Now it's Mississippi's turn. However, they're immune to

The law says what it says, not whatever a lot of people might wish it said because of whatever we think right now. And the First Amendment, in particular, is intended to protect the rights of minorities against the majority who would use the government against them. What you seem to be saying is that those rights don't matter when they conflict with potential 14th Amendment rights, even when exercising First Amendment rights aren't imposing any particular belief on anybody else, and even when exercising those rights aren't limiting anybody's access to the market. Further, you seem to want the government to be used to guarantee acceptance of gay people (ie. give them positive rights) rather than to ensure that the government doesn't impose on people (ie. guarantee the negative rights that all people possess, by birth).

Nobody can deny that there's been a revolution in our understanding of sexuality. The question is whether the people who disagree with that majority have the right not to violate their consciences.

camcgee®

All-In [28802]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 58393

Joined: 11/14/03

What we really need is an "Oppression-off"

Apr 1, 2016, 12:34 PM [ in reply to "We're so oppressed!" ]

You can set yourself up as the judge, if you like. That way, since all you're interested in is protecting people's rights, and since you're not at all interested in making people conform to whatever it is you think, we can really know who deserves to have their rights protected and who doesn't.

On the one side, we have people with the backing of big business (who we're told are the ones really running the country), the media, Hollywood, the Supreme Court, the President, and the ability to force governors to veto any bills they claim will allow people to discriminate against them. Since big business is in their pocket, they can also get people fired not only for saying things they don't like, but also just for donating to successful political campaigns they didn't like. And even when they can't get everything they want from one business, they have no trouble finding other businesses who will do whatever they want. But they can still sue the businesses that won't do whatever they want.

On the other side, we have people in a majority who want to be able to live their lives without compromising their consciences. But because some other people currently have more political power than them, they can be forced, with the backing of the government, to violate their consciences by participating in events they think are wrong. When they're forced to violate their consciences, the media portrays them as haters and they can face fines that make it impossible for them to do business. As the majority in many states, they can pass laws that give them a positive legal defense when they're sued for not violating their consciences, or that allow their religious organizations to hire and fire in line with their missions, but these laws are portrayed as being "anti" some group of people by a media that's uninterested in the facts.

This is obviously skewed towards one side, but you don't even seem able to see the power that the LGBT movement currently has, and that religious freedom laws like these are just rearguard actions by politically weak people who no longer have the power to impose anything on anybody. You also don't seem to think that protecting religious freedom is important when it conflicts with anything you agree with.

But, really, we don't need to have stupid contests of who's more oppressed to see that laws like these don't keep gay people from doing anything, don't force them to do anything, and don't even allow religious dissenters to discriminate based on status. Historically, these kinds of religious protections wouldn't have been controversial. Yet, it's now too important to some people that dissent on sexuality and gay marriage not be allowed, however many rights have to be trampled.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

The next time you hear Christians whine about...

LOL***

"We're so oppressed!"

This bill goes farther than most as it broadens the

It discriminates against straight people, too

For a party that promotes fiscal conservatism they

Maybe they could take cues from Bama's Governor... ;~)***

What legal expenses?

Are you going to tell me with a straight face you

I guess we also shouldn't pass anti-discrimination laws...

I really feel bad for you. You seem like a pretty smart

Back at you

LGBT is their choice. I believe in individual freedoms. You?***

It's probably because the public's perception has changed

Thus, the problem with a "living constitution"

We've also changed the constitution to reflect

All you atheists are gonna burn in hayell!

Fire!!! .... Good song.***

What we really need is an "Oppression-off"

So you see no problem with firing someone because they're

I read through the description, and that's not in there

Fine. Let's tax them and see how they feel about it. You

I'm glad you suggested that...

I don't give a rat's axx about the "sexual revolution"...

That kind of separation isn't constitutional

If we tax all property owners, would imposing property

Yes, for the reasons given above

Cross, Star of David, gaggle of snakes.... I be churchin'***

Mississippi has no laws outlawing that stuff right now.

Re: Now it's Mississippi's turn. However, they're immune to

TigerBoard POTD