PDA

View Full Version : Mississippi 'Religious Liberty Bill'




TER
04-01-2016, 07:41 AM
MISSISSIPPI’S SENATE JUST APPROVED A SWEEPING ‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY’ BILL THAT CRITICS SAY IS THE WORST YET FOR LGBT RIGHTS

Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/31/mississippis-senate-just-approved-a-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill-that-critics-say-is-the-worst-yet-for-lgbt-rights/)


Mississippi’s House Bill 1523 says, among other things, that public employees, businesses, and social workers cannot be punished for denying services based on the belief that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Same goes for people who act on the belief that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage” and that gender is determined at birth. It says the government can’t prevent businesses from firing a transgender employee, clerks from refusing to license a same-sex marriage, or adoption agencies from refusing to place a child with a couple who they believe may be having premarital sex.

As of Wednesday, HB 1523 has passed Mississippi’s House and Senate.

The “Religious Liberty Accommodations Act” must return to the House for to resolve differences, according to the Mississippi Business Journal. But it is expected to be approved there (it passed 80 votes to 39 in February). Then it will go to the desk of Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, who has championed religious liberty bills in the past.

Ben Needham, director of the southern LGBT advocacy group Project One America, told Buzzfeed Wednesday that the measure “is probably the worst religious freedom bill to date.”

But advocates of the bill, which is one of about 10 drafted by states across the country in response to the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage last summer, says that the legislation will protect the rights of those who disagree with the court’s decision.

“This is presenting a solution to the crossroads we find ourselves in today as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges,” Republican State Sen. Jenifer Branning said as she presented the bill to the Senate, according to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. “Ministers, florists, photographers, people along those lines — this bill would allow them to refuse to provide marriage-related business services without fear of government discrimination.”

Later in her speech, she assured her colleagues, “It takes no rights away from anyone. It gives protection to those in the state who cannot in a good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage,” according to New York Magazine.



The passage of the bill comes days after Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a similar measure that had provoked outrage from Hollywood, the National Football League and a number of big businesses. North Carolina, meanwhile, is dealing with backlash to a recently-passed law that bars local governments from extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender people and prohibits transgender people from using public bathrooms according to their gender identity.

The Mississippi legislation is more sweeping than both those measures. It prevents the government from “discriminating” (through taxes, fines, withholding benefits, or other forms of retaliation) against a “person” (broadly defined as an individual, religious organization, association, corporation and other kinds of businesses) for acting on their religious convictions regarding sexuality and marriage. That includes employers, landlords and rental companies, adoption and foster care agencies, people and companies that provide marriage-related services (rental halls, photographers, florists, etc.).

The bill protects doctors who refuse to provide counseling, sex-reassignment surgery, fertility treatments and other services based on their religious convictions, and allows companies and schools to establish sex-specific policies regarding dress and bathroom use. It allows state employees to recuse themselves from licensing or overseeing a same-sex marriage, so long as they take “all necessary steps” to ensure that the marriage isn’t impeded or delayed as a result. And it gives foster and adoptive families license to “guide, raise or instruct” children as they see fit, a rule that Human Rights Campaign argues would make LGBT children vulnerable to being forced into “conversion therapy.”

The version of the bill passed by the House also would have allowed people who felt their right to religious exercise had been infringed by the government to sue the state; the Senate version gives the state sovereign immunity from such suits.

Gov. Bryant has not explicitly said whether he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk. But in an interview with WLOX this week, he said he didn’t think the legislation was discriminatory.

“I think it gives some people, as I appreciate it, the right to be able to say ‘That’s against my religious beliefs and I don’t need to carry out that particular task,'” he told the TV station.

Critics disagree.

“It is very broad and very dangerous,” Erik Fleming, a former Mississippi legislator who is now director of advocacy and policy for the state’s branch of the ACLU, told BuzzFeed. “It basically sanctions religious discrimination.”

“It is reminiscent of what happened 50 or 60 years ago in this same state,” Fleming told BuzzFeed. “People say that it is just religious, but there were people who had a religious belief that black and white people should be segregated, and you’re opening that Pandora’s box again.”

That same argument was made by the bill’s critics during the Senate debate on Wednesday, according to WLBT and the Associated Press. Sen. John Hohrn (D-Jackson) told his colleagues that measures like HB 1523 were the reason people “think badly” of the state.

“Why do we keep doing this to ourselves?” he asked. “We don’t need to put another stain on Mississippi.”

Jamesiv1
04-01-2016, 07:44 AM
Interesting.....

Chomp
04-01-2016, 08:31 AM
Sodom must die !

Voluntarist
04-01-2016, 08:42 AM
xxxxx

osan
04-01-2016, 10:31 AM
MISSISSIPPI’S SENATE JUST APPROVED A SWEEPING ‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY’ BILL THAT CRITICS SAY IS THE WORST YET FOR LGBT RIGHTS

Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/31/mississippis-senate-just-approved-a-sweeping-religious-liberty-bill-that-critics-say-is-the-worst-yet-for-lgbt-rights/)


Mississippi’s House Bill 1523 says, among other things, that public employees, businesses, and social workers cannot be punished for denying services based on the belief that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

The hell? When you take a job as a PUBLIC employee, your role is to perform a set of tasks. If one or more of the tasks you are asked to perform offends you, you have no authority to refuse. You do, however, have every authority to seek other employment. You are not entitled to your position. You are, OTOH, obliged to perform as agreed at the time you accepted the position. Believe whatever you want. Others may BELIEVE that you need to be drawn and quartered. Shall we allow it because they BELIEVE it is right and necessary?

Is there ANY crumb or speck of this nation that is not run by idiots?

This is bull feces.


Same goes for people who act on the belief that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage” and that gender is determined at birth. It says the government can’t prevent businesses from firing a transgender employee

I disagree with this on the basis that it rests once again upon belief, which has nothing to do with the right in sé. As a free man I am within my right to fire you any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. The people who draft these statutes don't merit the trust to wash a public toilet, much less to write public law.



, clerks from refusing to license a same-sex marriage

So long as they refuse all marriage licensing, thereby getting the state's nose out of that particular tent, I agree. Otherwise, see my first point at the top.



, or adoption agencies from refusing to place a child with a couple who they believe may be having premarital sex.

I cannot disagree with this, stupid as it seems to me. If you are a private agency, you should be able to reject for any reason you see fit. Don't like white people, don't adopt to them. Jews? Heave-ho! Negroes? OOOOOOoooooo... da'RAYcis... Ahma TILL... yow in trubbuh... Oh, sorry... automatic response, let me turn that thing off.




As of Wednesday, HB 1523 has passed Mississippi’s House and Senate.

I agree with what I take to be the spirit of the bill: religious freedom for ALL. The environment as currently extant reduces voluntary transactions to mandatory. If I don't want to sell my house to a terr'ist, I risk serious legal hazards in avoiding such a sale. The reasoning behind such laws is childishly idiotic, but what is written here in countervail is equally disappointing.



But advocates of the bill, which is one of about 10 drafted by states across the country in response to the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage last summer, says that the legislation will protect the rights of those who disagree with the court’s decision.

Once again, correct idea with an absolutely inept execution. It almost seems to me that the drafters want this thing to go to SCOTUS for evisceration. This is high-order ineptitude.


The passage of the bill comes days after Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a similar measure that had provoked outrage from Hollywood, the National Football League and a number of big businesses. North Carolina, meanwhile, is dealing with backlash to a recently-passed law that bars local governments from extending civil rights protections to gay and transgender people and prohibits transgender people from using public bathrooms according to their gender identity.

Firstly, government does not "extend" rights to anyone. They are born with them. I take it you all see the nature of the problem here and just how deeply embedded the flaw is in the psyches of the vast plurality? The ignorance and insanity running amok in the world should have everyone with the least shred of sense building a bomb shelter because we are in the clutches of madmen; people who think the "state" gives, takes, and regulates rights. We may as well all be wading in our own personally-sized piraña tanks, for all the safety that surrounds us. That was sarcasm.

As for the toilet thing - let them use whatever damned bathroom those pathetic chumps want, for Christ's sake. But I would make it a matter of explicit law that any woman is entitled to defend herself against any such person who tries anything cute in the lavatory. I might also not permit those who have not had their weenies removed. Want to be a girl - fine, be one - meaning you go all the way with surgery. Until then, you are just a man pretending and will have to use the little boys' room until the doctor goes snippy.

