Mississippi Governor Signs "Religious Freedom" Bill Into Law

[Sir Winston Churchill]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick...vernor-expecte

After simultaneous debate in both chambers of the Mississippi Legislature Tuesday, state lawmakers approved a religious freedom bill that some have argued could lead to discrimination against LGBT people and others.
First in the House, the bill passed 79-43, and later, Senate lawmakers approved the bill with a wide majority. [Update — April 3: Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill into law Thursday, noting in a statement, “I am proud to sign the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act today, which will protect the individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from government interference.”]
As it is written, Senate Bill 2681 — or the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act — largely mirrors the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other bills passed in 18 states that mirror the federal law, except for language that prevents employees of private businesses from raising legal claims against those employees under the bill. Proponent lawmakers say the bill will protect state citizens’ free exercise of religion from government intrusion, while some lawmakers in both chambers questioned whether it would have unintended consequences — including permitting discrimination.
Several lawmakers questioned the bill’s sponsoring lawmakers in both chambers.
After repeated questions by his colleagues about possible consequences of the bill and what exactly it intends to do, Rep. Joey Hood, sounding frustrated, said, “What we’re trying to do, gentlemen, is just protect the religious freedom of Mississippians.”

A bill that was originally killed in states like Oklahoma and Arizona has been passed in Mississippi. This bill essentially gives business owners the ability to deny service to anyone if they believe it goes against their religious beliefs. How another person going against your beliefs should matter at all in a pluralistic country such as this one I have no idea, but I suppose we all know the underlying factor here is a Christian determination to hate the LGBT community.

Because let's face it, that's really all that's behind this. Christians who forgot the "love thy neighbor" part of the Bible don't want to deal with icky gays and want to further assert their moral superiority over them by being able to say "Eww, get out!", sort of kinda like what we did with blacks not too long ago (yeah I went for that comparison, lynch me).

Now some of you might argue that it's a private business owner's right to deny services to gays, but how would this bill be observed if it was used to deny other faiths? "I won't serve you because you're Pagan and that goes against my beliefs." sounds just as utterly ridiculous and unconstitutional. Not to mention a private business owner isn't entitled to a private consumer base. He or she is doing business in the public eye, under local, state, and federal laws, and that includes laws against discrimination. I wish we could form a list of everyone who tries to use this bill to deny services to people, and then see how they like it.

The Christian Right in this country has a way of moaning about nonexistent "Oppression", and yet here we are watching them pass bills to oppress people based solely on their own private matters. Ironically it's usually them waving the Constitution around and viciously attacking anyone who dares look at it and say "Maybe it needs a little something more.".

Unless that something more is something to bring Church and State closer together. Because as we all know, that little clause was a typo.

[Vanoi]

Good to see Mississippi is bringing back Jim Crow.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Good to hear americans still love and understand freedom. Every individual should have the right with whom to associate or not on whichever ground. Discrimination should be a basic human right.

[Vanoi]

Good to hear americans still love and understand freedom. Every individual should have the right with whom to associate or not on whichever ground. Discrimination should be a basic human right.

This isn't the 1960s anymore. Discriminatory laws have no place in the US.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

This isn't the 1960s anymore. Discriminatory laws have no place in the US.

People have a right to dicriminate, if you don't like certain people because they discriminate don't associate with them but people should never be forced to associate with people whom they don't want to associate with.

[Vanoi]

People have a right to dicriminate, if you don't like certain people because they discriminate don't associate with them but people should never be forced to associate with people whom they don't want to associate with.

No, they really don't. Discriminating who you hang out with is one thing is and completely fine. Denying people service based on their race, gender, age, or sexual orientation is not and that is what this law is about.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

No, they really don't. Discriminating who you hang out with is one thing is and completely fine. Denying people service based on their race, gender, age, or sexual orientation is not and that is what this law is about.

Why should business owners be forced to do business with someone who they don't want to do business with?

There are good reasons to discriminate, in the Netherlands some supermarkets only allow a certain number of teens inside, a jeweller might refuse entry to moroccans etc etc these would be perfectly sensible business decisions, what right does the government have to take away freedom from the business owner, why does a business owner have less rights than a customer?

[Garbarsardar]

Good to hear americans still love and understand freedom. Every individual should have the right with whom to associate or not on whichever ground. Discrimination should be a basic human right.

Hear, hear!

[Gaidin]

Good to hear americans still love and understand freedom. Every individual should have the right with whom to associate or not on whichever ground. Discrimination should be a basic human right.

Do yourself a favor and don't make yourself look even more pathetic than the Mississippians by confusing them with the other 49 states with their own legislatures that pass their own laws that haven't passed this law.

[IronBrig4]

Do yourself a favor and don't make yourself look even more pathetic than the Mississippians by confusing them with the other 49 states with their own legislatures that pass their own laws that haven't passed this law.

Quite. Mississippi is the poorest state in the union, and it tends to place at the bottom of practically every social category. I wonder if other advanced countries have their own backward, fundamentalist, dirt poor regions like Mississippi.

