Mississippi governor signs law allowing businesses etc to refuse gay people

Ummm, something tells me this violates the civil rights act, though I'm no expert.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Ummm, something tells me this violates the civil rights act, though I'm no expert.

It used to, our new president will probably get that overturned.

DWags wrote:I have no fucking words.  What the fuck are these people threatened by?  

Cock suckers can now refuse gay people. Irony?  

April 5th, 2016?   LOL, good outrage.   Law was blocked on June 30th.  Never happened.   Fake news.   OK.  Tell me more about the low information stupid Trump voters?

Took about 3 minutes on google.....of course I wasn't busy being outraged 1st before information.

Goose

Tell us about the 3059 counties that voted for Trump again.

Fake news Goose. You gobbled it up and dutifully spread it here.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:I have no fucking words.  What the fuck are these people threatened by?  

Cock suckers can now refuse gay people. Irony?  

April 5th, 2016?   LOL, good outrage.   Law was blocked on June 30th.  Never happened.   Fake news.   OK.  Tell me more about the low information stupid Trump voters?

Took about 3 minutes on google.....of course I wasn't busy being outraged 1st before information.

What was the date on the EPA thing you linked?

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose

Tell us about the 3059 counties that voted for Trump again.

Fake news Goose. You gobbled it up and dutifully spread it here.

So it's Hills that's in the White House?

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

April 5th, 2016?   LOL, good outrage.   Law was blocked on June 30th.  Never happened.   Fake news.   OK.  Tell me more about the low information stupid Trump voters?

Took about 3 minutes on google.....of course I wasn't busy being outraged 1st before information.

What was the date on the EPA thing you linked?

Aug of 15, Aug of 16 - named a Superfund in Sept of 16. Still not cleaned up. No one punished at EPA.

I'll wait for someone to chide you and GRR for cluttering this thread.

But that won't happen, rules don't apply consistently here.

LooseGoose wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Goose

Tell us about the 3059 counties that voted for Trump again.

Fake news Goose. You gobbled it up and dutifully spread it here.

So it's Hills that's in the White House?

every time I see this graphic, I chuckle at all of the rural folks who were manipulated by the mainstream media the entire election cycle.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

So it's Hills that's in the White House?

every time I see this graphic, I chuckle at all of the rural folks who were manipulated by the mainstream media the entire election cycle.

every time I see you post I chuckle at your false superiority complex. keep it up, worked really well this past November.

:lol:

DWags wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:every time I see this graphic, I chuckle at all of the rural folks who were manipulated by the mainstream media the entire election cycle.

yeah, it's only a slanted media brainwashing the electorate if the other candidate wins.

the mainstream media got the president they wanted..

DWags wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:every time I see this graphic, I chuckle at all of the rural folks who were manipulated by the mainstream media the entire election cycle.

yeah, it's only a slanted media brainwashing the electorate if the other candidate wins. Donald Trump said it best, "If I don't win, it's a rigged election". It's not even funny, many believe that.

They also believe equal rights is like less rights for them, like its somekind of fucking pie. more rights for them less pie for me. No, it's fucking america, more rights for them, means you still have the same fucking rights.

You shouldn't post when drunk, you appear as a fucking imbecile. Moreso than usual.

P Rob wrote:

DWags wrote:

yeah, it's only a slanted media brainwashing the electorate if the other candidate wins. Donald Trump said it best, "If I don't win, it's a rigged election". It's not even funny, many believe that.

They also believe equal rights is like less rights for them, like its somekind of fucking pie. more rights for them less pie for me. No, it's fucking america, more rights for them, means you still have the same fucking rights.

You shouldn't post when drunk, you appear as a fucking imbecile. Moreso than usual.

Why so angry all the time p rob?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

P Rob wrote:

You shouldn't post when drunk, you appear as a fucking imbecile. Moreso than usual.

Why so angry all the time p rob?

Because you touch yourself at night. Don't touch yourself at night.

DWags wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
every time I see this graphic, I chuckle at all of the rural folks who were manipulated by the mainstream media the entire election cycle.

yeah, it's only a slanted media brainwashing the electorate if the other candidate wins.   Donald Trump said it best, "If I don't win, it's a rigged election".    It's not even funny, many believe that.  

They also believe equal rights is like less rights for them, like its somekind of fucking pie.  more rights for them less pie for me.  No, it's fucking america, more rights for them, means you still have the same fucking rights.  

Like the right to deny service at your private business?

I think it would be fun to deny hate-filled religious bigots service at the private business you own..

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think it would be fun to deny hate-filled religious bigots service at the private business you own..

I think it would be, too.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think it would be fun to deny hate-filled religious bigots service at the private business you own..

I think it would be, too.

I'd love the look on their little hate-filled face when you denied them service at your "All U Can Eat Deep-Fried Food Product" buffet after church.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I think it would be, too.

I'd love the look on their little hate-filled face when you denied them service at your "All U Can Eat Deep-Fried Food Product" buffet after church.

It might not be good for business but if you're uncomfortable with them in your place of business that you pay rent/mortgage and taxes on... I think you should have that right.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Like the right to deny service at your private business?

does your private business enjoy police and governmental protection while it's running? Do people need to use public streets to get there?

Shit, I don't know, maybe we should just say fuck it, put up a shingle, under it say, I'm only servicing white males who aren't gay. Or, only Gay and Black people welcomed. Just box everyone up and have places where they can shop and be "with their own kind". Then just do it with private schools, golf courses, whatever. Maybe we would fight less. I would personally feel uncomfortable in a country like that, but I only have about 20-25 years left, so who gives a fuck.

Yes, just as those services are provided to everyone, business or citizen... therefore that's kind of a moot point.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Like the right to deny service at your private business?

does your private business enjoy police and governmental protection while it's running?   Do people need to use public streets to get there?  If it started on fire, who would put it out?

Shit, I don't know, maybe we should just say fuck it, put up a shingle, under it say, I'm only servicing white males who aren't gay.  Or, only Gay and Black people welcomed.   Just box everyone up and have places where they can shop and be "with their own kind".  Then just do it with private schools, golf courses, whatever.  Maybe we would fight less.   I would personally feel uncomfortable in a country like that, but I only have about 20-25 years left, so who gives a fuck.

Yeah, where do those Catholic hospitals get off refusing to do abortions?

I've seen the argument before just haven't seen any reasonable connection made between the two.

I mean, the mafia uses this argument all the time. "Yeah, so I kept those guise down the street from bustin up your joint, so you need to cough up the fazules or else you're gonna pay with your kneecaps, capisce?"

DWags wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

Yeah, where do those Catholic hospitals get off refusing to do abortions?

The judge in the Trinity case didn't say the refusal was lawful, just that every woman would have action against every hospital at inception. I also can't make a hospital in Bear Lake hire a doctor to operate on my heart. I can't make a vegetarian restaurant serve me a side of beef or a cup cake store get me some lettuce.

Preforming services are a bit different than looking at you and saying you're a bit to Jewish to buy milk here.

But whatever. It's trumps world now. This shit will be fine till it involves us personally

It's not "like, whateva", it involves people now.

If you own the building, pay the taxes, provide the capital and you own the risk... why can't you decide who you provide services to and not to?

DWags wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:

Yeah, where do those Catholic hospitals get off refusing to do abortions?

The judge in the Trinity case didn't say the refusal was lawful, just that every woman would have action against every hospital at inception. I also can't make a hospital in Bear Lake hire a doctor to operate on my heart. I can't make a vegetarian restaurant serve me a side of beef or a cup cake store get me some lettuce.

Preforming services are a bit different than looking at you and saying you're a bit to Jewish to buy milk here.

But whatever. It's trumps world now. This shit will be fine till it involves us personally

Nice red herring (pickled? ), that is not the point, at least as I see it.
All I know are the wedding incidents, the baker was happy to sell them a cake, just wouldn't write 'husband & husband' on it, which is much closer to forcing Catholics to endorse abortions than your analogy.

Even if we went with your scenario, how long do you think a business that openly discriminated would last? I believe we're well beyond that point and the business would quickly be shunned by the community.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

The judge in the Trinity case didn't say the refusal was lawful, just that every woman would have action against every hospital at inception. I also can't make a hospital in Bear Lake hire a doctor to operate on my heart.  I can't make a vegetarian restaurant serve me a side of beef or a cup cake store get me some lettuce.  

Preforming services are a bit different than looking at you and saying you're a bit to Jewish to buy milk here.  

But whatever.  It's trumps world now. This shit will be fine till it involves us personally

It's not "like, whateva", it involves people now.

If you own the building, pay the taxes, provide the capital and you own the risk... why can't you decide who you provide services to and not to?

Isn't America the land of the free X? Seems a bit hypocritical to me if you're allowed the freedom to buy a bagel at Stupid Fucking Redneck's Bakery. But a couple of dudes that like to bang in the privacy of their own bedroom aren't afforded the same freedom just because Jim Bob Cooter's fatass wife heard that Lance and Stephon are bumping uglies and that's against her religion, so fuck them.

You can say Lance and Stephon can go to the next bakery in town, but what if Stupid Fucking Redneck's Bakery makes the best damn bagel in Mississippi? You're then denying them the ability to sample the same quality bagel that the straight couple (that are probably racist because it's fucking Mississippi) were able to buy because Jim Bob Cooter is a shitty ass homophobe.

I rambled a bit, but I hope you got the gist of it.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

The judge in the Trinity case didn't say the refusal was lawful, just that every woman would have action against every hospital at inception. I also can't make a hospital in Bear Lake hire a doctor to operate on my heart. I can't make a vegetarian restaurant serve me a side of beef or a cup cake store get me some lettuce.

Preforming services are a bit different than looking at you and saying you're a bit to Jewish to buy milk here.