Well, it's good to know the state of Mississippi is well capable of copulating this all up, and in such grand fashion.

Tywysog Cymru
04-01-2016, 04:33 PM
“It is reminiscent of what happened 50 or 60 years ago in this same state,” Fleming told BuzzFeed. “People say that it is just religious, but there were people who had a religious belief that black and white people should be segregated, and you’re opening that Pandora’s box again.”

This is such a stupid argument it doesn't even deserve a response. Also, I'm pretty sure most blacks in Mississippi are opposed to gay marriage.

Zippyjuan
04-01-2016, 04:52 PM
This is such a stupid argument it doesn't even deserve a response. Also, I'm pretty sure most blacks in Mississippi are opposed to gay marriage.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/religion-race-sex-marriage.aspx


This strong relationship between religiosity and approval of same-sex marriage creates important cross currents within some segments of the U.S. population. One of these segments is the black population. More than eight in 10 black Americans identify as Democrats or say they lean Democratic, 34 percentage points higher than the national average of 47%. We know that partisanship is highly related to attitudes about same-sex marriage, with 74% of Democrats and Democratic leaners approving compared with 32% among Republicans and Republican leaners.

But blacks in the U.S. are also highly religious. Forty-five percent of blacks attend church about once a week or every week, the highest of any major race or ethnic group, and above the U.S. population average of 39%. Only 12% of blacks never attend church, compared with 21% of all national adults. Blacks' religiosity stands out in particular when compared with Democrats who are not black, only 27% of whom attend religious services about once a week or every week.

Thus, the fact that blacks are highly likely to identify as Democrats and to be highly religious leads to the type of cross-pressure I mentioned above. Democratic orientation carries with it a propensity to support same-sex marriage, while high religiosity carries with it a much lower probability of supporting same-sex marriage.

So where does this leave the black population? Fifty-one percent of blacks support same-sex marriage, slightly below the population average of 54%.

Poll was from November, 2012.

Tywysog Cymru
04-01-2016, 05:02 PM
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/religion-race-sex-marriage.aspx



Poll was from November, 2012.

Yes, but don't you think that number is going to be a lot lower in Mississippi?

Zippyjuan
04-01-2016, 05:07 PM
It is true that they are the least tolerant state on the issue. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/where-same-sex-marriage-stands-50-states-n109966


Which states have been most resistant?
Historically, the state that polled the lowest in public support for gay marriage was Mississippi, which voted against gay marriage 86 percent to 14 percent 10 years ago, Klarman said. He said studies indicate the percentage of those opposed has gone down by about 1 to 2 percent per year since then. But gay marriage is still banned there.

However:

http://www.hrc.org/press/new-poll-shows-optimism-for-lgbt-equality-in-mississippi




Mississippi is a far different place when it comes to the issue of marriage. A 55 percent
majority oppose marriage, just 36 percent favor. Republicans (68 percent oppose) and
observant Christians (71 percent oppose) drive opposition. There is more support
among African Americans (43 percent favor, 50 percent oppose) than among white
residents (30 percent, 60 percent), but this issue is not competitive in either community

Even there attitudes are changing.

spudea
04-01-2016, 05:35 PM
this is not religious freedom, it's favoring one set of beliefs over another which is supposed to be specifically prevented by first amendment to the US constitution. 14th amendment is supposed to protect against discrimination, thus government employees cannot discriminate based on differences in beliefs.

Voluntarist
04-01-2016, 07:00 PM
xxxxx

Suzanimal
04-05-2016, 11:26 AM
Governor Bryant signs Religious Accommodations Act

JACKSON, MS (Mississippi News Now) -
Governor Phil Bryant has signed House Bill 1523.

This bill is also known as the Religious Accommodations Act.

It allows private businesses to refuse service to the LGBT community based off of their religious background and beliefs.

Here is Governor Bryant's full statement:

"I am signing HB 1523 into law to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions of individuals, organizations and private associations from discriminatory action by state government or its political subdivisions, which would include countries, cities, and institutions of higher learning.

This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This bill does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizen of this state under federal or state laws. It does not attempt to challenge federal laws, even those which are in conflict with the Mississippi Constitution, as the Legislature recognizes the prominence of federal law in such limited circumstances.