[IronBrig4]

We should have kept Reconstruction in Mississippi until 1965.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

I don't want to do business with people who smell, I don't want to do business with people who don't pay their bills, I don't want to do business with people who who don't keep their appointments, causing me to not earn any but money but having reserved time, I don't want to do business with people that complain and waste my time, causing me again not to make any money. Are these valid reasons to deny some my service?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Doing business with people you do not like is a sign of adult maturity.

I don't want to do business with people who smell, I don't want to do business with people who don't pay their bills, I don't want to do business with people who who don't keep their appointments, causing me to not earn any but money but having reserved time, I don't want to do business with people that complain and waste my time, causing me again not to make any money. Are these valid reasons to deny some my service?

And where in any of those reasons were your religious beliefs?

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Doing business with people you do not like is a sign of adult maturity.

Are you referring to my post above? Most of the reasons I mentioned are just sensible good business decisions. I only want customers who pay and not waste my time. If you just waste my time or even worse don't pay I won't do business..

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Are you referring to my post above? Most of the reasons I mentioned are just sensible good business decisions. I only want customers who pay and not waste my time. If you just waste my time or even worse don't pay I won't do business..

And again I ask where in any of your reasons was a lick of religion? That's the entire point of the bill in discussion here.

As far as your reasons, I am almost positive that there exist civil laws where if someone caused you significant business loss by "wasting your time", you could sue them. We also have loitering laws, disturbance laws, and with reasons such as "poor consumer" yes they are sensible! What is not sensible, is saying "Eww. I don't like your views that have nothing to do with business. Go away."

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

And again I ask where in any of your reasons was a lick of religion? That's the entire point of the bill in discussion here.

As far as your reasons, I am almost positive that there exist civil laws where if someone caused you significant business loss by "wasting your time", you could sue them. We also have loitering laws, disturbance laws, and with reasons such as "poor consumer" yes they are sensible! What is not sensible, is saying "Eww. I don't like your views that have nothing to do with business. Go away."

Well I don't like doing business with homosexuals, it has nothing to do with me disapproving homosexuality but I work with blood and sharp instruments so there is a chance I might get infected with HIV or HCV, should I be forced to do business with them and thereby putting myself at risk?

[Facupay]

I don't want to do business with people who smell, I don't want to do business with people who don't pay their bills, I don't want to do business with people who who don't keep their appointments, causing me to not earn any but money but having reserved time, I don't want to do business with people that complain and waste my time, causing me again not to make any money. Are these valid reasons to deny some my service?

Some of them are as they are justified, causing you and your business some legit trouble. Now, how does dealing with blacks or gays or muslim or people with big noses gives your business any toruble?

Is there any justification for you to discriminate in those cases or is it pure bigotry? If it is a business open to the public you are forced to comply with certain laws in the benefit of the community such as sanitary and safety laws, you could argue: "if you think my store is unsafe then don't buy here!" however that doesn't work in a modern western country as private property is subsidiary to the public interest.

Is bigotry good for the community? It isn't and it shouldn't be protected by law. If you want to discriminate then you need to find some real reasons (like safety or hygiene) or open a closed or reserved club. If you want a businees that is open to the public then the public shouldn't have to suffer your whims just because you happen to be the owner. People tend to ignore the embarassement and inconvenience it is to deny someone a service, specially when its about race or religion. Discriminating that way harms your business (you lose a perfectly good customer just because you want to exercise your right to discriminate), harms the customer (you humiliate and inconveneince him) and you harm the community (creating hatred and disrupting cohesion).

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Some of them are as they are justified, causing you and your business some legit trouble. Now, how does dealing with blacks or gays or muslim or people with big noses gives your business any toruble?

I don't want to really go into specifics, my point is that there are good reasons to not do business with everyone and to select your customers. Now again, I don't like going into specifics but for instance we have learned blacks are less likely to pay their bills, so we make them pay up front instead of billing them afterwards like other customers and we know they are more likely to not show up, so we give them shorter appointments, so we don't loose to much time when they don't show up.

Is there any justification for you to discriminate in those cases or is it pure bigotry? If it is a business open to the public you are forced to comply with certain laws in the benefit of the community such as sanitary and safety laws, you could argue: "if you think my store is unsafe then don't buy here!" however that doesn't work in a modern western country as private property is subsidiary to the public interest.

This really is so shocking, that you could say something like that.

Is bigotry good for the community? It isn't and it shouldn't be protected by law. If you want to discriminate then you need to find some real reasons (like safety or hygiene) or open a closed or reserved club. If you want a businees that is open to the public then the public shouldn't have to suffer your whims just because you happen to be the owner. People tend to ignore the embarassement and inconvenience it is to deny someone a service, specially when its about race or religion. Discriminating that way harms your business (you lose a perfectly good customer just because you want to exercise your right to discriminate), harms the customer (you humiliate and inconveneince him) and you harm the community (creating hatred and disrupting cohesion).

Well bad business owner go out of business, sooner than later, so business owners who discriminate will go out of business. I think that's preferable to forcing people to do things on their own property they do not want to do...

I don't like religious bigots but I'd still be inclined to serve them at my restaurant.

Now suppose most of your customers are gays who don't want to be confronted with religious people, should you be allowed to ban religious people from your establishment?

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Now suppose most of your customers are gays who don't want to be confronted with religious people, should you be allowed to ban religious people from your establishment?

No?

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

No?

So it would be okay to force you out of business?