But whatever. It's trumps world now. This shit will be fine till it involves us personally

It's not "like, whateva", it involves people now.

If you own the building, pay the taxes, provide the capital and you own the risk... why can't you decide who you provide services to and not to?

Wiki wrote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines public accommodations as a limited number of facilities which are open to the public. Examples include hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4]

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

It's not "like, whateva", it involves people now.

If you own the building, pay the taxes, provide the capital and you own the risk... why can't you decide who you provide services to and not to?

Is this a real question?

Besides the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, the commerce clause and titles II through IX of the civil rights act of 1964, I'd say ethics and morality. But fuck the last two. They caught the Kathy and left me a mule to ride.

Let's stick to ethics and morality. Because before those acts of 1964 the government enforced segregation. It wasn't just...."the will of the people".

So morality. Is it moral for one person to force someone else to provide a service against their will?

CheesySpartan wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

It's not "like, whateva", it involves people now.

If you own the building, pay the taxes, provide the capital and you own the risk... why can't you decide who you provide services to and not to?

Wiki wrote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines public accommodations as a limited number of facilities which are open to the public. Examples include hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4]

I'm aware of the state's stance. I'm trying to have an objective discussion with regards to morality in society.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

Is this a real question?  

Besides the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, the commerce clause and titles II through IX of the civil rights act of 1964, I'd say ethics and morality. But fuck the last two. They caught the Kathy and left me a mule to ride.

Let's stick to ethics and morality. Because before those acts of 1964 the government enforced segregation. It wasn't just...."the will of the people".

So morality. Is it moral for one person to force someone else to provide a service against their will?

His job is in the SERVICE industry so yes. Do your job or go dig some ditches if you can't handle handing over some bagels to Marcie and Beth the lesbian softball teammates for cash.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Let's stick to ethics and morality. Because before those acts of 1964 the government enforced segregation. It wasn't just...."the will of the people".

So morality. Is it moral for one person to force someone else to provide a service against their will?

His job is in the SERVICE industry so yes. Do your job or go dig some ditches if you can't handle handing over some bagels to Marcie and Beth the lesbian softball teammates for cash.

We're not talking about what someone can or cannot handle. We're talking about the morality (or lack thereof) of coercion.

DWags wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
Nice red herring (pickled? ), that is not the point, at least as I see it.
All I know are the wedding incidents, the baker was happy to sell them a cake, just wouldn't write 'husband & husband' on it, which is much closer to forcing Catholics to endorse abortions than your analogy.

Even if we went with your scenario, how long do you think a business that openly discriminated would last? I believe we're well beyond that point and the business would quickly be shunned by the community.

You're actually saying that a cake store which writes letters on a cake would t have the ability to write letters on a cake, and forcing a doctor to specialize in a surgical procedures are alike?

Well, OK then.

As far as "openly" discriminating well like all Americans I hope we at least just covertly discriminate. However, if it makes you feel better, I guarantee you if a tobacco store in Louisiana said "no negroes allowed, it would be swamped with good ol boys by sun down.

They are both services being performed. So yes, Dwags, they are alike.

DWags wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
Nice red herring (pickled? ), that is not the point, at least as I see it.
All I know are the wedding incidents, the baker was happy to sell them a cake, just wouldn't write 'husband & husband' on it, which is much closer to forcing Catholics to endorse abortions than your analogy.

Even if we went with your scenario, how long do you think a business that openly discriminated would last? I believe we're well beyond that point and the business would quickly be shunned by the community.

You're actually saying that a cake store which writes letters on a cake would t have the ability to write letters on a cake, and forcing a doctor to specialize in a surgical procedures are alike?

Well, OK then.

As far as "openly" discriminating well like all Americans I hope we at least just covertly discriminate. However, if it makes you feel better, I guarantee you if a tobacco store in Louisiana said "no negroes allowed, it would be swamped with good ol boys by sun down.

FWIW the cake store in OR closed in October (3 months after the incident) so the community did ultimately react.

DWags wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
Nice red herring (pickled? ), that is not the point, at least as I see it.
All I know are the wedding incidents, the baker was happy to sell them a cake, just wouldn't write 'husband & husband' on it, which is much closer to forcing Catholics to endorse abortions than your analogy.

Even if we went with your scenario, how long do you think a business that openly discriminated would last? I believe we're well beyond that point and the business would quickly be shunned by the community.

You're actually saying that a cake store which writes letters on a cake would t have the ability to write letters on a cake, and forcing a doctor to specialize in a surgical procedures are alike?

Well, OK then.

As far as "openly" discriminating well like all Americans I hope we at least just covertly discriminate. However, if it makes you feel better, I guarantee you if a tobacco store in Louisiana said "no negroes allowed, it would be swamped with good ol boys by sun down.

Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is OK if you say so, got it.
I think you have a pretty poor opinion of your fellow man, this isn't 1961 any more. I'm pretty sure even in Louisiana, a business owner would not alienate a large part of his potential market by openly discriminating.