Mississippi governor signs ‘religious freedom’ bill viewed as discriminatory

Posted by | April 5, 2016 14:43 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics Religion


Governor Phil Bryant signed the bill that LGBT groups and businesses believe is discriminatory.

Bryant said he signed the bill into law “to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government.”

…The ACLU of Mississippi promptly responded, tweeting that Bryant “just made discrimination a part of state law.”
“Welcome to Mississippi, the hospitality state that says you’re okay only if you’re straight and married!” read another tweet, incorporating the hashtag “#ShameOnPhil.”

The law says it protects from discrimination anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations are reserved solely for marriage, and that the terms male and female pertain only to a person’s genetics and anatomy at birth.

 

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

34 responses to Mississippi governor signs ‘religious freedom’ bill viewed as discriminatory

  1. nola878 April 5th, 2016 at 14:54

    Their very flag speaks volumes about how this state looks to the past, not the future.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Flag_of_Mississippi.svg

  2. amongoose April 5th, 2016 at 14:58

    http://index.ls.state.ms.us/isysnative/UzpcRG9jdW1lbnRzXDIwMTZccGRmXGhiXDE1MDAtMTU5OVxoYjE1MjNpbi5wZGY=/hb1523in.pdf

    Line 72 on I would guess it is the problem?
    How so?

    • OldLefty April 5th, 2016 at 15:06

      Same reason as “We don’t serve blacks or Jews.”

    • OldLefty April 5th, 2016 at 15:08

      Or take line 154;
      This guy would have to use the lady’s room;
      http://instinctmagazine.com/po

    • Mike April 5th, 2016 at 15:35

      Why not start with sec 2.b)..??? It’s all a lie except for 6 words and willfully misleading…i.e.
      “…and small family-owned wedding businesses in Oregon, Washington, Iowa, New York and elsewhere have endured fines or financial penalties or have been forced to close because they operated consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage;”
      I wonder if that “sincerely held religious belief about marriage” is that it’s a business…??? When you choose to be in the marriage business, you must comply with the law…period.
      A Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, or any other house of worship can’t be forced to marry anyone because they’re not in the marriage business. Priests don’t have to marry 2 men and Rabbi’s don’t have to marry 2 women…but a business that charges to marry is a public business no different than an airline or grocery store. The idea that Elvis’ Wedding Chapel is a house of the lord is not gonna fly…

      Allowing a marriage business to decide which customers it will provide a service to is no different than a gas station claiming a religious exemption and not selling gas to a transgender…

      • amongoose April 5th, 2016 at 15:50

        Is freedom to practice your religion confined to church structures, or does it extend into practicing (living it) in your daily life?

        • Mike April 5th, 2016 at 16:02

          You can practice your religion anywhere you wish, but can you force me to practice along with you…???
          The way this law is written, your waitress could refuse to serve you clams or lobster, your barber could refuse to cut the hair on the sides of your head….a rapist could demand he simply pay 50 pieces of silver to the woman’s father or brother…
          Pray to your god all you want, but don’t ask me to pray along with you

          • amongoose April 6th, 2016 at 10:27

            It isn’t legislating making you pray with them, or adopt their religion. Their religion forbids this, how can one persons rights be subordinate to someones else’s rights.
            .
            Unless all rights are respected and equally protected all are in danger.

            • Mike April 6th, 2016 at 11:24

              In Buddhist culture it is considered taboo for a monk to wear shoes during certain periods of his life…but when that Monk sits at a table in your restaurant in violation of the health code and explains to you he is exempt because of his religion, he is forcing you to practice what he is preaching….he is demanding you accommodate for his beliefs… we can’t.
              A business is a business, is a business, and businesses can’t pick and choose who they will sell their product to based on gender, religion, race, or origin…or make exceptions when they want.

              You are free to do whatever you want pretty much until you start forcing others to adopt your beliefs.

              • amongoose April 6th, 2016 at 12:03

                Not adopt, respect.
                .
                The Monks not wearing shoes in a restaurant is a violation of sanitation laws and puts others in danger, like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
                Allowing someone to follow their religious teachings, so long as it does not endanger anyone is the freedom to practice their religion. The services they request are readily available from many other sources.

                • Mike April 6th, 2016 at 12:25

                  So the guy down the street also sells apples and I can buy them from him instead of the christian next door who won’t sell to me cuz I’m LGBT, Muslim, or some other nonsense…..??? That is what you are saying.

