotic nuts in our confuses society because these people are literally throwing themselves into a panic. Then the media paints a picture of a photographer being sued for not wanting to participate in something she finds immoral and everyone goes ape ****.

 

[idav]

Why are you so stressed over it when you even just said it's changing nothing? It's more a reassurance to the neurotic nuts in our confuses society because these people are literally throwing themselves into a panic. Then the media paints a picture of a photographer being sued for not wanting to participate in something she finds immoral and everyone goes ape ****.

Its a step towards theocracy and rewriting the constitution. There are reasons the forefathers didnt want religious stuff in there. Its more of a reassurance that religious opinion is valid above secular opinion.

 

[Willamena]

Reading the Bill on the first page, it would seem that the best judge of this Bill will be in its application in law, rather than speculation about its possible impacts.

 

[Sees]

Its a step towards theocracy and rewriting the constitution. There are reasons the forefathers didnt want religious stuff in there. Its more of a reassurance that religious opinion is valid above secular opinion.

A lot of people grant this without even being aware...such as issues certain head gear and what not. A man's wants or opinion vs. a religion's wants or opinions should be equal in a secular nation - but they are not.

New laws making this even more ridiculous is not what we need.

 

[idav]

Reading the Bill on the first page, it would seem that the best judge of this Bill will be in its application in law, rather than speculation about its possible impacts.

Of course and depends on how the judge interpets it with their opinion of what it is according to law. It always has to be intepreted.

 

[4consideration]

I'm no legal expert, so these are just my thoughts on the bill. (I'm posting it in two parts in order to conceal how long it is. )

In reading the text of the bill provided on the first page, it appears to me the purpose and stated intention of this law is to implement on the state level a standard previously used at the federal level, whereby the government must justify ("with compelling justification") there is valid reason for substantially burdening exercise of religion in application of laws, even those laws that are neutral to religion -- apparently, in a attempt to hold the state to a higher standard than the federal government, following a recent Supreme Court decision that the state is saying removes a requirement that the government justify forcing someone to do something that may be viewed as against their religion.

I do not see that it provides for unlimited behavior on anyone's part under the umbrella of religious belief.

(my highlighting)

"(2) The Mississippi Legislature finds the following: (a) The framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (b) Laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (c) Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (d) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and (e) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The news article you posted is remarkable in its failure to actually describe what the law does. How about we have people look at the actual bill before making any assumptions about what it does or does not say and do. Here, I'll even make it easy for you guys:



Oh, I'm sorry! I'm supposed to not think critically and have a knee-jerk "OMFGs HOW DARE THEY" reaction by listening to internet hearsay about what this law is and what it does. I shouldn't be looking at what the law actually says.

And really, I shouldn't... that wasn't entirely sarcastic there. I don't have the legal expertise to make sense of it or fully understand how it would be implemented in practice. But I am certainly not going to base my assessment off a vague article from a news outlet of questionable reputation. Anybody around here have a law degree? Or a story from a reputable news outlet that covers it more appropriately? I think I've put in my homework contribution by finding the bill itself.

As a transportation professional, clause 5 worries me. I've been in the middle of disputes between churches and road authorities before about things like where a church's driveway acceses should go and how many driveways they should be allowed to have. It's difficult enough as it is to implement sensible access management policies. It seems to me that this law would require the road authority to demonstrate not only that the access management restrictions are based on sound judgement and legitimate policy goals, but also that it's the least restrictive option possible. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they might as well have just come right out and said "churches now get as many driveways as they want, regardless of the problems this causes for everyone else."

Taken to its logical conclusion, this bill could even support the idea that the controlling factor in all transportation decision making will be whether someone's trip to church will be made longer.

 

[4consideration]

The way I see this potentially playing out (I'm guessing) is that in situations where there is some dispute, like those situations often mentioned, i.e. a person refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding, or a person refusing to provide, or assist in, abortion or certain types of birth control...

...is that in situations where the state, or someone else, is going after one party for refusing to do something based upon a religious reason, the state or other party would have to demonstrate this part of the law is fulfilled:

(edit: my highlighting)

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

So, I think that may provide that in some examples, the party who wishes to have an abortion, or have photographs taken at a gay wedding, may not have a good case, if they are only and simply going after that person because they were angry about the person's position and following their belief they should not provide those services.

If that person were actually denied those services completely, I see that may fall within the scope of a compelling governmental interest.

I think it may prevent one party from successfully insisting that another part do something against their own conscience/religion -- even though there were other options available. So that, while a person may have a right to have an abortion at a medical facility that provides them, they may not have the right to legally insist that a specific individual doctor or all medical staff be required to perform them.

A person may be angry about a business (or individual) that refuses to photograph a gay wedding, but if there are other options available than that one business/person, that option may be enough to be considered a lesser restrictive approach than legally forcing someone to do it against their will/beliefs.

 

[4consideration]

As a transportation professional, clause 5 worries me. I've been in the middle of disputes between churches and road authorities before about things like where a church's driveway acceses should go and how many driveways they should be allowed to have. It's difficult enough as it is to implement sensible access management policies. It seems to me that this law would require the road authority to demonstrate not only that the access management restrictions are based on sound judgement and legitimate policy goals, but also that it's the least restrictive option possible. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they might as well have just come right out and said "churches now get as many driveways as they want, regardless of the problems this causes for everyone else."

