Religious Freedom Restoration Act (2014, credit card, house)

[Kranium]

Lance Bass: ‘The whole world is watching’ as Mississippi considers Religious Freedom Restoration Act | Twitchy

The spotlight has turned from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Mississippi’s*Gov. Phil Bryant as that state considers its own*Religious Freedom Restoration Act. *NSYNC’s Lance Bass, a Mississippi native, is urging Bryant to stand on the right side of history, presumably by vetoing the legislation.

[sammyreynolds1977]

Two things will happen. They will either change the bill or let it die in committee.

[Kranium]

The liberal population began calling it an "anti-gay bill" when it had nothing to do with homosexuality. It merely preserved the right of people to serve who they choose.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by Kranium

The liberal population began calling it an "anti-gay bill" when it had nothing to do with homosexuality. It merely preserved the right of people to serve who they choose.

Right. People should be free to serve whomever they want! Or they should be able to set up separate, but equal, service, too. Heck, they should even be able to give them their own drinking fountains, right?

[Craziaskowboi]

So what the **** are these bills about anyway, religion or business? It can't be both; religion is (supposed to be) a personal matter, and business and personal matters aren't supposed to mix.

[Robert_J]

99.999% of the businesses in the state of MS will server all paying customers because all money is green (not really but you know what I mean). We don't need another law for a handful of business. Let them serve a smaller population. Let those that are refused service go online and write an honest review. Supporters of both sides can then decide what they want to do.

Oklahoma Restaurant Won't Serve Homosexuals - Business Insider I'm in 100% agreement with the last sentence in the article - "I don't share his opinions but I will defend his right to have them." More than likely this negative publicity will impact is business, he will close down, file for bankruptcy and be homeless. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[annie_himself]

Would you agree with someone turning down a gay man at a gas station in rural Mississippi? After all, it should be his right.

I sure know I'd like to have my gas.

[Robert_J]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Would you agree with someone turning down a gay man at a gas station in rural Mississippi? After all, it should be his right.

I sure know I'd like to have my gas.

Yes. It is the gas station owner's gas and he can sell or not sell it to anyone he wants.

But really. Where does anyone have to interact in a face to face transaction for gas? I haven't paid inside for gas this century and that includes rural MS and AR.

You can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. 99% of the time, they will push back. My parents are the best example. In the late 70's/early 80's (elementary school time) I was not allowed to have black friends over. In the 7th grade, I started participating in school sports with my parents in attendance. That was one of the first times that they saw me interact with people of other races. It wasn't long until we had every kid in town at my house for pickup basketball. After my high school won the Arkansas championship in 1986, the entire team (only 1 white kid) came over the next day to play. Even after I went to college, my parents house was a gathering point for almost another 10 years. Now they have two grandchildren in interracial relationships and have three mixed race great-grand children. It is not a big deal to them anymore.

[An Einnseanair]

I broke this post into two sections because I kept going off topic.

HERE is the text of the law if anyone is interested in facts. The only way this law is useful is in defense of a lawsuit, and you must prove that your actions are defensible by a sincerely held religious belief. Anyone who says the law will allow people to create "whites only" drinking fountains has apparently never read it and is getting their information from the reporters who are too busy building hype to read it. Unless you can name a religion that has racial prohibitions written into sacred texts, this is a complete red herring.

----

Robert: I already rep'd post #6, but #8 really deserved it more. I agree completely with both posts.

It looks like I'm slightly younger than you. My parents' generation was almost completely segregated. But among friends and family in my generation I count multiple interracial couples, along with multiple interracial grandchildren. All are welcome members of the family. There's nothing like playing with an interracial blood grandchild to change minds long set.

Somewhat on topic, I fully hold that a private entity has every right to conduct or refuse to conduct business with anyone, for any reason whatsoever. This can include people not wearing enough clothes (no shoes no shirt no service); people who can't speak certain languages; people who voted for the "wrong" elected official; people who don't carry cash (no checks or credit cards accepted); or people who support the "wrong" SEC (or worse, non-SEC) football team.

It means that a photographer or baker who believe homosexual activity is a sin against their religion shouldn't be forced against their will to participate in and professionally endorse such an activity. If I have a gallon of gas, I may keep it or sell it who whomever I choose for any reason I choose. That said, if my livelihood consisted of selling gas, I'd be pretty stupid to refuse to sell to an entire demographic group.

And yes, this means that if Woolworth's still existed and had lunch counters, they could refuse service to blacks. It also means that they would have to deal with the massive public outcry and crippling boycotts such a policy would create during this era of instant worldwide communication. I personally would refuse to patronize a store with such a policy, but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited from having the policy.

Caveat:
This must be limited to private entities. The 1st (state may not endorse a religion) and 14th (all citizens are equal) amendments to the US constitution clearly prohibit any public entity or person from discriminating in any way. Every quasi-legitimate argument against homosexual activity I've ever heard is based on religious prohibitions. And because different religions allow and even endorse such activities, any laws prohibiting such activities are clearly unconstitutional base on the 1st amendment. "Jim Crow" laws are also clearly unconstitutional, based on the 14th amendment. Yes, Woolworth's can discriminate, but a town may not pass a law segregating all lunch counters. A priest or pastor may refuse to officiate at a homosexual marriage, but an elected Justice of the Peace may not. Woolworth's may have "whites only" and "blacks only" water fountains, but public buildings may not.

Also, this is limited to isolated private entities and individuals. If a group of people conspire to commit discrimination based on race or sexual orientation they are forming a de-factor "government" and are breaking the law of the constitution. So a restaurant may choose to not serve blacks or gays. But if every restaurant in an area conspires to refuse service for the same reasons then that's unconstitutional.