Posted on 04/05/2016 11:46:11 AM PDT by C19fan
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a controversial bill into law on Tuesday that could allow businesses and government workers to deny services to lesbian and gay couples.
Bryant said in a statement that he was signing HB 1523 “to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government or its political subdivisions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Good for him. We need to start an avalanche of such legislation all throughout the country.
These states need to band together and support each other in resisting the gay mafia.
Way to sack up Gov.
Tennessee was recently voted the most conservative legislature in the country yet with a GOP House, Senate, and governor, they can’t seem to pass legislation to keep perverts out of little girls’ bathrooms, or protect those with religious objections from being forced to service gay weddings or be fined, or pass constitutional carry or repeal the hated Hall income tax.
Seems he has the support of his state to do it, so that is up to them.
Just like the other states leave CA to support the crazy stuff they do.
I don’t know how the bill is worded, but I think it should be a “conscience” bill directed at the protection of a spectrum of religious conscience, not specifically aimed at LGBTs. For instance, any caterer, window blind maker, kitchen installer or plumber should be able to decline to render services to a brothel, a gambling establishment, a liquor store as well as for an LGBT wedding, if it is for conscience reasons. Likewise, a muslim butcher should not have to provide pork, and a Hindu butcher should not have to provide beef.
(In fact, a business owner should not have to provide a reason, but that’s another whole thread.)
Legislators need to make it clear that a religion is not an inborn status like race. It is pretty well accepted in this country that racial discrimination is unacceptable if the persons behavior is socially acceptable — you should be able to throw a black person out of your store if he or she is cursing or disrobing in public, but not deny service simply because they are black. This is a comparable thing — religious persons should not have to violate their own religion to serve a person of a different religion. That’s not racist or bigoted.
Most of the providers cited in these human rights cases do already serve persons of other religions, except where their beliefs are in direct conflict, such as regards food taken into the body, participation in the rituals of marriage or providing for sleeping together under someone else’s roof outside of religious marriage (which the state shouldn’t get to define).
The governor better keep his eyes peeled for drone attacks.
There's no mention of gays, homosexuals, LGBT or any such thing in the bill.
Here's the actual bill: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523PS.htm
...except that the entire bill is related only to the definition of marriage and is clearly aimed at LGBT claims, and not to general religious accommodations as I outlined above.
Great ! Let freedom ring !
I bet it does not allow refusal of any service for any reason but is very limited in scope. LA times is lying.
I don't care if it does. Barry Goldwater was against the civil rights act of 1964 because he said it would be very subject to abuse.
Prior to that time, an owner of a business could serve who he wanted or reject who he wanted, and he didn't have to explain his reasons to anybody.
This is called "Freedom." There is no natural obligation to provide services or products to people to which you do not wish to provide services or products. The left does this constantly, such as "gofundme" refusing to provide services to Christian bakers being sued by homosexuals.
Barry Goldwater recognized the camel's nose under the tent, and while the civil rights act of 1964 was supposedly created for honorable intentions, it still works out to being the government imposition of morality, and government interfering with other people's freedom to do as they wish.
It is in essence "forced association." Which is the opposite of "freedom of association."
You mean there is a state that believes in the First Amendment?
Really?
Someone alert PayPal.
Oh Crap, There goes all the Seattle business in Jackson.
Shouldn’t need a law to refuse to work for someone in the first place. I’m surprised the LGBT haven’t targeted Curves which already discrimates against mem, but it would interesting to see if Feminist Curves would allow a transgender in its man-hating club
The notion that the government has the right to tell anyone who they can do business with is in and of itself a violation of freedom of association.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.