Mississippi enacts law that allows denying services to gays

[jimnyc]

As it should be.

-----

(Reuters) - Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant on Tuesday signed a far-reaching law allowing people with religious objections to deny wedding services to same-sex couples and protecting other actions considered discriminatory by gay rights activists.

The measure also clears the way for employers to cite religion in determining workplace policies on dress code, grooming and bathroom and locker access, drawing criticism from civil rights leaders.

Bryant, a Republican, said in a statement he signed the law "to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government."

Mississippi is the latest state drawing national protest for a law seen as anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT). North Carolina recently barred transgender people from choosing bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mississippi-governor-signs-religion-law-over-gay-rights-170216049.html

[darin]

Your headline is misleading as all hell. Nobody passed a law thst DENIES services to anyone. This protect services from - on an individual basis - the right to refuse a business arrangement.

[Gunny]

Your headline is misleading as all hell. Nobody passed a law thst DENIES services to anyone. This protect services from - on an individual basis - the right to refuse a business arrangement.

Agreed. Jim's turning into Bill O'Reilly. :laugh:

[fj1200]

As it should be.

Why? Gays aren't a protected class in Mississippi.

[jimnyc]

Why? Gays aren't a protected class in Mississippi.

Call it "preventative measures". :)

[sundaydriver]

Are there any gays that have taste so bad they would live in Mississippi?

[fj1200]

Call it "preventative measures". :)

Passing a law for protection where there isn't a necessity? Yay small government. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Passing a law for protection where there isn't a necessity? Yay small government. :rolleyes:

Seems to me the gays have created the necessity; otherwise, there wouldn't be one.

[fj1200]

Seems to me the gays have created the necessity; otherwise, there wouldn't be one.


Why? Gays aren't a protected class in Mississippi.

:dunno: Governor Deal was right to veto Georgia's version.

[jimnyc]

Passing a law for protection where there isn't a necessity? Yay small government. :rolleyes:

Last time I saw no protections in place - huge fines were assessed to folks. I think some protections are necessary.

[fj1200]

Last time I saw no protections in place - huge fines were assessed to folks. I think some protections are necessary.

And that would be in states where there are NDA laws protecting gays; Mississippi is not one of those.

[jimnyc]

And that would be in states where there are NDA laws protecting gays; Mississippi is not one of those.

And now folks have protection regardless. I'm sorry you don't like it, and see it as too much government - but many are tired of the others being shit on for disagreeing or not catering to queers and their desires. Now protections are in place.

[fj1200]

And now folks have protection regardless. I'm sorry you don't like it, and see it as too much government - but many are tired of the others being shit on for disagreeing or not catering to queers and their desires. Now protections are in place.

They weren't unprotected in the first place. Sorry, I just don't take liberal positions. ;)

[jimnyc]

They weren't unprotected in the first place. Sorry, I just don't take liberal positions. ;)

Sure, and I don't take the position of idiots.

[NightTrain]

They weren't unprotected in the first place. Sorry, I just don't take liberal positions. ;)

Actually, they were.

Now a cake baker in the state of Mississippi can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding without being fined $50k.

[Gunny]

:dunno: Governor Deal was right to veto Georgia's version.

No sale. We, the people, by majority should choose the rules. You want to be a weirdo? Pay the price. Otherwise, I should have the right to rob banks. Just a minority looking for a place after all.

[jimnyc]

I wonder. There are lots of protections in our constitution. Also in states constitutions. Were ALL of those things outlawed? And if not, what would the need be then to insert any protections? :dunno:

[fj1200]

Sure, and I don't take the position of idiots.

:laugh: Silly boy. My position that NDA laws are unnecessary and counterproductive?


Actually, they were.

Now a cake baker in the state of Mississippi can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding without being fined $50k.

I haven't found a state-level NDA law in Mississippi. There are however some local NDA resolutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Mississippi#Local_non-discrimination_resolutions

Not sure what force of law those have though.


No sale. We, the people, by majority should choose the rules. You want to be a weirdo? Pay the price. Otherwise, I should have the right to rob banks. Just a minority looking for a place after all.

Not if it violates the Constitution.


I wonder. There are lots of protections in our constitution. Also in states constitutions. Were ALL of those things outlawed? And if not, what would the need be then to insert any protections? :dunno:

:dunno: Who can tell?

[NightTrain]

I haven't found a state-level NDA law in Mississippi. There are however some local NDA resolutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Mississippi#Local_non-discrimination_resolutions

Not sure what force of law those have though.