                  Those people refusing to serve LGBT’s, Muslims, Atheists, Druids, or whatever, are in violation of the Constitution and The Civil Rights Act…

                  If you want to be in the wedding chapel business (or any other business) you must marry anyone who is allowed to be married by law…end of story…

                  You are not asking me to respect someone’s religion, you’re asking me to practice the tenets of that religion along with them… no thanks…

                  • amongoose April 6th, 2016 at 12:37

                    But by making someone to violate their religious beliefs are you not violating their rights?
                    It is not a total refusal to serve gays, it is being able to deny serving them where it violates their religion, as in gay marriages. Those bakers in Colorado baked cakes for gays, just not for weddings.
                    .
                    If everyone must respect the rights of gays no matter what their religious beliefs ,
                    why then must everyone respect say second amendment rights?

                    • Mike April 6th, 2016 at 13:04

                      1st….there is no such thing as unlimited rights of any kind and picking the 2nd is a pretty bad choice since it is the only place in the Constitution where the words “well regulated” appear. Scalia expounded on this in Heller when he wrote “…(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …”

                      These ridiculous religious liberty bills are a violation of the 1st not only because they elevate one religion above another, but they are merely an attempt to codify biblical scripture…
                      The people doing the forcing are the christians … respecting their right to practice isn’t enough, they want me to abide by their religious tenets…I’m not a christian so I wouldn’t even begin to know how, let alone ever do it.

                      Respecting someone’s right to practice a religion is not respect for that religion, I could never respect a religion or person who believes in a skygod and want me to follow that skygod’s teachings

                    • amongoose April 7th, 2016 at 14:38

                      Sorry I didn’t get back sooner. Wednesday and Thursday are tumbling and cheer for littlest (9 yr. old) grand daughter (fearless freep).
                      She’s a flyer.

                      Heller v DC has upheld that it’s a “personal right”.

                      Texas has a law which a business posting the proper sign may, by law prohibit those legally carrying a firearm from entering the establishment. Same thing, only this was done because they didn’t want guns in their establishment. Shouldn’t those with religious convictions be allowed the same consideration? They aren’t asking you to follow their religion, only to be able

                      There has to be some accommodation, everyone’s rights have to be respected and protected.

                      But then that’s the live and let live libertarian in me talking.

                    • TiredOldGuy April 7th, 2016 at 15:38

                      Yeah … one of life’s greatest pleasures is watching the grand kids participate in sports and school plays and just generally growing into an adult.
                      So what if that precious little girl comes to find that she is a lesbian or transgender, or wishes to convert to Islam, or live with her boyfriend in lieu of marriage? As a libertarian I’m sure that you would be fine with that, but would you then sit her down and explain to her that she’ll just have to get used to people hating her for who she is because of their religious beliefs? That she can’t be served in her favorite restaurant because the owner sees her as an abomination? That she can’t get a hotel room
                      or rent an apartment with her boyfriend because the owner thinks
                      she’s living in sin? Maybe she needs an abortion to save her life, or maybe just wants one for her own reasons, but is unable to because that’s not allowed in the christian hospital she ended up in? Maybe the EMT could just let her die because he truly believes that gays should be killed or that she’s a terrorist?
                      Yeah, I’d love to hear that conversation.

                    • amongoose April 8th, 2016 at 11:35

                      As a libertarian would I be fine with it? Probably not, but as a libertarian I have to (as I did) respect their choice. What would your conversation be like if your sondaughter came home in a “make America great agian” t-shirt? Could you, as an open minded and tolerant liberal be OK with that? It is after all their choice?

                      I don’t think they are being denied eating meals or rooms because of their sexual persuasion, that is illegal now.

                      How did I explain the haters? Same way my dad did to me.

                      “Son, you can’t do anything with an idiot except let them be an idiot, they eventually figure it out, and when they do it’s usually painful”.

                    • Mike April 7th, 2016 at 15:44

                      “Shouldn’t those with religious convictions be allowed the same consideration? They aren’t asking you to follow their religion, only to be able”
                      Let’s put those sentences to the test…in law (and logic) it’s called a Reductio ad absurdum…find a ridiculous set of variables within a set to create an absurd but predicable outcome…
                      Let’s change the religion to Satanism and the practice they have a religious conviction to follow to human sacrifice…I’ll even go as far as to say the human sacrifice is a willing participant…Having a problem yet…???
                      Forget a human being, they just want to slice a dog open while alive and yank out the beating heart…Still good with that..???
                      Santeria is but one of more than 50 religions today that demand animal sacrifices…oftentimes in a public setting…now imagine a 9 year old girl coming back home from a great day of tumbling and cheer practice with her grandpa, and the next door neighbors are killing a screaming howling whatever …you’re good with that…???
                      There are absolute limitations to how you practice your religion, and for good reason. We have laws against murder, human sacrifice, animal cruelty, civil rights, discrimination etc., and I don’t think we should suspend a single one of those laws because of something a skygod might have said to someone 2,000 years ago…
                      Longwinded, but it’s no different when you ask the government for permission to discriminate against another person because you think you’re better than they are…you’re pious and they’re a sinner…
                      If you don’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple don’t become a baker…if you don’t want to marry them, don’t start a wedding chapel business…in short, if your religion interferes with your ability to interact with the public, you should not start a business, you should start a house of worship.

