Mississippi's "Religious Freedom" law anti LBGT and illegal: Judge (Christian, exist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In many parts of the south, it's a distinction without a genuine difference. I know a lot of lifelong Democrats up in the Kentucky mountains who hate gay marriage (and gays in general) with a white-hot passion. They practically froth at the mouth when you get them talking about it, which of course is fun to do, but that's neither here nor there. Point is, some of the most socially conservative people I've ever met are some Southern Democrats. In fact, even Kim Davis is a Democrat.
Southern Democrats have always been hardcore conservatives. They were the ones that supported segregation. Republicans and Northern Democrats were the liberals, but obviously the parties flipped and Republicans became the dominate conservative party, while Democrats became largely liberal outside of the South.
Southern Democrats have always been hardcore conservatives. They were the ones that supported segregation. Republicans and Northern Democrats were the liberals, but obviously the parties flipped and Republicans became the dominate conservative party, while Democrats became largely liberal outside of the South.
Yes, It often confuses that the Republicans were Democrats and the Democrats were Republicans back around the civil war. And it is certainly tempting (and I am not convinced it isn't broadly true) to suppose that the Bible belt gay -hating 'Whiich - church do -you -go -to?' bods are Republican voters. Just as I would be surprised to find that a racist, church -going Union -detesting, Brexit voter is actually a Labour supporter. You never can tell, I suppose .
It isn't 'the south'. The bill is clearly unconstitutional. But don't demonize 'the south' as if it's backwaters to other parts of the country. Each state is its own entity.
Yeah, We Texans aint exactly excited about the flood of Californians coming here or the flood of Yankees either, and if it is so backwards here, why are so many moving here? Seems like everywhere Democrats are an authority over a state, that state goes under.
Yeah, We Texans aint exactly excited about the flood of Californians coming here or the flood of Yankees either, and if it is so backwards here, why are so many moving here? Seems like everywhere Democrats are an authority over a state, that state goes under.
Absolutely. I mean, you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do is look at Maine, Michigan, Louisiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Florida, Georgia... every one of them lagging way behind the rest of the country in key economic factors such as employment, median income, wages, economic growth, productivity, and every one of them governed by... oops, I'm sorry! Republicans! My mistake.
Of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rate, 9 of them are governed by Republicans, and 6 of them are in the South. I think the argument that the entire South is "the neighborhood on the other side of the tracks" is on solid ground.
Yeah, We Texans aint exactly excited about the flood of Californians coming here or the flood of Yankees either, and if it is so backwards here, why are so many moving here? Seems like everywhere Democrats are an authority over a state, that state goes under.
Good points. The liberals can never explain all of that. But that's the nature of Liberal Authoritarianism - they don't recognize it in themselves. They destroy what they rule and then blame it on someone else.
The subject of this thread is a good example. The liberals fought; they seem to have won. But what has happened is that they have created enemies now who did not previously exist. It's not much different from what happened in the Middle East. The US generated enemies among people who were previously ambivalent.
In the case of the Mississippi bill, I had never talked to a single person who intended to take advantage of the law which would have allow them to deny some sort of service to gay people. Not one.
Here's a thought:
Would you trust a cake that was made by someone who was forced to bake it? Yeah. Me, neither. It would be like the Jews forcing the Arabs to cook for them.
Absolutely. I mean, you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do is look at Maine, Michigan, Louisiana, Kansas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Florida, Georgia... every one of them lagging way behind the rest of the country in key economic factors such as employment, median income, wages, economic growth, productivity, and every one of them governed by... oops, I'm sorry! Republicans! My mistake.
Of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rate, 9 of them are governed by Republicans, and 6 of them are in the South. I think the argument that the entire South is "the neighborhood on the other side of the tracks" is on solid ground.
This argument of "in the stall with the door closed...and nobody sees anything" has been used as a defense on this before. It is completely bogus.
It goes way beyond just using the toilet in a "lavatory". It would necessarily extend to "locker rooms" as well, with people completely naked next to each other for extended time showering and changing.
Some of the stuff that has been deemed legal in this country based upon "Constitutional Rights" to "equality" and "privacy", is indicative of how messed up the people that have been running things really are. IMO.
All these society changing matters should only be enacted based upon a referendum of the society. And THAT'S what the Law should be.
If showering in a locker room bothers someone, they can simply shower in a private stall, or at home. No one is forced to shower in public.
Your point is moot. If you do not wish to use the stall next to mine then don't.
I use the bathroom for one reason, and it never includes the person using the stall next to mine.
The same silly excuse was used keeping female sports reporters out of the locker room. There might be naked men. If naked men saw a woman in the locker room they might get an erection, or the woman might see their little winkies. Yawn...
If showering in a locker room bothers someone, they can simply shower in a private stall, or at home. No one is forced to shower in public.
Your point is moot. If you do not wish to use the stall next to mine then don't.
I use the bathroom for one reason, and it never includes the person using the stall next to mine.
The same silly excuse was used keeping female sports reporters out of the locker room. There might be naked men. If naked men saw a woman in the locker room they might get an erection, or the woman might see their little winkies. Yawn...
Your example of adult athletes being interviewed by adult reporters is bogus.
I'm talking about school locker rooms in the tens of thousands of high schools across this country where the people using them range from 12 to 19 years old. Everyone showers after sports practice. I was an athlete for my entire scholastic time period...I never saw a "private stall" shower in a male locker room...it was always "gang showers". The same when I was a soldier.
But now, with these laws, you could have 13 year old little girls, that have adopted a "male" mindset...naked and soaping themselves up standing right next to 18 year old men in the shower. And the schools will be legally mandated to have to allow this!
In my opinion, it just shows how gone-in-the-head the people that make our laws are.
Your example of adult athletes being interviewed by adult reporters is bogus.
I'm talking about school locker rooms in the tens of thousands of high schools across this country where the people using them range from 12 to 19 years old. Everyone showers after sports practice. I was an athlete for my entire scholastic time period...I never saw a "private stall" shower in a male locker room...it was always "gang showers". The same when I was a soldier.
But now, with these laws, you could have 13 year old little girls, that have adopted a "male" mindset...naked and soaping themselves up standing right next to 18 year old men in the shower. And the schools will be legally mandated to have to allow this!
In my opinion, it just shows how gone-in-the-head the people that make our laws are.
In the U.S. O.3% of the population is identified as transgender. That's only 700,000 people. While we do not know the number of transgender high school students it's safe to say tens of thousands of of high schools will NOT be dealing with a transgender athlete taking a shower.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