The legislation is designed in the most targeted manner possible to prevent government interference in the lives of the people from which all power to the state is derived."



Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/31647401/governor-bryant-signs-religious-accommodations-act#ixzz44yS7VOTC

liveandletlive
04-05-2016, 01:58 PM
can a state that is dead last in everything even afford to do this? that is the real question.

spudea
04-05-2016, 04:50 PM
http://index.ls.state.ms.us/isysnative/UzpcRG9jdW1lbnRzXDIwMTZccGRmXGhiXDE1MDAtMTU5OVxoYj E1MjNpbi5wZGY=/hb1523in.pdf


SECTION 3.
The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction 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.

If I have different religious beliefs than those outlined here, WHERE ARE MY PROTECTIONS? This law is in conflict with the 14th constitutional amendment:


nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You can't carve out a specific set of beliefs for protection without disadvantaging other people who have different beliefs.

Natural Citizen
04-05-2016, 05:22 PM
These are dangerous waters but I support the bill. Individuals should be able to exchange in trade without restriction. Discrimination toward business owners...at gunpoint no less...I view to be a restriction.

There are a handful of other states with similar legislation on the backburner.

Natural Citizen
04-05-2016, 05:23 PM
You can't carve out a specific set of beliefs for protection without disadvantaging other people who have different beliefs.
Does this bill prevent you from equally doing the same?

spudea
04-05-2016, 05:49 PM
Does this bill prevent you from equally doing the same?

Yes because if I was a business owner, and I denied services to a man/woman couple that enters my store because I disagree with their marriage (maybe one of them was previously divorced, God tells me that divorce is an abomination), my beliefs are not included in this bill for protection.

You are saying all groups should have to get a law passed to protect their set of beliefs?

I'm saying, that government is already required by law to protect all beliefs equally, thus cannot preferentially protect one set of beliefs.

Natural Citizen
04-05-2016, 06:00 PM
Yes because if I was a business owner, and I denied services to a man/woman couple that enters my store because I disagree with their marriage (maybe one of them was previously divorced, God tells me that divorce is an abomination), my beliefs are not included in this bill for protection.


You are saying all groups should have to get a law passed to protect their set of beliefs?

I'm saying, that government is already required by law to protect all beliefs equally, thus cannot preferentially protect one set of beliefs.

What I'm saying is that individuals or groups of individuals are free to organize and create rules for themselves so long as it doesn't prevent others from equally doing the same. This is a fundamental principle of liberty and I see no preferential protection within the bill given the former. The authors of the bill appear to be within the parameters of the principle and our system of governance permits for the endeavor. Would you agree that the only role of the government is to protect liberty?

To be clear, though, this bill protects the business owner from discrimination and protects his/her/their freedom to exchange in trade without restriction. Does it not? I'm certainly open to correction if I'm mistaken. Thanks, spudea.

spudea
04-05-2016, 06:28 PM
What I'm saying is that individuals or groups of individuals are free to organize and create rules for themselves so long as it doesn't prevent others from equally doing the same. This is a fundamental principle of liberty and I see no preferential protection within the bill given the former. The authors of the bill appear to be within the parameters of the principle and our system of governance permits for the endeavor. Would you agree that the only role of the government is to protect liberty?

To be clear, though, this bill protects the business owner from discrimination and protects his/her/their freedom to exchange in trade without restriction. Does it not? I'm certainly open to correction if I'm mistaken. Thanks, spudea.

Yes government should protect liberty, even for minority groups or minority beliefs. A Republic that protects the liberties of all individuals is what we should strive for, not a pure democracy of majority rule, those that can organize or influence a majority opinion, aka tyranny.

Section 6 of the bill indicates protection from judicial proceedings from any private person or entity. Thus any employer can fire an employee for being gay or having sex outside of marriage. Shouldn't the employee also have protections from employer discrimination?

Natural Citizen
04-05-2016, 06:45 PM
Yes government should protect liberty, even for minority groups or minority beliefs. A Republic that protects the liberties of all individuals is what we should strive for, not a pure democracy of majority rule, those that can organize or influence a majority opinion, aka tyranny.