Taken to its logical conclusion, this bill could even support the idea that the controlling factor in all transportation decision making will be whether someone's trip to church will be made longer.

Have you found that issues like the location of church driveways are considered to fall within the definition of "exercising religion"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you found that issues like the location of church driveways are considered to fall within the definition of "exercising religion"?

I think that making it more difficult to access one's place of worship could very easily be construed as a "burden" on that worship.

Same with all sorts of policies: increasing the financial burden on a church (and by extension, the tithes of its members) could be considered a burden as well, whether that means raising the building permit fee or requiring expensive upgrades to accommodate people with disabilities.

 

[4consideration]

I think that making it more difficult to access one's place of worship could very easily be construed as a "burden" on that worship.

Same with all sorts of policies: increasing the financial burden on a church (and by extension, the tithes of its members) could be considered a burden as well, whether that means raising the building permit fee or requiring expensive upgrades to accommodate people with disabilities.

I see your point.

I think that within that "burden" the "compelling government interest" may be covered already within the purpose of those law for the items mentioned, but I see the "least restrictive" part could present a problem at times if someone wanted to push that issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see your point.

I think that within that "burden" the "compelling government interest" may be covered already within the purpose of those law for the items mentioned, but I see the "least restrictive" part could present a problem at times if someone wanted to push that issue.

That's my concern. I think that government policies work best when they strike a reasonable balance between all the competing concerns. That "least restrictive" part has the potential to throw that balance completely out of whack.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reminds me of Assassin's Creed. Freedom that comes with chaos or totalitarianism that comes with peace. Here I'm an Assassin and you're a Templar. I certainly agree that "those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither",

Then what of the social contract? What of the other part of religious freedom, which is freedom from religion? What of the right of equal application of the law? It seems leaning one way distorts and prohibits these for many just so a few can enjoy them with fewer restrictions, rather than leaning the other way so the many can have their rights undisprupted while the few yield to overall greater good of society. People who cannot find work or shelter because they are a minority are people the tax payer has to support.

Wow I was being sarcastic. Don't get angry with me just because you can't understand the irony and hypocracy of your position. .

If you don't indicate sarcasm in electronic communication, you have to take what you get.
And I am not being hypocritical. I don't care if people want to be a bigot. However, I do favor collective social well being, and because the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few (and in this case legal protections for minorities that help keep them educated, employed, sheltered, and fed, and off government support), people who think they have a right to discriminate just need to realize that expressing hatred in a public place is not a right. I do not support Westborrows Baptist Church's right to protest at funerals, I do not support Hobby Lobby's "religious right" over a woman's right to reproductive options, and I do not support legislation that protects discrimination.

If a privately owned business wants to refuse me service then I support their right to. They're the ones losing money so they suffer too, the same right is protected for me, etc. That is fair. Would it be better if everyone just stopped being bigotted - yes of course. But welcome to real life. I don't want America to be fascist, and I'd rather have chaos and independence than peace and enslavement to government.

The thing is, they don't loose money. Plenty of businesses, even in the north, stayed open and done alright for themselves despite discriminatory policy.
But when the general public is examined, people potentially loose out on education, employment, shelter, and other needs for being a minority just because some people think they have a right to never have to leave their comfort zone.

We are talking in circles in this point, and I was tired of the debate before AZ voted it. If people want a country where certain groups have more rights than other groups then there are PLENTY of places to go.

How about a "right" of children to learn biology versus the "right" of the church to teach Creationism in schools? When you allow religious freedoms over other freedoms, where is the line drawn and where does it stop before religious rights trump over other things in which it shouldn't?

Indeed I used the wrong term. You guys got me. Let me jump on the band wagon of ignoring the nature of real life and deny private business owners their basic rights while allowing the government to force minorities to cater to those who hate them.

They do not have my sympathies. I've worked in customer service and have had to deal with people I don't like. It's a given for any job where you work with the public there will be people you don't like. If you cannot accept that, then you are clearly in the wrong job.

Reading the Bill on the first page, it would seem that the best judge of this Bill will be in its application in law, rather than speculation about its possible impacts.

While that is true, I do not have much hope that this law will not be abused. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see a flood of law suits and legal challenges that are trying to define what exactly is the government being too over bearing, what is the line between religious right and public safety, health, and especially education.

 

[4consideration]

That's my concern. I think that government policies work best when they strike a reasonable balance between all the competing concerns. That "least restrictive" part has the potential to throw that balance completely out of whack.

Yes. I agree completely with your first sentence.

I think that's a sticky area, because I see what you're saying and I also see the least restrictive part as being a safeguard for balance in some situations. It also has a potential to work as a preventative measure for not allowing the law to over-reach, in favor of the rights of one party -- to the point of infringing on the rights of another, by forcing someone to do something they really believe is wrong, or penalizing them for not doing it, simply because some other party that could achieve the same thing in another way wants to insist/force that person to do that thing, even when they think it is wrong.