Plan B Forum

Mississippi gov. signs law allowing service denial to gays
Jeff Amy, Associated Press Updated 10:20 am, Tuesday, April 5, 2016

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi's governor signed a law on Tuesday that allows public and private businesses to refuse service to gay couples based on the employers' religious beliefs.

Gov. Phil Bryant signed House Bill 1523, despite opposition from gay-rights groups and some businesses who say it enables discrimination. Some conservative and religious groups support the bill.

The measure's stated intention is to protect those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only take place inside such marriages, and that male and female genders are unchangeable.

"This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," the Republican governor wrote in a statement posted to his Twitter account.
More on the fight over "religious freedom" bills

The measure allows churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people whose lifestyles violate their religious beliefs. Individual government employees may also opt out, although the measure says governments must still provide services.

"This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizen of this state under federal or state laws," Bryant said. "It does not attempt to challenge federal laws, even those which are in conflict with the Mississippi Constitution, as the Legislature recognizes the prominence of federal law in such limited circumstances."

Other states have considered similar legislation. North Carolina enacted a law, while governors in Georgia and South Dakota vetoed proposals.

Bryant acted within hours of receiving the bill after it cleared its final legislative obstacle Monday, even as opponents tried to marshal pressure to persuade Bryant to reject it.

"This bill flies in the face of the basic American principles of fairness, justice and equality and will not protect anyone's religious liberty," Jennifer Riley-Collins, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, said in a statement. "Far from protecting anyone from 'government discrimination' as the bill claims, it is an attack on the citizens of our state, and it will serve as the Magnolia State's badge of shame."

Dear Christians, Be good Christians and just bake the damned cake. Decorated it with rainbow frosting and 2 grooms or 2 brides or whatever the hell they want on it, and don't pee in the batter. Trust that your God is smart enough to see that you are loving the "sinner" and he will sort it all out come judgement day.


Dear Gay people of whatever gender you identify with: Just cool it. Find a place that wants your money and go with it. The Christians and other religios are terrified that gay is transmitted through your gay cooties. They don't understand that science stuff, biology, genetics etc. Making them do things they don't want to do will not make them see the rainbow light it will only enforce the terror they have that 2% of our population is going to take over the world, and they might pee in the batter. Time will sort this stuff out, I promise. If you need to, call me I will bake you a cake and come to your wedding.

Being a Christian is only a cherished part of identity when you can kill people who are not Christians, or at least rough them up a little.

They defend their errors as if they were defending their inheritance.
Edmund Burke (1729–97),

yrs,
rubato

Being a Christian is only a cherished part of identity when you can kill people who are not Christians, or at least rough them up a little.

Wow rube, in glancing at your posts around here this afternoon, you're on a real boorish ignoramus roll today...

Yet another repetition of that thoroughly discredited "the Nazis were Christians" BS, and another demonstration of your inability to read my post in the "Drip, drip, drip" thread...

Then you tell a guy who apologized to you after you gratuitously insulted him that his apology wasn't good enough, and now this bit of slimebag bigotry...

What happened, did somebody forget to trim the crust off your sandwich today rube? Did they forget to include the animal crackers in your lunch box? Was your Capri Sun warm?

Have you got any more brain-dead assholery in the tank rube, or does that do it for today?

ETA:

Well, I guess this answers my question:

rubato wrote:You have forgotten that it was I who proposed the comparison to rowboats.


Sober up first, next time?


yrs,
rubato

You weren't done...

Being a Christian is only a cherished part of identity when you can kill people who are not Christians, or at least rough them up a little.

Unless someone is bent on a power trip it would seem that the following would be satisfactory solution both sides: Bakers bake generic cakes and sell generic cakes and decoration kits. People buy the cakes and kits and decorates the cakes to suit themselves.

the next thing to extend this to is to allow discrimination against interracial couples. While mainstream chrisitianity does not condemn interracial marriage, some conservative and evangelical christians believe (as the trial court in Loving v Virginia opined), that god made all peoples and established their boundaries (blacks in Africa, Asians in Asia, etc.--there is a biblical quote for this in one of Paul's letters) and that mixing the races is contrary to god's plan and wrong. Such could easily be a pretext to expand the "permissible" discrimination even further.

Loving v Virginia was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court (ending interracial marriage bans), but the religious pretexts that led to anti-miscegenation laws is still alive and well. and as we see here, just because something is constitutionally permitted does not automatically end legal discrimination, at least in the view of some.

The first marriage sacrament I conducted as an ordained minister was for a white man and a black woman. You could say the couple was color-blind, because they were legally and actually without any vision capability. They met at a sheltered workshop in Kansas City Missouri. They asked me to be the minister at their wedding very early in the process. (Now the minister is usually the last person consulted. The first is the reception venue) We did lots of counseling together. I was young and single knew I was ignorant of what they would be getting into on many levels. I brought in others talk to them and both families about what problems they would have as a married couple and a blind couple and a mixed race couple. Everybody was very cooperative, realistic and optimistic.

Except the law. Black and Whites were not allowed to marry in Missouri then. We crossed the state line into Kansas for the actual ceremony and no problems developed with Missouri law later or with neighbors where they were living.

snailgate

Big RR wrote:the next thing to extend this to is to allow discrimination against interracial couples.

Inter-racial couples really enjoy being active members of congregations that are against inter-racial couples. It will be such a shock to find out they can't get married there! What are the poor souls to do - oh, what?

liberty wrote:Unless someone is bent on a power trip it would seem that the following would be satisfactory solution both sides: Bakers bake generic cakes and sell generic cakes and decoration kits. People buy the cakes and kits and decorates the cakes to suit themselves.

How about if the Neanderthal progeny of multigenerational incest would just agree to follow the law, instead of demanding that it be tailored to cater to their bigotry? Would that be too much to ask?

"Far from protecting anyone from 'government discrimination' as the bill claims, it is an attack on the citizens of our state, and it will serve as the Magnolia State's badge of shame."

Srsly? Between the 2014 election shenannigans, retaining the emblem of treason on its state flag and its declaration of "Confederate Heritage Month," at this point, Mississippi don't need no stinkin' badges.

Scooter and liberty--the other problem is that I don't think the bakers just object to providing decorated cakes for gay weddings, they object to providing cakes at all to celebrated something they perceive as sinful.

Meade--

Inter-racial couples really enjoy being active members of congregations that are against inter-racial couples. It will be such a shock to find out they can't get married there! What are the poor souls to do - oh, what?

I am really at a loss to having any understanding of the point you are trying to make. No law is requiring churches to perform gay marriages (and I presume interracial marriages as well) if it goes against their religious beliefs. If that were the extent of this law (to cover churches only) there would be no need for it. But this law extends that protection to commercial establishments having nothing to do with churches--like the bakers, reception halls, etc.

Bakers bake generic cakes and sell generic cakes and decoration kits. People buy the cakes and kits and decorates the cakes to suit themselves.

It seems to me that if a bakery adopted an overall policy, (applying to everyone, gay or straight) that they would bake wedding cakes, but not decorate them, that would probably not violate any law...There would be no discrimination involved...

But it also seems to me that would be a pretty stupid policy from a business standpoint, because the market for couples that want wedding cakes that come with do-it-yourself amateur decorating kits is probably pretty small...

I have to believe that with all the money and effort that typically goes into making a wedding a special event, 99% plus of couples are going to want their cake professionally decorated...(maybe a rare exception would be if you had a personal friend who had a talent for cake decorating who wanted to do it.)

It would be like going to a florist who said, okay, we'll provide the flowers, but you have to do the arrangements...

Or hiring a band that said, we'll provide the instruments, but you'll have to get your own people to play them...

Like I said, probably not a big market...

Don't forget the hardware stores! Them homosexxxicans is building a house of sin, so I won't sell 'em a hammer 'cause it offends my religious beliefs!

Not to mention the baking supply companies that would refuse to sell cake decorating equipment from the gay purchasers of generic cakes.

Yeah I remember my local hardware store - their first question as you approached the check-out with a wrench, a hammer and some nails was, "Is you homosexxican?"

(OK that's not true but mixing paint was difficult)

Lord Jim wrote:

Bakers bake generic cakes and sell generic cakes and decoration kits. People buy the cakes and kits and decorates the cakes to suit themselves.

It seems to me that if a bakery adopted an overall policy, (applying to everyone, gay or straight) that they would bake wedding cakes, but not decorate them, that would probably not violate any law...There would be no discrimination involved...

But it also seems to me that would be a pretty stupid policy from a business standpoint, because the market for couples that want wedding cakes that come with do-it-yourself amateur decorating kits is probably pretty small...

t...

I agree Jim it would make no business sense, but if one’s religious beliefs are important enough to them to risk their business it would be a compromise.

But this makes me think. Perhaps a different subject, but what if some baker considers himself an artist and he insist on his artistic freedom of expression. As he see it, If you buy one of his cakes you take it as he see fit to decorate it. Could someone force him against his will to bake a cake to their specifications?

Sue U wrote:Don't forget the hardware stores! Them homosexxxicans is building a house of sin, so I won't sell 'em a hammer 'cause it offends my religious beliefs!

If you are selling someone a hammer why would you inquire into their sexual orientation? When I growing up we had homosexuals in the community everyone knew who they were, no one bothered them and no one cared. I don’t think most people care and that includes most Christians, in my opinion.

liberty wrote:If you are selling someone a hammer cake or flower arrangement why would you inquire into their sexual orientation?

FTFY.

Sue U wrote:

liberty wrote:If you are selling someone a hammer cake or flower arrangement why would you inquire into their sexual orientation?

FTFY.

One would not enquire. I have always supposed that this kind of "denial of service" can only arise where the decoration itself announces an issue (vis-a-vis the person doing the decorating).

i.e. the customer might ask for two groom (or two bride) figures standing on top of a wedding cake. Or perhaps a message saying something unambiguous about what Bill and Harry like to do at night (euphemism).

In such cases, I can imagine a worker not wanting to squeeze the old icing appropriately (and probably losing their job unless the employer gives the task to another employee who doesn't care). Or I can imagine the owner not wanting to be part of affirming the "message" any more than he/she would want to provide a cake for the local White Power anniversary party.

(I'd hope they'd find the second to be objectionable if they thought the first to be so - I fear not though, in some cases).

OTOH, let's say I'm the cake decorator/shop owner and someone that I think is homosexual orders a cake, even a wedding cake, without any indication that this is a homosexual event - then I have no business refusing to supply a cake. It's only the writing of a particular message that I might object to. For example, if a customer walks in and wants me to decorate a cake saying "Fuck the Police".... I want to have the right to refuse.

Despite all the fuss about these laws, I don't believe that anyone is going to be unable to purchase a cake that they like - they just might not get it from shop A - but shops B C and D are all keen for the business