Agreed. Our framers were specific to endorse the notion that we refrain from stimulating a system of governance premised upon a rule by omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. So, then, we want to avoid any invitation of such a schematic. Of course, the purpose of a Republic, with which you appear to agree, is to control The Majority strictly as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. Now, I just did a quick paste job there to save some typing.

Here is a great source for further review if anyone is interested. An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic (http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html)



Section 6 of the bill indicates protection from judicial proceedings from any private person or entity. Thus any employer can fire an employee for being gay or having sex outside of marriage. Shouldn't the employee also have protections from employer discrimination?

I agree that we get into some murky water there. While employees have protections against discrimination, the private business owner should not be forced to hire someone at gunpoint either. Now, you're talking about firing as opposed to hiring here. But would it not be equally discriminating to force a private business owner to hire someone at gunpoint?

These are private businesses. These aren't public services.

But yeah. It'll be a can of worms for sure. And, again, we're seeing similar legislation being introduced in a handful of states. It'll get jiggy alright.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
04-05-2016, 11:32 PM
can a state that is dead last in everything even afford to do this? that is the real question.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

presence
04-06-2016, 08:56 AM
Mississippi Governor Signs Sweeping Anti-LGBT 'Religious Liberty ... (http://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/4/05/mississippi-governor-signs-sweeping-anti-lgbt-religious-liberty-law)
Advocate.com-21 hours ago

Nets Bash Mississippi's 'So-Called' Religious Liberty Bill (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/04/05/nets-bash-mississippis-so-called-religious-liberty-bill-thinly)
NewsBusters (blog)-14 hours ago
Mississippi Gov Signs Religious Liberty Bill HB1523 Into Law (http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/04/mississippi-gov-signs-hb1523-22526.html)
Featured-Peacock Panache-20 hours ago
Mississippi has taken a bold step to defend religious liberty (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/05/state-mississippi-has-taken-bold-step-to-defend-religious-liberty.html)
Opinion-Fox News-19 hours ago
Mississippi Governor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill Into Law (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mississippi-governor-signs-religious-freedom-bill-law-n551056)
In-Depth-NBCNews.com-20 hours ago
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQO-BJRkgeCHxH5mvoFRIubXDoThC_OLr-s-foVShgAMjOB-vRiLXh2xQLY45Kun63bQ2O4IE8 (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/05/state-mississippi-has-taken-bold-step-to-defend-religious-liberty.html)

Madison320
04-12-2016, 09:54 AM
I agree that we get into some murky water there. While employees have protections against discrimination, the private business owner should not be forced to hire someone at gunpoint either. Now, you're talking about firing as opposed to hiring here. But would it not be equally discriminating to force a private business owner to hire someone at gunpoint?

These are private businesses. These aren't public services.



I don't see the murkiness. It should be crystal clear. ALL discrimination laws are immoral. It should be an at will contract between the employer and employee.

What I don't like about the "anti LGBT laws" is that they don't go far enough. The "anti LGBT laws" are supposed to protect "religious" freedom but what about freedom in general? I should be able to hire and fire anyone, for any reason, not just a gay person because it's against my religion.

Natural Citizen
04-12-2016, 10:43 AM
I don't see the murkiness. It should be crystal clear. ALL discrimination laws are immoral. It should be an at will contract between the employer and employee.

What I don't like about the "anti LGBT laws" is that they don't go far enough. The "anti LGBT laws" are supposed to protect "religious" freedom but what about freedom in general? I should be able to hire and fire anyone, for any reason, not just a gay person because it's against my religion.

Can you point to some anti LGBT laws in particular, Madison320? Until we're able to verify that any laws have been specifically written and made applicable in a manner that is consistent with enforcement of anti LGBT principles/lifestyle and those elements of society, the argument remains one from adverse consequences alone. Of course, arguing from adverse just means putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision. I say it that way because you mention morality in the context of worldly/secular law-making.

Then, again, there are those who would assess that any law is immoral and an act of aggression.

But anyway. If you could, will you point to some anti LGBT laws in particular? Thanks.

ETA - I do recognize that anti-sodomy laws have been introduced. Many voted against them only to subsequently be met with aggression from the LGBT community. An example of that would be forcing me to do something in demonstration of support of their lifestyle/philosophy/idealogy at gunpoint that I don't actually support. Like bake them cake in support of the principles that justify their gay marriage or whatever.

