Some people of faith wonder why so many of my generation turn their backs on traditional religion. Just as some believers have a "sincerely held religious belief" that requires discrimination against the LGBT community, many people similarly have no desire to be recruited into organizations requiring us to make life miserable for people doing no harm to anyone.
A governor has no business codifying arbitrary religious beliefs (no matter how "sincerely held") into law, especially not to the detriment of other citizens who have done nothing wrong. No one cares if a clerk agrees with interracial marriage or not. PERIOD. The precise same rationale mandates that the law should give no shelter to a clerk's subjective religious views on gay marriage. If someone expresses a sincerely held religious belief that Christian marriages are sinful in the eyes of their particular god, why on earth should any law give them any cover in their official functions?
And no, it is not sufficient for another clerk to be called in to do the job. Clerks and administrative offices are understandably seen as representing and carrying out state policy. Allowing state employees to discriminate against certain kinds of people is tantamount to official state stigma. Again, Christians nodding their heads at this brand of "religious freedom" would be incensed if clerks began doing something similar to them. They would call it outright state-sponsored bigotry. And they would be correct.
A governor has no business codifying arbitrary religious beliefs (no matter how "sincerely held") into law, especially not to the detriment of other citizens who have done nothing wrong. No one cares if a clerk agrees with interracial marriage or not. PERIOD. The precise same rationale mandates that the law should give no shelter to a clerk's subjective religious views on gay marriage. If someone expresses a sincerely held religious belief that Christian marriages are sinful in the eyes of their particular god, why on earth should any law give them any cover in their official functions?
And no, it is not sufficient for another clerk to be called in to do the job. Clerks and administrative offices are understandably seen as representing and carrying out state policy. Allowing state employees to discriminate against certain kinds of people is tantamount to official state stigma. Again, Christians nodding their heads at this brand of "religious freedom" would be incensed if clerks began doing something similar to them. They would call it outright state-sponsored bigotry. And they would be correct.
10
Aside from the absurdity of some jerk being able to claim religious freedom to refuse service, how is it legally possible for gay and lesbian people to be compelled to pay taxes that support an infrastructure from which they are partially excluded? Isn't that the very definition of discrimination?
That said, what I wouldn't give to see the evangelicals who support this disgusting travesty be turned away from a gay-owned business on religious grounds.
Fair is fair.
That said, what I wouldn't give to see the evangelicals who support this disgusting travesty be turned away from a gay-owned business on religious grounds.
Fair is fair.
9
Here we go again. Narrow minded Republican Christian conservatives perverting the teachings of Christ to support their mean spirited agenda. The Mormon church believed in polygamy too. The Mormon Church's founder Joseph Smith taught that African Americans bore Cain's sin, and were not to be baptized. Republicans always talk about government intrusion into their lives and then use their religious views to limit the freedoms of other Americans. Republicans are perpetually trying to shove their moral agenda down our throats. Where is the separation of Church and State headed? I say eliminate the tax free status of all churches.
9
So, if someone has a "sincerely held belief" that religion is bad, they could refuse to serve anyone with an obvious religious connection (like wearing a cross a yarmulka, etc.), that person would acting within their rights, correct?
It only follows from the court's logic.
It only follows from the court's logic.
9
The problem seems to be that those bringing this case to court "had no standing" because the law had not injured them in any way. The law has to actually cause a person harm for that person to contest it in court.
The solution seems simple: find a customer or client who was harmed by a proprietor, a DMV clerk, a marriage license clerk, a florist, a pharmacist, whatever.
If the pharmacist won't sell you Plan B because of his religious beliefs....
If the DMV clerk won't process your paperwork......
If the florist won't make the centerpieces for your Planned Parenthood fundraiser.......
If your wedding is delayed because a bigoted municipal clerk won't give you a license........
These are the people who have to take this on. They would have proper standing.
The solution seems simple: find a customer or client who was harmed by a proprietor, a DMV clerk, a marriage license clerk, a florist, a pharmacist, whatever.
If the pharmacist won't sell you Plan B because of his religious beliefs....
If the DMV clerk won't process your paperwork......
If the florist won't make the centerpieces for your Planned Parenthood fundraiser.......
If your wedding is delayed because a bigoted municipal clerk won't give you a license........
These are the people who have to take this on. They would have proper standing.
4
This is also why LGBT children shouls be raised by LGBT families if they are orphans.
Im transgender. If Id been placed with some Christian family, Id have definitely killed myself by now.
My goal now is to adopt a 6-7 year old child who displays symptoms of gender dysphoria and raise him/her in a gender neutral environment and private schools with my partner, who is also transgender. I hope I get a chance to have a family, and that these laws dont deny me that dream.
Im transgender. If Id been placed with some Christian family, Id have definitely killed myself by now.
My goal now is to adopt a 6-7 year old child who displays symptoms of gender dysphoria and raise him/her in a gender neutral environment and private schools with my partner, who is also transgender. I hope I get a chance to have a family, and that these laws dont deny me that dream.
8
What seems lost in all this talk of protecting religious rights is that the state only really means protecting Christianity as the religion. So for example, if a different religion has a doctrine that asserts that Christians should not be associated with in any way, can members of that religion deny services to Christians? In a different vein, if a Mormon or Baptist opposes alcohol, does it mean that a restaurant waiter can refuse to serve alcohol to diners who order it even if the restaurant owner has a liquor license? And what does it mean that a clerk can refuse a marriage license but not if it impedes the marriage? Doesn't the denial of the license automatically impede the marriage? Who determines if the ceremony will be delayed by a clerk's refusal to certify the marriage? If all the clerks in a county refuse a license certification, what happens then? Does the couple have to go to court to get certified? What about religions that do not recognize divorce or shaving of the hair? Can services be denied to people who fall under those areas? This law seems ridiculous to me, but I fear what the new Supreme Court will do.
9
The job description of a clerk position, I would presume, requires that the employee do whatever is illegal and ethical activity for that position. If you can't because of personal moral objections fulfill the requirements of that position then you shouldn't apply or take the job. We would never hire as a policeman someone who couldn't kill someone, that is presumably a requirement of the job description. One would think that a vegan would not take a job selling burgers at a McDonald's if they did it would be required of them to handle dead animal flesh. The same concept holds for fulfilling the requirements of a county clerk position who needs to give out marriage licenses or of a pharmacist who needs to dispense contraception.
7
One can have a 'sincerely-held religious belief' that members of a certain group are to be put to the sword, or that unruly children are to be exorcised, or that others should not get medical care. Until not all that long ago, this was not uncommon. Guess this means we can return to all kinds of old time religion, as long as it is 'sincerely-held.'
10
They lost and surrendered in the Civil War and they still think they can get away with segregation.
6
so the Appeals Court basically said, "even if an arsonist is throwing gasoline on your house, you have no right to interfere until you yourself are on fire."
Makes perfect sense. - said no one, ever.
Makes perfect sense. - said no one, ever.
9
You should be free to practice your religion but you should not be free to practice your religion on other people unless they ask you to.
18
You lost me at 'Mississippi law".
17
Religious conservatives: Please stop your assault on me. It's terrorizing.
23
Of course the religious laws of any religion should take priority over constitutional principles !! --if you are living in Iran. If this is allowed to stand then one day Sharia Law, which they all hate so much despite knowing nothing about it, will trump civil law as well.
21
Some social rules are called laws. It gives rules more power to control members of the society. It's wise to think of all laws as basically rules that are given special power and remember their ultimate source is human belief and values, even those rules called "God's Laws", in order to give them absolute power.
1
The intriguing part of this is that religious exemption will be allowed to void any law the business owner chooses. For example, if the business is purchased by a member of the KKK they will be allowed to terminate their employees that are Jewish and Black. Or, what if the owner demands that all employees remain Kosher they can be fired for eating pork. This type of exemption is the exact reason why we have a secular Constitution. It is mind-blowing to me. We are living in 2017 and still fighting the battles of a fairytale master. And, make no mistake about it, there is no 'compromise or good' way to do this. This is dangerous. Plain and simple.
49
The religious exemption is dangerous, but it is not that broad. It only protects "religious beliefs or moral convictions" that believe "1. Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; 2. Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and 3. Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth." See the law here: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/html/HB/1500-1599/HB1523...
So no, a Jewish person will not be able to fire their employees just because they eat pork. (Such a law would never pass in Mississippi.) And the KKK will not be able to fire someone just because they're black. The purpose of this law is to oppose gay marriage and to appease the state's heavily Christian demographic.
So no, a Jewish person will not be able to fire their employees just because they eat pork. (Such a law would never pass in Mississippi.) And the KKK will not be able to fire someone just because they're black. The purpose of this law is to oppose gay marriage and to appease the state's heavily Christian demographic.
1
The problem with laws like this, is that it encourages hate! When a law encourages hate against LGBT community, how soon will it be used to encourage hate against blacks, asian's, hispanic's, a single parent or a left handed person under the guise of religious freedom. i.e. walk into a coffee shop, you are told you cannot be served a cup of coffee because you are left handed, and it is against the tenants of their religion to serve left handed people.
Is this not how all hate laws get started as a law targeting one group and then it is used against others!
What I do not understand about people who hide behind the walls of religion is, we are told to love one and all by the good book, but we still insist on showing hatred to those who are not like us. We are one nation that is being driven apart by those who cannot see past the end their noses! Those who claim to love everyone but expose hatred whenever they get a chance.
It is time we look pass the color of peoples skin, who they have as a partner but to love each other. We have a lot of hate coming out of Washington DC is not time to try and overcome it.
Is this not how all hate laws get started as a law targeting one group and then it is used against others!
What I do not understand about people who hide behind the walls of religion is, we are told to love one and all by the good book, but we still insist on showing hatred to those who are not like us. We are one nation that is being driven apart by those who cannot see past the end their noses! Those who claim to love everyone but expose hatred whenever they get a chance.
It is time we look pass the color of peoples skin, who they have as a partner but to love each other. We have a lot of hate coming out of Washington DC is not time to try and overcome it.
13
The Deep South birth rate is 3Xs larger than that in liberal states. (We'll see once Medicaide doesn't pay for births). That said, the population in Red States grows expenditiously and the bigotry grows with each birth. This is homebrewed bigotry fueled by family-dependent folks who continue the blindness and will never change. They dig deeper and have no reason to live outside of their safe havens.
10
My religion requires me to punch bigots in the face. Sadly this is illegal.
15
And so it goes, the states that are so famous for the KKK, continue in their "great" traditions?
11
Boycott Mississippi.
28
Canadian Post trucks in Vancouver, BC, where I currently reside, are emblazoned with graphics celebrating marriage equality. The US border is about 35 miles away. So near but so very very far away.
19
If Mississippi insists on discrimination of this type, I trust that anyone who is not a bigot will move out of the state and none but bigots will move in.
For this law to be passed in this day and age is morally reprehensible.
I agree with the commenter who called for a clear, obvious sign or equivalent notice to be placed on any such establishment that ostensibly serves the public but refuses to serve GLBT individuals. If they wish to discriminate on the basis of their supposedly firmly held religious beliefs, they should be proud and honest enough to say so clearly, so that those of us who do not support their discrimination will know to walk on by. If they are licensed to serve the public, then such discrimination should not stand.
It is worth noting that the Federal 5th Circuit is a Southern circuit.
Over and over again, Mississippi comes across as the most backward state in the nation. The Help may have been about what took place in the 1960s, but the same attitudes, enlarged to include GLBT, apparently still prevail. If not then, Mississippians, show us what does.
For this law to be passed in this day and age is morally reprehensible.
I agree with the commenter who called for a clear, obvious sign or equivalent notice to be placed on any such establishment that ostensibly serves the public but refuses to serve GLBT individuals. If they wish to discriminate on the basis of their supposedly firmly held religious beliefs, they should be proud and honest enough to say so clearly, so that those of us who do not support their discrimination will know to walk on by. If they are licensed to serve the public, then such discrimination should not stand.
It is worth noting that the Federal 5th Circuit is a Southern circuit.
Over and over again, Mississippi comes across as the most backward state in the nation. The Help may have been about what took place in the 1960s, but the same attitudes, enlarged to include GLBT, apparently still prevail. If not then, Mississippians, show us what does.
19
You're right, Aristotle. HB 1523 is an appalling law and affront to the civil liberties which define us as Americans. It's my hope that the federal courts will remove the law; I believe this will happen once the plaintiffs find someone with standing.
Until then, however, you won't have to travel all the way to Mississippi to find bigotry. Apparently you can find quite a bit in your own back yard. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists an anti-LGBT hate group named "Main Resistance" in Lewiston, a racist skinhead group named "Crew 38" for the entire state of Maine, and your very own Maine chapter of the Klu Klux Klan Chapter.
So would I be just in suggesting that none but bigots will now move to Maine?
Until then, however, you won't have to travel all the way to Mississippi to find bigotry. Apparently you can find quite a bit in your own back yard. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists an anti-LGBT hate group named "Main Resistance" in Lewiston, a racist skinhead group named "Crew 38" for the entire state of Maine, and your very own Maine chapter of the Klu Klux Klan Chapter.
So would I be just in suggesting that none but bigots will now move to Maine?
So if they pass a law saying all gay people must be executed at dawn the law could not be stayed because no one has been "injured" and therefore there is no standing?
11
Jim : It's very difficult to cure stupid, and impossible when the cure is not wanted . Try to keep the faith . Cordially, D.J. Ludwig
3
When religion ruled the world we called them The Dark Ages. Mississippi has historically chosen to be backward and in this they are in the minority. Your firmly held prejudices do not trump my firmly held beliefs to the opposite.
15
"Federal Court Lifts Injunction on Mississippi Anti-Gay Law"
The injunction was removed due to a very constrained view of 'standing' and 'injury'. The idea that the plaintiffs were not harmed by this bill is incorrect. If some backwards legislature declares open season on gays, that in and of itself, constitutes harm. There is no need to wait for some religionist nut to actually commit the acts enabled by the law for the harm to have been done.
This law is clearly unconstitutional in that it enshrines particular religionist beliefs in state law, to the exclusion of opposing religious beliefs. States have no business involving themselves in promoting religious beliefs. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes this clear.
The law empowers both individuals and religious organizations to impose their beliefs regarding sexual activity by unmarried individuals as well as same-sex marriage on whoever they come into contact with, ONLY IF they line up with the state endorsed beliefs advocated below.
From the text of the law:
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.
The injunction was removed due to a very constrained view of 'standing' and 'injury'. The idea that the plaintiffs were not harmed by this bill is incorrect. If some backwards legislature declares open season on gays, that in and of itself, constitutes harm. There is no need to wait for some religionist nut to actually commit the acts enabled by the law for the harm to have been done.
This law is clearly unconstitutional in that it enshrines particular religionist beliefs in state law, to the exclusion of opposing religious beliefs. States have no business involving themselves in promoting religious beliefs. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes this clear.
The law empowers both individuals and religious organizations to impose their beliefs regarding sexual activity by unmarried individuals as well as same-sex marriage on whoever they come into contact with, ONLY IF they line up with the state endorsed beliefs advocated below.
From the text of the law:
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 the law was truly about religion, they would also specify divorced people. Isn't that prohibited by the bible ?
18
It's only gays they seek to punish. Divorcees who remarry get a free pass, despite this being condemned both by Jesus AND the Ten Commandments as adultery, a mortal sin that sends you to burn in a lake of scalding sulphur for eternity.
Yet neither Jesus nor the Ten Commandments spoke against LGBT people nor against same sex relationships. These religious folk have one rule for the gays and another for themselves. This is known as hypocrisy - against which Jesus also railed at length and with vehemence. His greatest commandment, to love your fellow man, is buried under the religious hubris and bigotry against LGBT minorities.
Yet neither Jesus nor the Ten Commandments spoke against LGBT people nor against same sex relationships. These religious folk have one rule for the gays and another for themselves. This is known as hypocrisy - against which Jesus also railed at length and with vehemence. His greatest commandment, to love your fellow man, is buried under the religious hubris and bigotry against LGBT minorities.
9
It's only gays they seek to punish. Divorcees who remarry get a free pass, despite this being condemned both by Jesus AND the Ten Commandments as adultery, a mortal sin punished by being burned alive for eternity in a lake of sulphurous fire.
Yet neither Jesus nor the Ten Commandments spoke against LGBT people nor against same sex relationships. These religious folk have one rule for the gays and another for themselves. This is known as hypocrisy - against which Jesus also railed at length and with vehemence. His most significant commandment, to love one another, has gotten buried beneath religious hubris and bigotry against LGBT minorities.
Yet neither Jesus nor the Ten Commandments spoke against LGBT people nor against same sex relationships. These religious folk have one rule for the gays and another for themselves. This is known as hypocrisy - against which Jesus also railed at length and with vehemence. His most significant commandment, to love one another, has gotten buried beneath religious hubris and bigotry against LGBT minorities.
1
Actually, no. I wondered about this when it was passed. The law specifically targets gay marriage and is silent on the question of remarried divorcees.
2
Not all that surprising given Mississippi's basement postion on almost every measurable criteria, especially education. The ignorant shall remain so, forever.
19
It is funny today that I read a passage from the Epistle of St. John: Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:7-8). Then I read this article. You know as a gay man living in the Deep South I am numb struck by the way human sexuality is handled here. Although it is 2017, people like Phil Bryant, whose ancestors also used Christianity to validate human slavery, has to ultimately know that hypocrisy and hate are not teachings associated with Jesus Christ. Let us love the Living God whose love and mercy is so far reaching that it does not judge as man judges. In the South let us thank God for that love and mercy. As St. Matthew writes: Pray for our persecutors. There are many good people down south; but it is a pathetic part of the country. Among other things it does not LOVE, nor does the region truly know LOVE.
16
The governor is reflecting the prevailing political culture of the state and must if plans to continue to be governor.
Ahhhh... Southern hospitality at its finest.
When is the rest of the nation going to grow tired of our backward ways and ask us to leave?
When is the rest of the nation going to grow tired of our backward ways and ask us to leave?
20
Mississippi is one of those welfare states. It receives much more in Federal funds than it pays in taxes. So everyone would be better off if Mississippi did leave the US--except for the people of Mississippi!
3
"The legislation is not meant to discriminate against anyone, but simply prevents government interference with the constitutional right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs."
I'm calling bull. I am a black male and 50 years ago, it was a sincerely held religious belief that I be denied the right to vote. 50 years before that, I wasnt even the same species as whites. 50 years before that, that same sincerely held religious belief said I could be enslaved for existing. This law is as American as apple pie from a long gone era where Americans were less evolved. How sad these same lesser evolved Americans continue to intrude on "our" America and sell this repackaged hate and stupidity as "sincerely held religious belief" to hide behind the First Amendment which offers them no protection to discriminate but only the freedom to choose any religion the wish. How glorious that we have the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to drive a stake through such bigotry and regressive idiocy.
I'm calling bull. I am a black male and 50 years ago, it was a sincerely held religious belief that I be denied the right to vote. 50 years before that, I wasnt even the same species as whites. 50 years before that, that same sincerely held religious belief said I could be enslaved for existing. This law is as American as apple pie from a long gone era where Americans were less evolved. How sad these same lesser evolved Americans continue to intrude on "our" America and sell this repackaged hate and stupidity as "sincerely held religious belief" to hide behind the First Amendment which offers them no protection to discriminate but only the freedom to choose any religion the wish. How glorious that we have the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to drive a stake through such bigotry and regressive idiocy.
34
I am confused.
The colour of my skin is a genetic issue.
Whether I am left-handed or right-handed is a genetic issue.
Whether I am straight or gay is also a genetic issue. It is not a "lifestyle" choice. Lifestyle is whether I prefer Applebee's or Friendly's for lunch.
How can a law that allows people to discriminate against other people, based on a religious belief that is contradicted by scientific facts, be justified?
The colour of my skin is a genetic issue.
Whether I am left-handed or right-handed is a genetic issue.
Whether I am straight or gay is also a genetic issue. It is not a "lifestyle" choice. Lifestyle is whether I prefer Applebee's or Friendly's for lunch.
How can a law that allows people to discriminate against other people, based on a religious belief that is contradicted by scientific facts, be justified?
42
Simple. They don't believe in science (which remains true whether you believe it or not).
3
"the legislation is not meant to discriminate against anyone, but simply prevents government interference with the constitutional right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs,” [Bryant] said.
So if, according to sincerely held religious beliefs, owned slaves or beat my spouse, Bryant would be OK with that. What a fine Christian, southern gentleman.
So if, according to sincerely held religious beliefs, owned slaves or beat my spouse, Bryant would be OK with that. What a fine Christian, southern gentleman.
22
And that said, how does one demonstrate that their religious beliefs are sincerely held. What utter hogwash. If a person says he is Christian then he ought to follow Christian rules which does not include bigotry. Only in America can this sort of nonsense allowed. But I will tell you I am very bigoted against MS and will do my best to never go there. And why go anything. All they have is mosquitoes and bigots. (Sorry to intelligent MS people.)
2
What prevents the Mississippi law that permits discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people on religious grounds to be extended to any other group? In keeping with the principle of "equal justice under law" (engraved on the outside of the Supreme Court building,) this law, if it stands, can extend to women, the disabled, atheists, non-Christians, and other ethnicities, etc.
32
The law only allows people to express their 'religious beliefs" through discrimination in regard to 1) marriage being man/woman and 2) gender identity.
It's not as broadly written was previous laws in other states. The bigots apparently learn over time.
It's not as broadly written was previous laws in other states. The bigots apparently learn over time.
1
If the law stands then presumably Mississippians can discriminate against Conservative Christians (and of course, they each get to make up their own definition of that). For example, the Governor of Mississippi. That would, of course, just be exercising their "constitutional right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs."
11
...and people/states that receive tax revenues who discriminate against these citizens. What kind of Christians are these? Not surprised that Republicans gave rise to this law.
7
I am a person who first became aware of his sexuality in 1983, in my mid-twenties. Things were so bad back then that I lost my job because I refused to go out with a girl my boss wanted to "fix me up" with. That was his way of trying to find out if I was gay or not. I am an adult. I don't need other people telling me who I should or must be friends, lovers, or spouses with. I can do that for myself. Religious people demand that right for themselves...well, so do I. Let them worry about their own pious little lives and stay out of my business. As Joan Rivers used to say, "Grow up."
37
How ironic, the “The Hospitality State” codifies legal discrimination based on so-called "sincerely held religious beliefs."
Mississippi is a haven for hate and ignorance with a long history of working to destroy the lives of non-white and now non-straight Americans.
It's another place not to visit or invest in as I practice my "religious" right to treat all people with basic dignity and respect.
Mississippi is a haven for hate and ignorance with a long history of working to destroy the lives of non-white and now non-straight Americans.
It's another place not to visit or invest in as I practice my "religious" right to treat all people with basic dignity and respect.
49
Any first-year law student will know that lack of legal standing to sue is a weak reason to throw out this case. The three-judge panel must be counting on an eventual appeal to the US Supreme Court which normally would be expected to reverse its silly ruling. They must have heard something encouraging from some of their personal friends in the Federalist Society, that clacque of orginalists that picks all GOP nominees to the Supreme Court. Perhaps "Justice" Thomas is about to retire.
The Court will still have to take the appeal or else the ruling stands. But if they take the appeal the Court is left with a 4-4 split... upholding the three-judge panel. The plaintiff's lawyers might avert this by first appealing to the full Fifth Circuit, but if enough of the judges of the Circuit are in on the originalists' game, they too will uphold so as to kick the case upward to the Supremes.
Theoretically the GOP might get punished at the ballot box but by then, they must hope, it would be too late because America will have been made "Great" again by the Orange Revolution.
The Court will still have to take the appeal or else the ruling stands. But if they take the appeal the Court is left with a 4-4 split... upholding the three-judge panel. The plaintiff's lawyers might avert this by first appealing to the full Fifth Circuit, but if enough of the judges of the Circuit are in on the originalists' game, they too will uphold so as to kick the case upward to the Supremes.
Theoretically the GOP might get punished at the ballot box but by then, they must hope, it would be too late because America will have been made "Great" again by the Orange Revolution.
9
Why a 4-4 split at the Supreme Court if we now have nine sitting justices?
2
A little over 20 states have passed these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. As might be expected given their source (conservative Christians; no one else wants them), they are a dangerous con. Although their proponents claimed they were needed to protect business people who wanted to discriminate against homosexuals, homosexuality is not mentioned. These Act authorise discrimination against anyone, provided that the person discriminating asserts a "firmly held conviction", for which no proof is required. The cases cited where business people were prosecuted for this discrimination were, necessarily, jurisdictions (state or municipal) that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such law did not exist in most of the states which passed RFRAs (although some had one or more municipalities which prohibited (inter alia) sexual-orientation discrimination), so this law made no difference, other than allowing their proponents to intimidate people that they don't like. Further, these Acts are not limited in their effect to discriminating against others. They prohibit the state from "imposing any legal burden" (for which there is no definition in law and therefore no limit) on anyone performing any otherwise illegal act on the basis of their "conviction". Even the state Penal Codes are not exempt.
"The plaintiffs now have a number of options, including requesting a rehearing of the case before the entire Fifth Circuit or appealing directly to the United States Supreme Court." What other options do the plaintiffs have? Getting the law changed in Mississippi or moving elsewhere, right?
5
"ruling states, in essence, that the plaintiffs challenging the law, many of whom are gay Mississippi residents, lacked standing because the law had not yet injured them."
This reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon a few years ago, showing an 8 year old standing before his stern looking father saying: "How am I supposed to know what the consequences are if they have not happened yet?"
This reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon a few years ago, showing an 8 year old standing before his stern looking father saying: "How am I supposed to know what the consequences are if they have not happened yet?"
9
They say that after the age of 40 everyone gets the face they deserve. Bryant exudes mean-spiritedness. I find it quite said that this can be said of so many of our political leaders.
7
Americans need to stop fooling themselves that they live in a country that is a world leader in fighting discrimination. Many Americans experience the consequences of legislated discrimination such as what is described in this article. I don't know if there is another industrialized country that does as much as America to perpetuate inequality and bigotry.
21
The idea that a single mother could be fired...well, the whole bill really is obnoxious and a big step backwards. Seems a shame that we need to spend our time and money defending discrimination.
20
I find it astounding that so much hate could fill the hearts of these so-called Christians. Some in Oregon tried to legislate a milder form of gay discrimination, but it didn't pass. It appears that there is a growing crisis in compassion amongst the true believers nationwide, and a growing theocracy in both state and federal governments.
19
Wow, Gov. Bryant states that "The legislation is not meant to discriminate against anyone, but simply prevents government interference with the constitutional right to exercise sincerely held religious beliefs." This is an ignorant man. If a government employee has a problem with performing his/her duties because of a religious or any other personal conflict, they have every right to look for work elsewhere. Every individual, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., is a citizen deserving equal treatment from his/her government. God has created us, and God will judge us. Enough with using religious beliefs to justify your prejudice and intolerance to others. I have confidence that God will judge you as well.
20
MS ranks at or near the bottom of all 50 states for health care, education, opportunity (Source: US News and World Report), and a host of other criteria including infant mortality where it has more than double the rate of MA (Souce: Kaiser Family Foundation). If it were its own country it would clearly be in the Third World. It has maintained this standing largely because of its fiercely holding on to the Confederate traditions of racism and bigotry. This has been a willful decision because in this e-connected age, any state can decide to attract tech industry and promote education, PROVIDED it can attract people who want to experience what it has to offer. The perverse need of this state to isolate itself from modernity and openness to others is a disaster for its own citizens and a huge blemish on this country as well.
43
and those demographics are very similar to what we see in the mid-east, spawning ISIS. Poor health, poor education, poor economy forces them to blame others, and couch that failure in a religious context.
11
While the law was knowingly crafted to address same-sex marriage and related LGBT civil rights, the reaech of the law is not limited to discrimination against LGBT people. Jews, mixed-race couples and more could be denied wedding-related services based on “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" and similarly any group could likewise be the victims of job and housing discrimination.
13
Exactly. It's one of the things that the bigots praising these laws fail to realize.
2
I mean, it did take them 148 years to ratify the 13th Amendment.
17
A few years back, we had a group of taxi drivers refuse to haul folks carrying alcohol. They cited religious beliefs as justification. I wonder how the folks supporting religiously based refusal to serve the LGBT community would feel about the alcohol issue.
7
If all keeps going well there I may move to Miss. They look like the only people around with their heads on straight.
1
You are free to practice your religion, as long as it does not enter into your government job, and impede your ability to do your job 100%.
Housing is different slightly, if you are a private individual renting out an attached home or a room in your home. However, that changes when you own large properties, that can not discriminate because of race, creed, color, country of origin, religion and sexual orientation. So follow the rules, or get out of the business that will not allow rental management to discriminate.
And finally, I believe anyone who does not wish to serve the LGBTs or any other group, like Muslims, should be forced by the government to display so at the main entrance, in two inch high lettering, their religious refusal, so customers do not enter the place to be denied service in front of other customers, which is humiliating. This claim of Religious freedom is a shameful act for Christians, because it is not what Jesus would do.
In addition, those signs on the front entrance of the stores would tell me, what stores I wish to deny my patronage, because of my strongly held atheist views is that we do not discriminate, period. But these businesses would be the exception, I do not reward hatred, racism, bigotry of any kind.
Housing is different slightly, if you are a private individual renting out an attached home or a room in your home. However, that changes when you own large properties, that can not discriminate because of race, creed, color, country of origin, religion and sexual orientation. So follow the rules, or get out of the business that will not allow rental management to discriminate.
And finally, I believe anyone who does not wish to serve the LGBTs or any other group, like Muslims, should be forced by the government to display so at the main entrance, in two inch high lettering, their religious refusal, so customers do not enter the place to be denied service in front of other customers, which is humiliating. This claim of Religious freedom is a shameful act for Christians, because it is not what Jesus would do.
In addition, those signs on the front entrance of the stores would tell me, what stores I wish to deny my patronage, because of my strongly held atheist views is that we do not discriminate, period. But these businesses would be the exception, I do not reward hatred, racism, bigotry of any kind.
27
Good idea!
Where can I send a donation to help fund the appeal of this discriminatory law?
7
1) And I have a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" that Christians are infidels, where is the law that allows me to feed Christians to lions?
2) The three judge panel are cowards for ruling on a technical matter like standing rather than on the substance of the issue. Make the call, you're the umpire playing in the big leagues, federal judges.
2) The three judge panel are cowards for ruling on a technical matter like standing rather than on the substance of the issue. Make the call, you're the umpire playing in the big leagues, federal judges.
19
Systemic, state-sanctioned discrimination is on the face of it an injury-of-fact.
And, as for sincerely held religious beliefs... Christ said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall attain mercy." Christ said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." I seem to have missed the part where Jesus said, "Blessed are the bigots, for they shall be free to discriminate."
And, as for sincerely held religious beliefs... Christ said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall attain mercy." Christ said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." I seem to have missed the part where Jesus said, "Blessed are the bigots, for they shall be free to discriminate."
22
"Sincerely held religious beliefs" might include Jews discriminating against Christians because of idol worship, Christians discriminating against Jews as "Christ killers", Protestants against Catholics, etc. Mississippi can go back to the religious intolerance of the Crusades and the Middle Ages.
When religious discrimination is the law of the land, it is boundless.
When religious discrimination is the law of the land, it is boundless.
35
Absurd reasoning. By that logic, only murder victims could complain against their murderers because no one alive has been killed.
12
The Columbia University legal analysis is obviously bordering on the nutty side of fruit-cakery.
There is nothing in the Mississippi law as written that would allow the bizarre examples this article quotes.
The judges apparently agree -- none of the plaintiffs have been injured -- even if "many" actually live in Mississippi.
There is nothing in the Mississippi law as written that would allow the bizarre examples this article quotes.
The judges apparently agree -- none of the plaintiffs have been injured -- even if "many" actually live in Mississippi.
1
The judges ruled no such thing. Their holding was focused solely on the technical matter of standing. Their opinion did not reach to the merits of the law.
6
Aren't we all injured when our constitutional protections are eroded, whether overtly or covertly.
6
@Kip Hansen. ???? So the law, in your view, does not allow any of these "bizarre" examples. What would it allow? What "sincerely held religious beliefs" need protecting? Is this law necessary because Christian, white males are under attack from the government coming into their homes and not letting them have their beliefs? Nonsense. The government is saying one can't discriminate at work or in business against LGBT (and race). That discrimination should be allowed??
Once you enter "the marketplace", which is to say leave your room or church, you play by the rules of the society. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran. One can always choose to stay at home or in their church, where they are free to discriminate to their heart's content.
Once you enter "the marketplace", which is to say leave your room or church, you play by the rules of the society. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran. One can always choose to stay at home or in their church, where they are free to discriminate to their heart's content.
6
This law demonstrates so clearly the doublethink described by George Orwell in "1984." It supports freedom of religion by protecting discrimination.
For many people who are not LGBT, this law shows why we all must support the rights of the LGBT community. No one can say "I'm not in favor of discriminating against gays, but it doesn't affect me directly." This law allows the imposition of the religious beliefs of an employer on the behavior of its employees!
For many people who are not LGBT, this law shows why we all must support the rights of the LGBT community. No one can say "I'm not in favor of discriminating against gays, but it doesn't affect me directly." This law allows the imposition of the religious beliefs of an employer on the behavior of its employees!
69
The poorest, unhealthiest, and most bigoted state in the nation clings to those tenets that keep its citizens in the dark ages---and they choose to ignore their own self-inflicted wounds as they cherry-pick what they read in their bible.