  3. whatthe46 April 5th, 2016 at 15:00

    ““to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government.”” their “religious beliefs & moral… are nothing more than personal opinions and should not be shoved down my fuc*ing throat.

  4. amersham46 April 5th, 2016 at 15:05

    welcome to 1952

    • nola878 April 5th, 2016 at 15:11

      1852.

      I’m sure the GOP would love to go back to 1152 if they could…you know, when serfs were serfs!

  5. OldLefty April 5th, 2016 at 15:05

    Re; terms male and female pertain only to a person’s genetics and anatomy at birth.
    This reminds one of the trans/bathroom laws in N Carolina;
    Funniest thing is this guy would have to use the lady’s room;
    http://instinctmagazine.com/post/ftm-transgender-bodybuilder-shawn-stinson-speaks-out-anti-trans-bathroom-law

    • whatthe46 April 5th, 2016 at 15:28

      ok. dude is HOT! and the caption under the photo is right on target. if he were to walk into a female restroom full of white women, he’d get shot. damn people are stupid.

    • William April 5th, 2016 at 15:55

      If only.

  6. Mike April 5th, 2016 at 15:12

    A little off topic but it reminds me of the song “Proud to be an Okie from Muskogee”. The singer crooned about a great little place where no one smoked pot, did drugs, was gay, or cheated on their wife…
    Today….Muskogee, OK is home to 9 drug rehab clinics and considered a meth trading center, it ranks over the national average in crime, divorce, domestic violence, high school drop outs, lack of prenatal care, and has a mean income equal to about 30% of the rest of the nation … in short, it’s a hellhole…another armpit of America controlled by RWRNJ’s who thought if they just sang songs, closed their eyes, and prayed, all the drugs and gays, would just go away

    • whatthe46 April 5th, 2016 at 15:25

      um, it’s not off topic. you’ve just described missipissi.

    • bpollen April 5th, 2016 at 15:34

      And that makes me think of this:

      I just ordered up a beer and sat down at the bar
      When some guy walked in and said, “Who owns this car
      With the peace sign, the mag wheels and the four on the floor?”

      He looked at me and I damn near died
      And I decided that I’d just wait outside
      So I laid a dollar on the bar and headed for the door

      Just when I thought I’d get outta there with my skin
      These 5 big dudes come strollin in
      With one old drunk chick and some fella with green teeth

      • TiredOldGuy April 5th, 2016 at 16:07

        A classic in its own right.

    • Sam April 5th, 2016 at 16:48

      https://youtu.be/F5hlil50vi4

  7. Suzanne McFly April 5th, 2016 at 16:02

    Okay, we let the tea party show their true colors. None of these issues ever were a concern of the typical American, they are ruled by ideology and hopes to gain more power. The tea party claimed to want to help the typical blue collar types, but they have shown they are religious zealots. Now lets remove them from office and clean up their mess.

  8. William April 5th, 2016 at 16:03

    Bryant said he signed the bill into law “to protect sincerely held religious beliefs ……

  9. Sam April 5th, 2016 at 17:31

    They say 3 percent of the people use 5 to 6 percent of their brain
    97 percent use 3 percent and the rest goes down the drain
    I’ll never know which one I am but I’ll bet you my last dime
    99 percent think we’re 3 percent 100 percent of the time.
    64 percent of all the world’s statistics are made up right there on the spot
    82.4 percent of people believe ’em whether they’re accurate statistics or not
    I don’t know what you believe but I do know there’s no doubt
    I need another double shot of something 90 proof, I got too much to think about.

    Too much to think about
    Too much to figure out
    Stuck between hope and doubt
    It’s too much to think about.

    https://youtu.be/IUK6zjtUj00

    They say 92 percent of everything you learned in school was just bullshit you’ll never need
    84 percent of everything you got you bought to satisfy your greed
    Because 90 percent of the world’s population links possessions to success
    Even though 80 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population drinks to an alarming excess
    More money, more stress.
    It’s too much to think about
    Too much to figure out
    Stuck between hope and doubt
    t’s too much to think about, pick it now.
    84 percent of all statisticians truly hate their jobs
    They say the average bank robber lives within say about 20 miles of the bank that he robs
    There’s this little bank not far from here I’ve been watching now a while
    Lately all I can think about’s how bad I wanna go out in style.

    And it’s too much to think about

Leave a Reply