End of the day, people are fee to organize and make rules for themselves so long as those rules don't prohibit others from doing equally the same. Would you not agree with that principle? That is essentially the nuts and bolts of this bill and others like it that are popping up in a growing number of states at the moment.

jmdrake
04-12-2016, 10:47 AM
It is true that they are the least tolerant state on the issue. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/where-same-sex-marriage-stands-50-states-n109966



However:

http://www.hrc.org/press/new-poll-shows-optimism-for-lgbt-equality-in-mississippi





Even there attitudes are changing.

That's because many blacks worship Obama more than they worship Jesus. Prior to Obama coming out (no pun intended) in favor of gay marriage blacks were solidly against it. Eventually when Obama is no longer president, black preachers will feel free to openly speak out against it, but it may be too little too late.

jmdrake
04-12-2016, 11:03 AM
I don't see the murkiness. It should be crystal clear. ALL discrimination laws are immoral. It should be an at will contract between the employer and employee.

What I don't like about the "anti LGBT laws" is that they don't go far enough. The "anti LGBT laws" are supposed to protect "religious" freedom but what about freedom in general? I should be able to hire and fire anyone, for any reason, not just a gay person because it's against my religion.

Fair argument. And this is the argument that John Stossel and others should have used in attempting to support Rand on the CRA rather than the stupid "Well are you going to make blacks serve klansmen" argument. Most blacks wouldn't have a problem serving klansmen. That's what happened pre civil rights era anyway. Most people do have a problem with being forced to go against their religious beliefs whatever those beliefs are. That's why the first amendment singled out religion for special protection.

FindLiberty
04-12-2016, 11:32 AM
Protect the children...
but what about the animals,
can they marry?

Cats and dogs,
lions and tigers and bears,
lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Something must be wrong with the drinking water - too much crazy.

Natural Citizen
04-12-2016, 11:37 AM
Protect the children...
but what about the animals,
can they marry?

Cats and dogs,
lions and tigers and bears,
lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Something must be wrong with the drinking water - too much crazy.

Ha. Good point. Animals don't reason. They simply react. The laws of nature dictate order within pack/herd structure with one ultimate goal. That is, of course, to ensure survival of the next generation. Left alone, they generally succeeed. If they can't, then, they don't. That is the key to natural selection. There is no institutionalization of equality among differing species in the wild aside from the laws of nature. There are no moral principles to institutionalize.

Of course, a dog may be trained to walk on a leash, too. Most times, though, I see them pulling their masters down the sidewalk. It's funny. Heh.

Madison320
04-12-2016, 01:24 PM
Can you point to some anti LGBT laws in particular, Madison320? Until we're able to verify that any laws have been specifically written and made applicable in a manner that is consistent with enforcement of anti LGBT principles/lifestyle and those elements of society, the argument remains one from adverse consequences alone. Of course, arguing from adverse just means putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision. I say it that way because you mention morality in the context of worldly/secular law-making.

Then, again, there are those who would assess that any law is immoral and an act of aggression.

But anyway. If you could, will you point to some anti LGBT laws in particular? Thanks.

ETA - I do recognize that anti-sodomy laws have been introduced. Many voted against them only to subsequently be met with aggression from the LGBT community. An example of that would be forcing me to do something in demonstration of support of their lifestyle/philosophy/idealogy at gunpoint that I don't actually support. Like bake them cake in support of the principles that justify their gay marriage or whatever.

End of the day, people are fee to organize and make rules for themselves so long as those rules don't prohibit others from doing equally the same. Would you not agree with that principle? That is essentially the nuts and bolts of this bill and others like it that are popping up in a growing number of states at the moment.

I'm talking about the recent laws that make it legal to hire and fire LGBTs, where it used to be illegal.


Here's an example:


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/24/471700323/north-carolina-passes-law-blocking-measures-to-protect-lgbt-people



End of the day, people are fee to organize and make rules for themselves so long as those rules don't prohibit others from doing equally the same. Would you not agree with that principle? That is essentially the nuts and bolts of this bill and others like it that are popping up in a growing number of states at the moment.

I agree. That why I'm against all discrimination laws (at least for the private sector).