The Oregon Gay Cake (that just sounds nasty) incident was judged and fines ordered by the Labor Commissioner.

This law will protect Mississippi residents from such crusading bureaucrats and their special lobby pals.

Therefore, this law DOES in fact protect the residents of Mississippi from the Gay Crusade. Careful where you point that, Bubbles.

[Gunny]

Not if it violates the Constitution.



:dunno: Who can tell?

The Constitution is not a suicide contract. Common sense prevailed back in the day. Wordsmiths picking it to death doesn't change the original intent. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the tyranny of the minority. In fact, just the opposite. Majority rule.

[Elessar]

What ever happened to "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone"?

[Black Diamond]

What ever happened to "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone"?

1964 civil rights act.

No one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Gays, blacks, Jews, Democrats, whatever.

[Elessar]

1964 civil rights act.

No one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Gays, blacks, Jews, Democrats, whatever.

Yet you will still see those signs posted in many businesses.
That is the owner's right.

Don't like it? The solution is simple: Go somewhere else.

[jimnyc]

Yet you will still see those signs posted in many businesses.
That is the owner's right.

Don't like it? The solution is simple: Go somewhere else.

Some fruit loops will still complain, get lawyers and all that other crap. That's why it's best to LIE. If a fruit loop comes into a bakery looking for a queer cake - just tell them you are closing for the day. Out of ingredients for the day. Cake baker out of town for now. You tell the truth and then you have to cater to their abnormal lifestyle, or get massive fines. Or even better - make the shittiest cake humanly possible.

[Black Diamond]

Yet you will still see those signs posted in many businesses.
That is the owner's right.

Don't like it? The solution is simple: Go somewhere else.

Agreed. But that sign doesn't carry the weight it should. You can refuse service for any reason as long as it's not a "bad" reason.

[Black Diamond]

Some fruit loops will still complain, get lawyers and all that other crap. That's why it's best to LIE. If a fruit loop comes into a bakery looking for a queer cake - just tell them you are closing for the day. Out of ingredients for the day. Cake baker out of town for now. You tell the truth and then you have to cater to their abnormal lifestyle, or get massive fines. Or even better - make the shittiest cake humanly possible.

Tell them you're out of rainbow food coloring. :)

[Abbey Marie]

No sale. We, the people, by majority should choose the rules. You want to be a weirdo? Pay the price. Otherwise, I should have the right to rob banks. Just a minority looking for a place after all.

Why you bigot!

Lose that antiquated concept...

[Abbey Marie]

Agreed. But that sign doesn't carry the weight it should. You can refuse service for any reason as long as it's not a "bad" reason.

Bad as defined by the liberal courts.

[indago]

Yet you will still see those signs posted in many businesses.
That is the owner's right.

Don't like it? The solution is simple: Go somewhere else.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2mdlcpg.jpg

[pete311]

The state of Mississippi should not be an example to anyone. What a crap hole. Enjoy being on the wrong side of the history books. Maybe we should have separate bathrooms and movie theaters for gays too. Yay discrimination! Christian republicans: bringing america together!

[NightTrain]

The state of Mississippi should not be an example to anyone. What a crap hole. Enjoy being on the wrong side of the history books. Maybe we should have separate bathrooms and movie theaters for gays too. Yay discrimination! Christian republicans: bringing america together!

Keep your panties on.

You can still go down the street and order one from an outfit that caters to you and your boyfriend.

[Gunny]

The state of Mississippi should not be an example to anyone. What a crap hole. Enjoy being on the wrong side of the history books. Maybe we should have separate bathrooms and movie theaters for gays too. Yay discrimination! Christian republicans: bringing america together!

It's actually a beautiful place. If you're from the South and appreciate it.

There is no "America together" and never has been. That's a myth created by northern city rats.

[pete311]

It's actually a beautiful place. If you're from the South and appreciate it.

You lost the civil war a long time ago, get over it.

There is no "America together" and never has been. That's a myth created by northern city rats.

Mississippi is near the bottom for most important categories in life. Maybe the land has some beauty. That is it.

Equal protection in the Constitution. look it up. Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference is never ok.

[Gunny]

Mississippi is near the bottom for most important categories in life. Maybe the land has some beauty. That is it.

Equal protection in the Constitution. look it up. Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference is never ok.

The Constitution is not a suicide contract. I'll bet my money I'm as up on the Constitution as you wish you are. Majority rules and if you're aberrant, it's on you, not me.

[indago]

Mississippi is near the bottom for most important categories in life. Maybe the land has some beauty. That is it.

Equal protection in the Constitution. look it up. Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference is never ok.

How about discrimination based on FRAUD. Someone who impersonates something he/she is not is a FRAUD.

[fj1200]

The Oregon Gay Cake (that just sounds nasty) incident was judged and fines ordered by the Labor Commissioner.

This law will protect Mississippi residents from such crusading bureaucrats and their special lobby pals.

Therefore, this law DOES in fact protect the residents of Mississippi from the Gay Crusade. Careful where you point that, Bubbles.

A bit of a geography lesson; Mississippi is in fact not in Oregon :poke: and MS does not have the NDA protections that OR does. If there is no law granting protection for gays in the first place then there is no need to protect against such a law.


The Constitution is not a suicide contract. Common sense prevailed back in the day. Wordsmiths picking it to death doesn't change the original intent. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the tyranny of the minority. In fact, just the opposite. Majority rule.

Suicide is not even in question at this point. The Constitution says a lot about equal protection and the majority can't lord over the minority while violating said clause.


What ever happened to "We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service to Anyone"?

This \/


1964 civil rights act.

No one should be forced to do business with anyone else. Gays, blacks, Jews, Democrats, whatever.

Perhaps the Federal Government should have done more to enforce equal protection for blacks at the time rather than the disastrous precedent of the CRA.


Why you bigot!

Lose that antiquated concept...

The majority does rule by and large. Up to equal protection that is.

[fj1200]

The state of Mississippi should not be an example to anyone. What a crap hole. Enjoy being on the wrong side of the history books. Maybe we should have separate bathrooms and movie theaters for gays too. Yay discrimination! Christian republicans: bringing america together!

Not all Christians and not all Republicans and not all conservatives.


Equal protection in the Constitution. look it up. Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual preference is never ok.

Those are two different things. Equal protection is in the Constitution, NDA via the CRA needed the Constitution to be looked at all squinty-eyed to find a hint of Constitutionality.


How about discrimination based on FRAUD. Someone who impersonates something he/she is not is a FRAUD.

What fraud?

[NightTrain]

A bit of a geography lesson; Mississippi is in fact not in Oregon :poke:

No shit? Why wasn't I notified?


and MS does not have the NDA protections that OR does. If there is no law granting protection for gays in the first place then there is no need to protect against such a law.

There wasn't a NDA in Oregon a while back, either, but things move pretty quickly as we've seen.

This law was wisely put in place to prevent what happened in Oregon. It is a law that protects the Mississippi residents from being punished for following their faith.

[jimnyc]

A bit of a geography lesson; Mississippi is in fact not in Oregon :poke: and MS does not have the NDA protections that OR does. If there is no law granting protection for gays in the first place then there is no need to protect against such a law.

I guess that's why the COTUS wasn't needed at all, why have ANY protections in place, or even in states constitutions. It was stupid of them to make such documents, or to make any protections. I didn't realize all of our documented protections were only allowed if a law is first made against it.

You're simply an idiot.


No shit? Why wasn't I notified?



There wasn't a NDA in Oregon a while back, either, but things move pretty quickly as we've seen.

This law was wisely put in place to prevent what happened in Oregon. It is a law that protects the Mississippi residents from being punished for following their faith.

Absolutely.

And btw, is there a law that you know of that just outright bans guns in America? No? Then why do we bother with the 2nd amendment? Wipe it off the record. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

No shit? Why wasn't I notified?

There wasn't a NDA in Oregon a while back, either, but things move pretty quickly as we've seen.

This law was wisely put in place to prevent what happened in Oregon. It is a law that protects the Mississippi residents from being punished for following their faith.

News travels slowly up to Alaska? :scared: And if things moved so quickly in MS then they would simply overturn this law and pass an NDA; it's only as preventive as the legislature changing their mind. There is little point to this law IMO.


I guess that's why the COTUS wasn't needed at all, why have ANY protections in place, or even in states constitutions. It was stupid of them to make such documents, or to make any protections. I didn't realize all of our documented protections were only allowed if a law is first made against it.

You're simply an idiot.

That's a great argument you've got there. :rolleyes: We have freedom of speech; It doesn't take a law to ensure it.


Absolutely.

And btw, is there a law that you know of that just outright bans guns in America? No? Then why do we bother with the 2nd amendment? Wipe it off the record. :rolleyes:

Umm, the 2nd is what gives us the right.

[Gunny]

No shit? Why wasn't I notified?



There wasn't a NDA in Oregon a while back, either, but things move pretty quickly as we've seen.

This law was wisely put in place to prevent what happened in Oregon. It is a law that protects the Mississippi residents from being punished for following their faith.

You aren't worthy.:poke:

[jimnyc]

Umm, the 2nd is what gives us the right.

There are plenty of protections within the constitution, so feel free to pick something else then. How about this:


The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property -- whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.

What laws were created in order to invade someone's personal privacy that brought this on?

[jimnyc]

Umm, the 2nd is what gives us the right.

In addition:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States) and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constituti on) contained in the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-4) The Supreme Court of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-archive-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-monachuslex-6) while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm) or similar devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaments).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-7) State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_governments_of_the_United_States) and local governments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_the_United_States) are limited to the same extent as the federal government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights).

[NightTrain]

News travels slowly up to Alaska? :scared: And if things moved so quickly in MS then they would simply overturn this law and pass an NDA; it's only as preventive as the legislature changing their mind. There is little point to this law IMO..

Indeed. But up until that law is overturned, the residents are protected and not coerced against their will to do business with those they don't wish to - even in counties & cities that have such bullshit laws in Mississippi.

My statement stands - it's protecting residents. There will be a huge fight, no doubt involving ACLU, but until that changes the citizens can refuse - as they should be able to.

This whole thing isn't about discrimination - the homos that want a cake can find many businesses who will happily take their money. The agenda is to FORCE those who don't wish to interact with them to do so.

[fj1200]

There are plenty of protections within the constitution, so feel free to pick something else then. How about this:

What laws were created in order to invade someone's personal privacy that brought this on?

Yes, there are plenty of Constitutional protections that don't require laws to keep us protected. I believe the 4th, among others, was put in because of those nasty Brits. Besides I've already stated that declaring the Constitutionality of the CRA via the Commerce Clause was questionable. I'm also of the opinion that NDA laws are a taking of our liberties.


In addition:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States) and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constituti on) contained in the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-4) The Supreme Court of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-archive-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-monachuslex-6) while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm) or similar devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armaments).[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-7) State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_governments_of_the_United_States) and local governments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_the_United_States) are limited to the same extent as the federal government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights).

There are laws that limit but that doesn't mean that a law guaranteeing your 2A rights is necessary.


Indeed. But up until that law is overturned, the residents are protected and not coerced against their will to do business with those they don't wish to - even in counties & cities that have such bullshit laws in Mississippi.

My statement stands - it's protecting residents. There will be a huge fight, no doubt involving ACLU, but until that changes the citizens can refuse - as they should be able to.

This whole thing isn't about discrimination - the homos that want a cake can find many businesses who will happily take their money. The agenda is to FORCE those who don't wish to interact with them to do so.

They are not unprotected is my point. It's pandering IMO.

A little more info:


The left is freaking out about the Mississippi law (H.B. 1523 (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1523PS.pdf)) passed recently. Big businesses, like PayPal, are boycotting Mississippi and North Carolina. From the typical headlines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/), one would think that the law allows anyone to discriminate against a gay person who enters a business establishment and is refused service merely for his sexual orientation.Not so. It actually prohibits the government from suing a person or organization that "sincerely" holds "religious beliefs or moral convictions" that "(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth" (Sec. 2).
In other words, a religious person can't be sued if he believes in traditional or conjugal marriage, doesn't believe in sexual relations outside marriage, and believes that males and females really are different.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/04/stop_fussing_about_mississippis_nondiscrimination_ law.html

[NightTrain]

They are not unprotected is my point. It's pandering IMO.

Of course they were unprotected in the cities and counties that had NDA laws prior to this being enacted!

Are you saying that in the whole State of Mississippi there weren't any gay related NDA laws on the books?

[fj1200]

Of course they were unprotected in the cities and counties that had NDA laws prior to this being enacted!

Are you saying that in the whole State of Mississippi there weren't any gay related NDA laws on the books?

I've only found a listing of "resolutions" that I posted earlier. I'm not aware that they have any enforcement provisions.

[indago]

Umm, the 2nd is what gives us the right.

You are hallucinating... AGAIN! We have been notified time and again that the second amendment does not grant any rights. The right existed long before the formation of government, and is but a reminder.

[Gunny]

You are hallucinating... AGAIN! We have been notified time and again that the second amendment does not grant any rights. The right existed long before the formation of government, and is but a reminder.

Huh? You have the "right" to breathe as long as you can maintain it. Everything else is man-made.

[fj1200]

You are hallucinating... AGAIN! We have been notified time and again that the second amendment does not grant any rights. The right existed long before the formation of government, and is but a reminder.

I'm sure a lesson on the Bill of Rights and the limits placed on government would go over your head.

[indago]

I'm sure a lesson on the Bill of Rights and the limits placed on government would go over your head.

More hallucinations...

You just never cease...

[fj1200]

More hallucinations...

You just never cease...

http://cdn.straightfromthea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/facepalm-olivia.gif

[Gunny]

http://cdn.straightfromthea.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/facepalm-olivia.gif

You should feel "served". :laugh:

[Russ]

They are not unprotected is my point. It's pandering IMO.

If I were a cake baker or florist in Mississippi, I would feel much safer knowing this law was in place.
The poor gay couples in Mississippi don't get a free $50K, and will actually have to walk down the street to a different cake baker. Awww....

[darin]

...The poor gay couples in Mississippi don't get a free $50K, and will actually have to walk down the street to a different cake baker. Awww....

That is the essence of this law. If the state allowed only ONE baker, the plaintiffs would have a case. Because nobody is forced to patronize one establishment -in fact citizens are well-served with many options - nobody can *honestly* claim they were damaged by only ONE (or ten. or 80% or 98%) of bakers refusing their business.


Let the market decide. But our nation doesn't do that. We cater to the whiners. Most of the time.

[jimnyc]

http://i.imgur.com/hJiXFgU.jpg

[fj1200]

If I were a cake baker or florist in Mississippi, I would feel much safer knowing this law was in place.
The poor gay couples in Mississippi don't get a free $50K, and will actually have to walk down the street to a different cake baker. Awww....

Nobody has shown that gays have been protected under NDA laws anywhere in Mississippi. As far as I can tell bakers and florists in Mississippi weren't under any risk of a lawsuit beforehand. :dunno:

[Perianne]

Nobody has shown that gays have been protected under NDA laws anywhere in Mississippi. As far as I can tell bakers and florists in Mississippi weren't under any risk of a lawsuit beforehand. :dunno:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[fj1200]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Do doctors prescribe antibiotics when they're not necessary?

[Kathianne]

http://i.imgur.com/hJiXFgU.jpg


Related:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/11/university-of-toronto-learns-why-mandatory-unisex-bathrooms-are-a-bad-idea/


University of Toronto learns why mandatory unisex bathrooms are a bad ideaPOSTED AT 10:01 AM ON APRIL 11, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW

...

[Gunny]

Nobody has shown that gays have been protected under NDA laws anywhere in Mississippi. As far as I can tell bakers and florists in Mississippi weren't under any risk of a lawsuit beforehand. :dunno:

Bullshit argument. A person WAS attacked in NE for not giving a cake to some fags. Now all of a sudden you're Mr 10th Amendment? Does that come about for convenience of argument? Or just when you want to be a pr*ck? I own my business I sell to who I want to and the government can f*ck the f*ck off. And your idea of "fair" or "equal" is just plain BS.

Here's fair: My money, my business and I sell to who I want without Uncle Goofball putting his nose in and telling me what I need to do where my livelihood is at stake.

[fj1200]

Bullshit argument. A person WAS attacked in NE for not giving a cake to some fags. Now all of a sudden you're Mr 10th Amendment? Does that come about for convenience of argument? Or just when you want to be a pr*ck? I own my business I sell to who I want to and the government can f*ck the f*ck off. And your idea of "fair" or "equal" is just plain BS.

Here's fair: My money, my business and I sell to who I want without Uncle Goofball putting his nose in and telling me what I need to do where my livelihood is at stake.

Argument is spot on. Gays aren't protected against battery charges. I'm completely on board with 10A. My argument is logically consistent. I'm arguing a point based on logic and reason IMO. Your business is subject to the laws of the State and Federal governments. I'm not making a "fair" or "equal" argument.

Your idea in "fair" is not not really an option at present even though I largely agree with it. :)

[delta18kdy]

so gay marraige was made legal, a huge leap forward for lbgt, now this! Its one step forward two steps back

[Black Diamond]

so gay marraige was made legal, a huge leap forward for lbgt, now this! Its one step forward two steps back

If only that were true.

[indago]

http://i.imgur.com/hJiXFgU.jpg

Seattle man in women's locker room cites gender rule

article (http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534)




.

[glockmail]

We need more states to have balls and enact these common sense laws. Then assholes like Bruce Springsteen will have no where to play. :laugh: