Mississippi Religion Law (city hall, schools, salary)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by mibiloxi

Simple solution, just require all businesses or individuals running for office, who will be using religious belief to refuse service or perform their duties to be required to post that belief in advance so I do not violate my religious belief by accidentally patronizing or voting for them because they hid that material fact from the public's eye.

Not only is this the simplest solution, but the only one that makes any sense! That fact that Governor Bryant is so quick to pass a law like this, but will not get rid of the states archaic flag speaks volumes! MS deserves what they get...the only reason I live on the coast part time or even like MS in general is because of its beauty and uniqueness; which DOES NOT include its pathetic natives...not all of them mind you...just most of them...what a shame such an idyllic spot got stuck with such illiterates!

They tried to include a provision requiring businesses to give notice of who they wouldn't serve when the 2014 religious freedom law was being debated, but it was shot down.

Personally I think that for every government official or state funded org that discriminates against gays we should be allowed to take a 1% tax break. If MY money is paying someones salary or funding their org they should not be allowed to refuse me services.

Additionally, I heard that they will be hiring deputies to issue marriage licenses if all others in an office refuse. Who will be paying for additional employees because those already there refuse to do their job?

[fieldm]

https://www.change.org/p/activists-t...of-emergency/c

[smarino]

Here's an indication of the mindset of some of the people in Mississippi, and it goes far beyond sexual preference and so called religion. They act like it's still 1950, and civil rights is just a joke. I hope this couple in the story below sues them for every penny they have, and at LEAST the feds need to get involved. This is just beyond belief in this day and age, but I am not at all surprised.

Interracial couple receives support, criticism

[sammyreynolds1977]

A South Carolina lawmaker just filed a bill there that's similar. Luckily I do believe they have a person ruining that state that has some common sense.

[T. Damon]

Mississippi, still holding its banner of backwardness and discrimination high and waving it proudly!

My SIL, a native, and step-mom, who unfortunately finds herself living with them there now, are both understandably disgusted with the state of the state right now.

[Highpointer]

Why don't people in Mississippi act and think more like people in the greater Seattle area? If they did so, then perhaps they would generate more business and have more high-technology companies. This will result in more higher-paying jobs.

[Stoke]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

People love to talk about Mississippi. They like to pretend they know something about it, I guess. Your comment is sadly typical. Always, that same assumption of superiority.

There are lots of states and lots of laws. More fun, it looks like, to pretend you know a lot about Mississippi.

"Stay Superior, My Friend"..........

We have equality up north. Not superiority.

We all have our faults. But this one is a big one.

All the best.

[albion]

I thought Christianity preached tolerance, and love for our fellow human beings, but it seems not in Mississippi.

Mississippi's well deserved reputation for bigotry is reinforced with laws such as this. If they didn't know before, the rest of the world certainly knows now, that, racism, homophobia and ignorance is still flourishing in that backward state.

The people of Mississippi should be ashamed of themselves.

[An Einnseanair]

No religious leader should be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony that violates their beliefs. This violates the 1st Amendment. If a preacher believes it violates his religion for homosexual or even interracial couples to marry, then the government should not be allowed to force him to perform such a ceremony. Why a couple would want their marriage to be blessed by a backwards small-minded bigot is confusing to me, but whatever. The 1st Amendment protection is clear and obvious in this situation.

As for wedding photographers, wedding cake bakers, venues that rent out for weddings, caterers, etc., it's more of a gray area. On one hand it is a straight business. You give them money, they perform a secular (non-religious) service. On the other hand, some of these people see their involvement as participation in a religious ceremony, which carries similar weight to the religious leader. A baker may pray over each cake that it help bless the union. A photographer takes intimate pictures of the couple... hugging, kissing, even sexually teasing acts such as the garter removal mini-ceremony.

The irony is that most of these protesting business owners would happily serve at a wedding for a formerly divorced heterosexual couple. Jesus himself directly addressed the divorce=adultery issue (a sin with the same punishment as homosexuality in the Old Testament), while he never directly spoke against homosexuality.

But in the end, it's a non-religious business service. And just like a Muslim apartment owner can't refuse to rent to a Christian couple on the basis of religion, a Christian baker can't refuse service to a non-Christian. Again, I honestly can't think of any reason why someone would want their union tainted by unwilling participants. I personally wouldn't eat a cake prepared by a baker under protest (spit in the batter? semen? worse?), and it would be quite easy for a photographer to "forget" to change a few settings resulting in ruined pictures. Caterers and venue owners could do similar hijinks.

As for the rest of the law... it's completely bogus. Government officials are duty-bound to uphold the laws of the government. Government-issued marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion; they are nothing more than legal documents for the purpose of name-changes and linking a couple's finances and rights. If your religion prevents you from performing a secular duty, then you need a new job.

A woman can get fired for wearing pants; a man can get fired for having an earing. Did we seriously go backwards in time to the early 1900's?

[Reactionary]

Jesus = “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Matthew 19 NIV

Jesus said who should not marry - specifically including 'born eunuchs' (the contemporary euphemism for gay men). Note that Jesus apparently believed that gays were born that way.