Mississippi House Passes Religious Freedom Bill, Edit ACLU files suit over bill

[afleitch]

because sanctions work lol

are you twelve lol. using lol lol

At 10:12 I was sitting through a godawful classroom fight about...this exact issue, actually (some really strange rhetoric, some but not all of it profoundly homophobic, being thrown back and forth; unironic use of the term 'sex-negative' as a theological category; somebody somehow brought BDS into it; a guest lecturer made a wildly inappropriate rape analogy), so I wasn't really in the mood to be mature in this thread. (I was using Atlas Forum in class because I've developed a bad habit of hating about half of my classes. I think after this degree I'm going back to secular academia...)

Nothing meant by it, I'm sorry. I just hate 'lol' with a passion

[Reaganfan]

Isn't this whole punishing states unconstitutional? That would be like a waiter refusing to serve a person who has differing political beliefs. Wouldn't the waiter lose their job?

[This account no longer in use.]

Isn't this whole punishing states unconstitutional? That would be like a waiter refusing to serve a person who has differing political beliefs. Wouldn't the waiter lose their job?

But I'm guessing you'd be perfectly fine with it if the waiter refused to serve a gay person.

[Derpist]

Isn't this whole punishing states unconstitutional? That would be like a waiter refusing to serve a person who has differing political beliefs. Wouldn't the waiter lose their job?

But I'm guessing you'd be perfectly fine with it if the waiter refused to serve a gay person.

I doubt that has any religious freedom implications because no religion proscribes gays from eating food unless that food is funsauce.

I suppose you might claim religious freedom if you didn't want to sell sex toys to a gay couple, but that's probably not your real concern if you're in the sex toy industry.

[Kempros]

I don't agree with a lot of state laws, but the rights should be left to the states to govern themselves. States Rights.

[SteveRogers]

Wow. Just read the text of this thing. This is probably the worst of these I've ever seen. Supporters of this bill can't even use the old, "and a gay baker shouldn't have to make a wedding cake for a fundamentalist Christian, either" argument because this bill certainly does not provide for that. It literally only creates a totally one-sided right to discriminate against gay weddings.

The only silver lining is that Mississippi's refusal to even go through the motions of writing a facially neutral law means that there's a good chance SCOTUS could strike this down. Forget Obergfell, Romer v. Evans was supposed to put these kinds of laws to rest. 

[Classic Conservative]

Isn't this whole punishing states unconstitutional? That would be like a waiter refusing to serve a person who has differing political beliefs. Wouldn't the waiter lose their job?

But I'm guessing you'd be perfectly fine with it if the waiter refused to serve a gay person.

I wouldn't because that's just pure discrimination, I believe that you should have the right to not participate in a gay marriage that's it, other than that it is discrimination.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

The AClU will challenge the bill in District Court

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/us/mississippi-religious-freedom-bill-lawsuit/index.html

[Badger]

I don't agree with a lot of state laws, but the rights should be left to the states to govern themselves. States Rights.

1964 called.....

[RightBehind]

Isn't this whole punishing states unconstitutional? That would be like a waiter refusing to serve a person who has differing political beliefs. Wouldn't the waiter lose their job?

There's also the Supremacy Clause.