• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged US state signs 'religious liberty' law

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...ant-signs-religious-objections-bill/82654578/

"However, the bill says people can deny services or goods for the "celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction," which would include pre-ceremony celebrations, post-wedding celebrations, anniversary celebrations and other related celebrations, opponents argue."
 
Second part to motto: "We don't give a **** about the US Constitution, Bill or Rights, or the Federal Government."

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove a breach of rule 10
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How are they going to test to see if it's a "sincerely held religious belief?"

I suggest the rack.
 
Sorry, but as an outsider, just the name Mississippi sounds gay.

Sounds like an upstart drag queen act called "Great River".
 
Giordano said:
Second part to motto: "We don't give a **** about the US Constitution, Bill or Rights, or the Federal Government."
Click to expand...
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove a breach of rule 10 in quote


I personally like : "We eat **** and are headed out to die!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
marplots said:
How are they going to test to see if it's a "sincerely held religious belief?"

I suggest the rack.
Click to expand...

Well, there are two parts to that- you can test the validity of the personal sincerity, or the validity of the religious belief. To take the second first- I doubt that even the folks who claim there is no such thing as SOCAS (or that it only works one way) would want government getting in the business of testing religious tenets for validity. As for the first, I guess the only way of testing the sincerity of an objection is by the objection itself- so any objection stands validated as sincere merely by being made.*

Which makes me wonder- why religious objections against gay people only? This is too targeted to be actually about protecting religious belief- Bryant's demurral notwithstanding ("This bill does not create one action against any class or group of people. It doesn't create a new action or a new defense of an action against those people"), it certainly is "against those people" if religious objections are only allowed against them. If someone cited a sincere religious objection against interracial couples (I have in-laws who believe exactly that), it wouldn't stand, no matter how sincere or religious. A religious accommodation that needs to be made only in the case of a specified group is, to me, plainly about discrimination against that group, not protection of the religion.

*ETA- or the rack. That might make the objection a little less strenuous, anyway.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
If someone cited a sincere religious objection against interracial couples (I have in-laws who believe exactly that), it wouldn't stand, no matter how sincere or religious. A religious accommodation that needs to be made only in the case of a specified group is, to me, plainly about discrimination against that group, not protection of the religion.
Click to expand...
In the spirit of speculating on what other sincere religious. beliefs should fall under the protection of said laws I'll start a list. Feel free to add more.

1). Miscegenation. Don't even think about getting dinner here Heidi and Seal! Not only married but (gasp!) divorced!

2). Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. I'm not working on Sunday and I won't serve any sinner who does.

3). Adulterers. That includes you divorced and remarried twits!
 
Will it be legal to discriminate against god botherers? Could a research company say, "Sorry we do science and only hire people who don't believe in fairy stories"?
 
sylvan8798 said:
In the spirit of speculating on what other sincere religious. beliefs should fall under the protection of said laws I'll start a list. Feel free to add more.

1). Miscegenation. Don't even think about getting dinner here Heidi and Seal! Not only married but (gasp!) divorced!

2). Thou shalt keep the Sabbath. I'm not working on Sunday and I won't serve any sinner who does.

3). Adulterers. That includes you divorced and remarried twits!
Click to expand...

4). Women. There's a bunch of stuff in the Bible about women keeping in their place, so it'd be freedom of religion to deny them service, housing, jobs, promotions, etc if you want to.
 
I hope someone opens up a super gay Bakery in Mississippi and refuses to serve any heteros
 
It's no surprise that Mississippi is the poorest state in the Union. They work real hard at it.
 
turingtest said:
Which makes me wonder- why religious objections against gay people only? This is too targeted to be actually about protecting religious belief- Bryant's demurral notwithstanding ("This bill does not create one action against any class or group of people. It doesn't create a new action or a new defense of an action against those people"), it certainly is "against those people" if religious objections are only allowed against them. If someone cited a sincere religious objection against interracial couples (I have in-laws who believe exactly that), it wouldn't stand, no matter how sincere or religious. A religious accommodation that needs to be made only in the case of a specified group is, to me, plainly about discrimination against that group, not protection of the religion.
Click to expand...
This sums it up perfectly and, of course, pertains also to the legislation in North Carolina, and the one that was attempted in Georgia. It's backlash against the legalization of same-sex marriage. The homophobes have a found a way around that by claiming "religious freedom." They whine about religious persecution now? Now that these yahoos are showing their true colors, they haven't seen anything yet.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...ant-signs-religious-objections-bill/82654578/

"However, the bill says people can deny services or goods for the "celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction," which would include pre-ceremony celebrations, post-wedding celebrations, anniversary celebrations and other related celebrations, opponents argue."
Click to expand...

Kick ass about legalizing discriminating against miscegenous marriage again.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...ant-signs-religious-objections-bill/82654578/

"However, the bill says people can deny services or goods for the "celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction," which would include pre-ceremony celebrations, post-wedding celebrations, anniversary celebrations and other related celebrations, opponents argue."
Click to expand...

It's amazing how far one can take the right to exercise religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom