Skip to main content

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant

Mississippi Republicans have passed an anti-gay "religious freedom" law, but don't worry, they say, because it's not quite as bad as the one vetoed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year. An earlier version of the law signed by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant this week was closer to the Arizona bill, and was shelved after opposition from business groups.

There seems to be uncertainty about what the bill, which the Associated Press describes as "vaguely worded," would actually do, but Adam Serwer reports that:

... contrary to the beliefs of the Mississippi Economic Council, religious right activists clearly envision the Mississippi law as empowering businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples in the name of religion. Shortly after the Mississippi law passed, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Center, released a statement saying as much.

“Whether it’s someone like Pastor Telsa DeBerry who was hindered by the Holly Springs city government from building a new church in the downtown area, or a wedding vendor, whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage,’ the provisions of RFRA would apply to prevent the government from discriminating against religious exercise,” Perkins said. ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”  

That's just lovely. It's a law now, and religious right activists are feeling good about it, so, hey, let's take it on faith that it's not going to lead to horrible discrimination. After all, it's being enforced by the government of Mississippi, a state with no legal protections for LGBT people to begin with. Trust is definitely the watchword here.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:55 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  so in MS, gays are the ones not wearing the (9+ / 0-)

    stars & bars

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:58:39 AM PDT

    •  gay or not gay in MS (6+ / 0-)

      Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

      by annieli on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:07:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No Discrimination (0+ / 0-)

      I agree that there should be no discrimination against "gays". However there are a small number of cases where the free expression of religious beliefs should be protected.
      A case in point was the couple who owned a bakery. A lesbian couple who identified themselves as such and who requested that the couple make them a wedding cake. The bakery couple would have produced anything else for them, but could not make a wedding cake because that would have been in violation of the free expression of their religious beliefs.
      Much litigation occurred as a result, the couple was forced to close the bakery.
      I would welcome a reasonable reply to this.  

      •  Where do we draw the line? (0+ / 0-)

        Where I would tend to think it reasonable is for the baker to be free to refuse to do cakes with decorations that they find offensive or don't agree with, but not to be able to turn away customers per se.

        It's a subtle distinction, because the "Christian" baker could simply refuse to make a cake with two same-sex figures on top, if that's what the couple wanted -- but might still end up selling a cake to a same-sex couple where they don't want the figures on top of the cake anyway.

        But why I think this is a reasonable distinction is because it is the difference between artistic expression and just providing a service.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:02:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're in. Public Business. Serving the Public. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Anderson, Salty516, meinoregon

          You aren't a church, temple, synagogue, cathedral, mosque, abbey, seminary, monastery, etc.

          You don't want to serve gays, move to Iran or to Russia...

          •  That was not the issue (0+ / 0-)

            General serving gays was not the issue In this case. The bakery couple could not have a de facto participation in a homosexual wedding by producing a cake symbolizing that wedding. As I said before,they would've produced anything else for the Lesbian couple. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. The question to be answered is the limits of that free exercise.
            Denial of entry into the bakery by the lesbian couple, or denial of the production of any product other than a wedding cake would have been beyond the limits of free expression. In this case the making of a symbolic lesbian wedding cake would have violated this couple's right to free expression. Please keep in mind that extremes should be avoided, to either the right of political beliefs, or the left of political beliefs. Please also remember that the free expression of religious beliefs Is not limited to being within a church, temple, synagogue, Cathedral, mosque, Abby, seminary, monastery, etc. That free expression can be performed in public so long as it stays within constitutional limits.

          •  Did you actually bother to read... (0+ / 0-)

            ...what I wrote?  Specifically, this:

            Where I would tend to think it reasonable is for the baker to be free to refuse to do cakes with decorations that they find offensive or don't agree with, but not to be able to turn away customers per se.
            Where does that say that they should be free to refuse service?

            Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

            by TexasTom on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 01:01:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  They are free to hate, but taking that hate out on (0+ / 0-)

          others has a price. This is as it should be. You can believe in ritual murder but carrying it out is a crime.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:32:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Anderson

        If such a bakery were open to the general public, they should have a right to discriminate, or to claim exemption from a local or state anti-discrimination law. Period.

        Would it be acceptable for a business owner to cite religion in refusing to serve black people or Latinos? Or in refusing to serve an interracial couple? Or does one contend that sexual orientation should not qualify for the same protections as race, religion or ethnicity?

        •  Oops. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Anderson

          Meant to read "they should not have a right to discriminate".

        •  I agree but . . (0+ / 0-)

          I certainly agree that there can be no religious justification, nor constitutional justification, for refusing to serve people on the basis of race or ethnicity.
          In the drive for the protection of the rights of homosexuals, there is a mistaken tendency to equate homosexuality with race or ethnicity.
          Homosexuality is an aberration of the human species which has always existed, which exists now, and which will probably always exist.
          Homosexuality can be due to physical, psychological, emotional or environmental reasons.
          Humans who are gay, should have the same constitutional rights as straights.
          The only limits to those rights would be actions beyond the pale.
          A business owner would not have any right to deny service to a gay couple.
          However, he would have the right to reject them from the business establishment if they were found to be having sex in his business bathroom.

          •  Wow... (0+ / 0-)

            ...there is so much wrong with this statement, I don't know where to start. If you insist on speaking in stereotypes, then don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously.

            Wow...just...wow...

          •  Heh, so says the ignorant straight person: (0+ / 0-)
            Homosexuality is an aberration of the human species..
            First of all, educate yourself a little, it's not just confined to humans.

            Secondly, homosexuality evolved because it promotes the perpetuation of genes. Natural selection selected for homosexuality.

            Wow, think about that.

            Oh wait, you can't. Because you don't even believe in evolution... That's alright, go back to your ignorance and your big daddy in the sky mythology. This is too complex for you to understand.

            Bwahahahahaha.
             

            •  Understanding . . . (0+ / 0-)

              I understand far better than you can imagine. Your "theory" statement is quite inaccurate. How can you possibly assume to know what I believe or don't believe about various aspects of evolution?
              By the way, my comprehension of complex matters is excellent,since I have a genius level IQ.
              I suggest that you take some lessons in rational discourse.

            •  Aberration?? Does this person know how many (0+ / 0-)

              species in the wild engage in homosexual behavior?  It's in the hundreds.  Have they ever lived on a farm for a while? I am all in favor of prosecuting "crimes against Nature"! Like poisoning a community's water supply.  Contaminating air and farmland to create "cancer clusters".  Wiping out entire species. Denuding the land of topsoil.  Killing other creatures for "the sport of it".  Destroying the natural legacy we should be leaving to future generations.  Yes, let's prosecute, and impose the death penalty for the guilty.

          •  what if heterosexuals were having sex (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JuliathePoet

            In the business bathroom?

          •  Why do you assume this to be true? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JuliathePoet
            there can be no religious justification, nor constitutional justification, for refusing to serve people on the basis of race or ethnicity.
            Do you know that slave owners routinely used religion to justify their holding of African slaves as property?
            Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible, Brinton says.

                They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).
            How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

            I would like a reasonable response from you explaining how the Mississippi law just passed could not be used by someone to say they can own black slaves, based on their religion.

            Oddly, the CNN article that I cited mentions abolition in the title, but not in the articles itself. However, I think the whole point of this argument is that using scripture to defend the abolition of slavery is in defense of freedom of the target of the belief, whereas the Mississippi law uses religious believe to deprive the target of the belief of service. As MLK would say the Mississippi is therefore an unjust law, same as racial segregation laws were.

            Finally, you write:

            However, he would have the right to reject them from the business establishment if they were found to be having sex in his business bathroom.
            OK, fair enough. So straight people can continue to have sex in the bathroom? That is OK with the owner, your statement suggests. Also, leaving aside the active sex scenario, how does the business owner tell whether customers are gay? Sure, asking for a lesbian wedding cake is obvious. But what if the customers don't ask for anything obviously homosexual? Sounds like the there is an ambiguity over whether the business owner feels religiously compelled to refuse service to people who ask for gay things, but not to people who are actually gay but who don't show it. That seems to be an odd way to advance one's religious freedom if one wants to eliminate gayness from the world.
            •  Freedom of speech (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lastamendment, sendtheasteroid

              "Sure, asking for a lesbian wedding cake is obvious. But what if the customers don't ask for anything obviously homosexual?"

              Correct. The couple could have asked for a cake for an undisclosed private celebration, in which case they would have been essentially coerced by a misguided law into a don't ask, don't tell situation. Their right of free speech, to say the words "for our gay wedding" clearly trumps the bakery's supposed right of religious practice as a licensed public business.

          •  Aberration? Really? (0+ / 0-)

            Nice way to qualify YOUR bigotry.

      •  When they opened to the public as a Bakery... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VPofKarma

        ... they tossed out any "beliefs" that would be upheld in that business.

        Why?

        The Bakery is not a church! It is not a place of worship, nor is it a religious-aligned nonprofit, or any other permutation that says "this establishment caters to X Religion Only".

        Now, if they WANTED to run their shop that way, hey, I'm sure the IRS would let them... as long as they didn't make much money at it.  

        But when you are open to the public as a for-profit enterprise, you either reserve the right to turn ANYONE away, no reason given, or you serve EVERYONE who walks up, calls, emails, or otherwise arranges goods and services for legal tender during your posted business hours.  Them's the rules.

        The Rich and Spoiled 1%'ers are making the Biker Gang 1%'ers look a lot better than they used to.

        by dcnblues on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 12:04:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rules . . (0+ / 0-)

          I see the point that you are trying to make. I think there needs to be clear definition of the meaning of free expression of religious beliefs. It certainly is not limited to being within the walls of a church, synagogue, temple or whatever. There is a free expression right in the daily practice of activities. What limits there are to that free expression is the question. Certainly, no one should advocate the extremes of "1984", or Stalinist rule. The question to be answered is what balance there needs to be in the granting of one set of rights versus the denial of another set of rights.

        •  They would have been happy to serve the gay couple (0+ / 0-)

          but not to make them a wedding cake.  They never said they wouldn't serve them.  Did they want a doughnut?  A croissant?  Maybe a nice apple pie?  No?  Gotta be a wedding cake?  How about a birthday cake, instead?  Or a cake celebrating someone's graduation from high school or college?  No?  Gotta be a wedding cake?  Then sorry, they wouldn't do that.

          There's a difference between refusing to serve a gay couple and refusing to bake a wedding cake for them.  The bakery shoulda won the case.

          "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill, 1806 - 1873

          by Terry S on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:55:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raspberryberet

            So, if I walk into a store wanting to buy a certain item, the owner has the right to refuse to sell it to me on religious principle?  But I should think it's okay if he sells me something I don't want?  Like a pharmacist who doesn't believe in contraception could say "no" to birth control pills but could agree to sell me laxatives instead?  There is no acceptable substitute for a wedding cake either---none, nada---do you see how this just doesn't work?

      •  Oh yeah. But it didn't violate their (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpaK, JuliathePoet, CookieThumper

        expression of religious beliefs when their tax money was wrested from their grasp and sent overseas, so "heroes" could shoot barefoot peasants from helicopters?  Tender little particular religious consciences they've got over one narrow subject. Do they refuse wedding cakes to Muslims, and baby shower cakes to single mothers, and birthday cakse to children with birth defects, too? How convenient their consciences function in such a way as to allow them to act like the a$$holes they really are.

      •  Reply to your post (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliathePoet

        Please know that the term "gay marriage" does not sit well with me. Marriage is a religious state in my opinion and belief. What we have here is a civil union, a legal construct that creates a contract between two persons of the same gender that confers the legal rights and obligations of the state of marriage. In my opinion, the government has the duty to define the legal and civil details that provide for the contract between two consenting adults.

        What is a free expression of religious belief? When does that free expression become intrusive and infringe on the free expression of other people's lives? Is there a point of denying them simple human interaction? Should a private, for profit business be allowed to choose who to serve and who to deny to serve based on the owner's beliefs, religious or otherwise, in a free society?

        In the USA, you may believe what you want, say what you want (within reason), practice NEARLY ANY religion you want and not be persecuted for that practice (human and animal sacrifices may be going too far).

        Religious expression stops short of denying service, rights or equal legal protection to another person or persons. Religious expression stops short of denying another person the right or ability to live. Thus hospitals cannot deny healing service to Muslims; restaurants can no longer deny food service to African Americans; Religious social service agencies must provide services to persons of all faiths as well as to persons of no faith in keeping with their mission.

        If the bakers felt they would be seen as supporting a lesbian union, then I really feel sorry for them. I can't tell them how to feel, I can only say that if you are in business, you do what is legal and moral and ethical and you serve you customers to the best of your ability regardless of your personal religious or political views. Otherwise, you are not cut out to be in business.

        •  you have a right to your opinion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JuliathePoet

          But not to your own facts. Marriage is a legal, socioeconomic instititution that has existed in every known society throughout history and has predated organized religion. And continues to be of great importance to most people today, regardless of their religion, including those with no religion.Your religion might have rules regarding marriage, just as some religions have dietary laws or clothing requirements. But that doesn't make it a religious state any more than food or clothing are religious states.

        •  Marriage, unions, et al. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skyprogress, JuliathePoet
          Please know that the term "gay marriage" does not sit well with me. Marriage is a religious state in my opinion and belief.
          And some religions have absolutely no problem with it. There are several religious officials who would marry a gay couple without blinking an eye. Similarly, there are others who won't marry a couple unless at least one of them belongs to that official's religion.

          Granted, I do think it would be worthwhile to explicitly (ahem) divorce the "state-recognized contract" from the "religious institution" in language. I've proposed taking the word "marriage" completely out of laws for that very reason. You could go to the courthouse for the legal part, or a church for the religious part, but neither of them would have any effect on the other.

          Former libertarian...who grew up.

          by RevBobMIB on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 04:23:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The bakery violated the Public Accommodation Law. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RevBobMIB, JuliathePoet

        ORS 659A.403 provides that (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

        What that means is that if you CHOOSE to provide services or products for SALE in the State of Oregon (and all states and the Federal government also have public accommodation laws), you cannot discriminate in providing those services or products based on someone's sexual orientation.  Period.  If you sell wedding cakes to straight people, you cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay person.  It is really very simple and  common fairness.

        Commerce cannot discriminate.  If you want to preserve your God-given right to discriminate against gay people or Black people or Muslims or Mexicans, don't go into business.  Pretty simple really.

      •  No Discrimination (0+ / 0-)

        Where did this happen?  What did the lesbian couple want on the cake that would have offended the bakery couple?

        •  It happened in Oregon (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sendtheasteroid

          And funny thing, more people in Oregon value nondiscrimination.  They were out of business before the lawsuit was ever heard. Turns out they didn't have a lot of business anyway, and the lesion couple who were trying to "shop local" probably would have been a bigger help than all the free publicity they got from refusing to serve them.

          They told a reporter at the time of the lawsuit,  that they believed that by "standing for religious freedom and the right to live and run their business based in their religious beliefs," that their customers would respect that and stand by them. Ironically, the bakery was empty during the interview,  and it stayed that way. They did a lot of "free publicity" interviews, but it just hurt their business more. If they hoped for a Chick-fil-a type response,  with long lines of people coming to support they,  they bet wrong.

      •  Hmmmmm (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JuliathePoet, sendtheasteroid

        When you open a business to serve the public you are expected to serve all the public.  You may, of course, establish reasonable restrictions...no shirt, no shoes and that sort of thing.  You may also have restrictions such as "tie required" but you must apply those restrictions equally.

        With regard to the baker, there are a couple things that are relevant.  First, they didn't only decline to make the cake they also lectured the prospective customers on how terrible they were, etc.

        The Constitution assures that the government won't install a religion, and it promises that everyone may practice their own religion as they see fit.  That, however, doesn't mean that religious practices are carte blanche legal.  If your faith includes killing children as sacrifices then other laws come into play.  Similarly the Constitution does not suggest that you are free to inflict your religion upon others.  So, you may view the LGBTQ lifestyle as "sinful" or "inappropriate"...and you can certainly express those thoughts to others, however, in most states you can't discriminate.

        So...you could refuse to make a cake with raspberry filling if you simply don't make that style, but you can't tell one customer you won't make it and then make it for another.  If you open a business to the public, you get all the public, not just the folks you happen to like.

      •  Just bake the goddamned cake. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raspberryberet

        That would have taken care of everything. Ever hear  the adage  "The customer is always right"?
        And the couple was not forced to close anything. They chose discrimination, based on some sort of religion but I've heard of none that would deny the baking of a cake. Is that a 'christian' thing? ".
        And if you knew how much money "gay folk" spend at bakeries, maybe you would change your tune and welcome their business, you know, like NORMAL business people.

      •  Mississippi governor (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raspberryberet

        When you apply for a business license to do business with the public, it says you have to do with business with all people not just people that have your religious beliefs. If you want to run a business based on your religion and your religious believes then open up a club business and state it is only for members that have religious believes like your yours, charge a fee to join and then let your customers pay for your products. Running a business for profit means that religion is not part of that business, that is why Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple, for making a profit in God's holy Temple. Own a business that is for profit and you sell to the general public, your religion nor your religious beliefs belong in business building.

        IMPEACH THE 5 REPUBLICAN SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. THEIR POLITICS NOT THE CONSTITUTION DECIDES WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL

        VOTE NOVEMBER 2014

    •  So, the good people of Mississippi (0+ / 0-)

      desire to waste their sparse tax dollars in defending this idiotic and unconstitutional law, then decry those who fight for their equal treatment under our Constitution as evil, as they wasted the tax dollars.
      Or some other shit.

  •  With Careful Legal Advice of Course, One Logical (10+ / 0-)

    course would be to stage a confrontation to set up a lawsuit.

    As a wedding musician in another state, I'd be willing step in to be shocked, shocked that my religious beliefs were being annoyed, if my legal expenses were covered.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 08:59:23 AM PDT

  •  Here's to the State of Mississippi (11+ / 0-)

    "Stupidity is far more dangerous than evil, for evil takes a break from time to time, stupidity does not." -- Anatole France

    by terremoto on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:09:58 AM PDT

  •  Not that I was planning to vacation in Mississippi (13+ / 0-)

    but now I'm definitely not planning to vacation in Mississippi!

    "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Nespolo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:14:12 AM PDT

    •  No Super Bowl for You (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla

      of course they were never getting the Super Bowl anyway so they don't care how many Americans they offend.

      Americans can make our country better.

      by freelunch on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:32:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My thought exactly. I'm not sure how Mississippi (6+ / 0-)

      could be boycotted because who the fuck ever goes there in the first place.  

      The only place I would want to go in Mississippi would be the place where civil rights heroes Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman were murdered by the Ku Kluckers, but apparently, the good people of Mississippi have obscured the signs and have made it almost impossible to find the site.  

      They build shrines to every Confederate asshole who ever served the Stars and Bars, but piss on the memories of the people who died for human rights that they killed in cold blood.  It is really hard to think of a more fucked up place than Mississippi, perhaps South Carolina?

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:57:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No Mississippi River cruises (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, anon004

      with stops at charming plantations in Natchez where the docents refer to the house slaves as "domestics."  

      Is there anything else we can boycott from Mississippi?  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:57:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe you should go. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anon004, Cartoon Peril, dotdash2u, j4k

      Boycotting Mississippi isn't going to work. The economic pain of the boycott would be indistinguishable over the economic pain of being Mississippi -- the poorest state in the country.

      How would you go about boycotting Mississippi?  Stop eating shrimp and chicken?  Mississippi has no marquee, name brand products.  It makes food and cheap commodities.  This is a state where the second largest employer is  RPM Pizza, a chain of Domino's Pizza franchises.

      Boycotting Mississippi isn't going to be like kicking someone when they're down; it'd be like kicking them after they've been run over by a truck. I'm sure there are plenty of people in Mississippi who don't deserve that.  Putting some shrimp fisherman out of business isn't going to change anything.

      Maybe the problem is that Mississippi is so insular. They're economy isn't that strongly tied into the rest of the country or the world.   In the fifty years since the Peace Corps was founded, Mississippi has sent only 467 volunteers overseas.  In 2011, they sent only 795 students to study abroad, compared to 1740 for New Hampshire, a state with a comparable population.

      So maybe what we should do is go there.  Make a pilgrmage to the great civil rights sites.  Do a little fishing. Introduce the good people of Mississippi to a lot of friendly liberals, maybe even a few gays.   I bet most stores, hotels, even fishing guides aren't going to turn away customers because they're gay.  Reward the tolerant businesses rather than punish everyone, and things will start to change.

      I've lost my faith in nihilism

      by grumpynerd on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:35:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Boycotting won't be necessary... IF.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catilinus

        ....if all the national entertainers that are booked into the casinos on the Gulf Coast, and up in North Mississippi are made to feel the heat from their fans about accepting engagements in the state that discriminates.  No doubt some of these entertainers will applaud this law, and would go anyway, but if enough acts back out, and others won't go, then trust me, the law will be stricken down faster than... well.. choose your own religious metaphor....

  •  Just wait until (18+ / 0-)

    a Muslim tries to assert his or her rights under this new law.  They'll repeal it in a minute.

    "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Nespolo on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:16:44 AM PDT

  •  ”The Founders never envisioned ..." (6+ / 0-)

    THAT is how you know someone has nothing to offer, nothing valid or truthful, nothing but his own addled head.

    Tony Perkins upon hearing his adolescent daughter is growing up:
    "Oh god, mother no!  There's blood, mother!!!"

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

  •  Best. Tourist Attraction. Ever. (6+ / 0-)

    Come to Mississippi. Come see our "Religious Freedom."

  •  Even in the reddest zones are about 40% blue (7+ / 0-)

    so concerted boycott efforts by pro-equality citizens can probably make a nasty dent in the profits of every business that cares to openly assert its discriminatory intent.   It'll be a lotta work but I think we can make it happen.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:24:53 AM PDT

  •  Pathetic, Shameful, Sickening (13+ / 0-)

    A gay disabled Vietnam veteran sees what is happening.  It is a law based in hatred - thinly disguised as religious freedom.  What utter bullshit.

  •  Hmm. (12+ / 0-)
    ...whose orthodox Christian faith will not allow her to affirm same-sex ‘marriage,’...
    So, providing services to a same sex couple is the same as affirming the relationship?  

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:24:57 AM PDT

  •  It's supposed to be ... (7+ / 0-)

    ... freedom from religion.

    Can we take back all the highways we built in that state?

    "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

    by MikeTheLiberal on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:25:52 AM PDT

  •  Perkins: Self-serving Phony or Self-ordained God? (6+ / 0-)

    Or both?

    ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”

    No, of course not. They clearly envisioned a government under which "Freedom for All" was just an inside joke. Just totally busted Franklin up every time he heard it.

    "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy"-- James Madison

    by Bad Cog on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:26:36 AM PDT

    •  Eh, they kinda did. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bad Cog

      Not a whole lotta people were allowed to vote, under the original plan.

      •  And John Roberts is working on returning to that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp

        Why should all Americans get to vote just because there's a constitutional amendment that says they should.

        Americans can make our country better.

        by freelunch on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:34:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a matter of fact, you don't have a (0+ / 0-)

          Constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election.
             In fact, in 2000, the Florida state legislature met in special session. The idea was that the state legislatures can determine how electors are selected, and some Republicans intended to try to have the legislature appoint the state electors if Gore won the state.

      •  I've got to give you your point. It's true. (0+ / 0-)

        And here I am, a guy who harps on the point of putting people's actions before their words. Should have applied my own formula.

        So, how about this: The Founders were smart enough to realize what actual justice was, and recognized it in writing while under duress: ""We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
        But they admitted this Fundamental right for self-serving reasons as much as to be honest-- keeping their heads on their own shoulders.

        Once the British threat lessened, though, they quickly showed they had no plans of living by those literal words, instead putting the most personally advantageous path first, again-- thus, The Federalist Papers, the continued turning of a blind eye to slavery (Too profitable for those who put self-advancement before integrity to resist), and the oppression of women (to every man his kingdom)?

        Apologies for getting wordy; you struck a cord.

        "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy"-- James Madison

        by Bad Cog on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:10:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "People Clinging to Their Guns, Religion, & (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikeTheLiberal, MrJersey, RichM, anon004

    Antipathy Towards Those Who Differ."

    There's a whole lot in common with right-wing bigots and assholes in Mississippi and the right-wing bigots and assholes here in Pennsytucky/North Alabama/Tinfoilhatsylvania/teabagger heaven.

    •  Scared, ignorant people looking for a way to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anon004

      assuage their fears though authoritarian religion and their personal weapons.  The big problems start when they finally realize that neither makes them feel any less fearful and they start to act out like disappointed little children.  

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:02:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are we surprised there is religious intolerance? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, Mr MadAsHell

    Why?

    For millennia, it was "Us against Them". Purists fending off Infidels. Now and once again, evil influences are storming their barricades with laws that limit ... their freedom to be bigots.

    It's not a new story.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:31:28 AM PDT

  •  And now for Step 2: (7+ / 0-)

    Spend a boatload of taxpayer money defending this law in a court battle that Mississippi will lose.

    •  Imagine (0+ / 0-)

      all of the time and money we as a country have wasted fending of conservative bigotry.

      I imagine a few hungry kids and adults, a few homeless people, a few unemployed, a few cancer patients, and a few service members could and would use that money and time so much more wisely.

      Strange but not a stranger.

      by jnww on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:48:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not so sure that this law is unconstitutional. (0+ / 0-)

      It claims to be a protection for religious freedom. I suspect that somebody's "religious freedom" would have to induce them to violate, say, the public accommodations laws and reuse service to someone on account of race for the courts to throw out the Ms law.
        Cases like the N.M. wedding photographer would simply be decided in favor of the photographer in Ms. As they would in any state in which gays are not a protected class.

  •  Just as Republicans term (8+ / 0-)

    right to sack laws as "right to work laws", these religious freedom laws are nothing but right to hate laws.

  •  Unreconstructed throwbacks (8+ / 0-)

    All the governor's horses and all the governor's men,
    cannot bring back the 19th century, again.

    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:34:30 AM PDT

  •  Federal judge to strike down OH ban? (0+ / 0-)

    So says WLWT in Cincinnati:

    http://m.wlwt.com/...

  •  We need to respect their values! (9+ / 0-)

    Next time a hurricane mows through there we need to protect them from any aid since it comes from tax money, some of which inevitably was paid by gay people.

    We really need to protect their values for them.

    Manufacturing outrage; the only manufacturing jobs Republicans won't outsource.

    by get the red out on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:44:33 AM PDT

  •  Well, that's another state (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr MadAsHell

    I will never set foot in. WTH is wrong with these people?

    America is a COUNTRY, not a CORPORATION. She doesn't need a CEO. Vote Obama.

    by manneckdesign on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:44:59 AM PDT

  •  Call me naive. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    live1, Front Toward Enemy, apimomfan2

    But how in the world is this even remotely defensible?

    Religious "freedom" now means that it can trample all over constitutional rights?

    We're closer to a Christian Taliban theocracy than I thought.

    The most violent element in society is ignorance.

    by Mr MadAsHell on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:49:29 AM PDT

  •  What the Founders meant (0+ / 0-)
    Perkins said. ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”
    Does this mean, then, that the Founders envisioned a government that forced people to choose between who they are and their human dignity?

    "There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion." Lyndon Johnson

    by pkgoode on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 09:50:24 AM PDT

  •  Save your Dixie Cups (0+ / 0-)

    The South will rise again! Doubtless taking the rest of us down with it.

    •  Dixie Cups are a Koch brothers product!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji
      •  Boycott DIXIE CUPS!!! Koch Bros. product (0+ / 0-)

        The free exercise of the free market right to refuse to purchase the products of private corporations for whatever or any reason is what the Kochs view as their victimization by "collectivists" "communists with purchasing power" ...  

        If "free speech" equals "mo' money" then if you dent their "mo money" you impact their "free speech" ... of course this means their free speech is paid for by your purchase.
         

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:56:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dixie cups, etc. (0+ / 0-)

        Do you know a site that lists products made by the Koch companies?

        They have their fingers in so many different pies its almost impossible to keep from further enriching them at the supermarket or mall.

  •  the red states (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DuzT, Front Toward Enemy, apimomfan2

    just like the con movement have to have someone to hate that is the only thing that motivates them to do anything and motivate them it does in triplicate.

    if the right spent a fraction of the time they do on hating on doing something constructive imagine what a difference they could make in the progress of our society and the hurt and malice they would remove from peoples daily lives.

    save america defeat all republicans and conservatives

  •  Big problem with this: (7+ / 0-)

    Let's say on a lark I just set up my own religion.  According to it, I cannot serve my awesome chili to white people.  If I am not allowed to go through with this because my religion isn't "legitimate", then we have just handed over the decision of what constitutes acceptable and not acceptable religious beliefs to the government.

    Ick.

    •  Yes, that's always bothered me about all laws... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterlust, skralyx, dotdash2u

      ...that try to "protect" specific religious beliefs. Most religious beliefs are by definition things that are taken on faith and that have no evidence behind them. From that, it follows that anyone can arbitrarily make up anything at all and call it their religious beliefs (and in fact, that's how all religious beliefs come into existence: someone makes them up and then they spread as memes and become "traditional" over time). So these laws, as written, mean that everyone has carte blanche to break any law they want, as long as they claim to be doing it for a religious reason.

      Of course, that's not the intent of the people who write these laws, nor is it how they actually function in practice. In practice, what happens is that they simply create a de facto privilege for certain religious beliefs, and not others, under the law. That's actually the intent of the conservatives who write them: they think that Christian beliefs should be privileged in the law above other beliefs, because they think that Christianity is true and other religious beliefs (and lack of religious beliefs) are false. This is what Christian Dominionism is all about, and it's why these kinds of laws need to be fought tooth and nail, in the courts if necessary. Majority opinion should not be good enough under our constitution to get religious beliefs enshrined in law.

      (I also think that this is true of certain other laws, such as the grounds on which someone could be accepted as a conscientious objector in some of our past wars: there is an ugly history there of privileging objections based in organized religion over objections based in personal philosophy, for example).

  •  It's Not Just Gay Discrimination (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DuzT, apimomfan2

    What would stop a fundamentalist Muslim business from refusing to serve women who aren't (according to them) properly covered? What would stop religious pacifists from refusing to serve members of the military? I'm sure you all can think of many other examples of legal prejudice that might occur given laws like this. Very dangerous territory...

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:10:00 AM PDT

  •  Mississippi Taliban (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    or just American Taliban. The pinheads HATE that.

  •  This is one of those things (0+ / 0-)

    that is gonna cause problems for the right.

    They think this will all be ok, but a couple of vendors are going to be publicly shamed and it will start negitvily effecting business.

    Soon these morons are gonna figure out that bigotry is not good business. Go ask Papa Johns, Chick-filla or Mozilla.

    This is just a law that allows jerks to identify themselves so the rest of us does not have to give them our money anymore.

    The threat to our way of life comes from corporations, and the solution is to shrink corporations while freeing government from corporate control.

    by gbaked on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:35:19 AM PDT

  •  If the core of your faith (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, Teiresias70, roadbear

    Is dehumanizing others , maybe your faith needs to be reconsidered.

  •  As if Mississippi wasn't backwards enough already (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    The last person to escape that fetid swamp should flush twice.

    "Life is short, but long enough to get what's coming to you." --John Alton

    by Palafox on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:36:31 AM PDT

  •  While the bill's authors are ostentatiously making (0+ / 0-)

    a point, this law doesn't have much real world effect. As someone noted, LGBT people aren't a protected class in Mississippi anyway.

  •  I Was Born And Raised In Mississippi (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2

    I now live in Florida, but still have close relatives who live in Biloxi where I was born.  I believe that Miss. should be boycotted extremely hard.  Miss. has turned into a cesspool of hate and intolerance.  Miss. has always been backwards, but now I think there is no hope for Miss. at all.  At one point I almost went back to live there, but can't even imagine it anymore.  Don't get me wrong I love my heritage that I still see there, and will still go there to visit my sister, but I would not be sad to see the state lose business.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 10:55:28 AM PDT

  •  It's all too easy... (0+ / 0-)

    ...to become discouraged and disgusted by events such as this - or, perhaps, to wonder, "Must every two steps forward be accompanied by at least one step back?" - but it's been my observance in the last few years that the words and actions of the Tony Perkinses and Phil Bryants of the world are ultimately self-defeating.

    The more strident, punitive and vindictive opponents of progress have become, and the more they dig in their heels in their attempts to put what they realize is an ultimately futile drag on that progress, the more others have been driven away from their messaging rather than towards it.

    If remembering this is not enough to sustain you on a day like today - or if you don't believe it - and you happened to miss it here on DK or elsewhere yesterday, take a couple minutes to read about and watch this video.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    It'll make you feel a whole lot better not only about progress but, well, people in general.    

  •  The Founders (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StevenWells, apimomfan2, Teiresias70

    ”The Founders never envisioned a government forcing Americans to choose between the basic teachings of their faith and losing their livelihood.”

    So then why are we forcing employees to adopt their employer's personal religious beliefs to remain employed?

  •  Phil Bryant... as in "Anita Bryant"? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM

    I wonder if they're any relation, or if the troglodytic ignorance they have in common is just an ugly coincidence?

    I live in Mississippi, and there's a lot about the state I love... but our stupid fucking Southern Baptists aren't one of those 'em.  And the penchant that the people those Southern Baptists keep electing have toward doing things that embarrass the state is awfully hard to take.

    It's frustrating.  A lot of my neighbors get mad because everybody thinks our state is full of backwards-ass idiots... but they don't realize that the reputation is well-earned and they're the reason for a lot of it.   We do have some smart people here, and I see racism and homophobia dying out among the younger generation... but there are still to many idiots.  And they still have a religion that aggressively follows stupid, wrong ideas, even if they have to go against the teachings of Jesus to do it.  That's what you get when you mix Christianity with right-wing politics -- the destruction of both the religion and the politics... and a bunch of policies that aren't good for anyone.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:14:46 AM PDT

  •  And how, exactly, Mississippi, are business owners (0+ / 0-)

    to recognize same-sex couples, as opposed to say, two friends of the same sex?  Lie-detector tests at the door of the restaurant or store?  Or just by how they look?  So, two heterosexual girlfriends who look too butch?  Two heterosexual bros who look too femme?  Racial discrimination was way easier for those small-business owners, wasn't it?

    Armed! I feel like a savage! Barbarella

    by richardvjohnson on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:21:27 AM PDT

    •  Apparently it is possible to tell by various (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli

      verbal clues.  I think one of them is how people pronounce their vowels but I would be willing to bet there are others.  Want to bet that there will be a real Android "gaydar" app out fairly soon (the ones out now are all joke apps that use the tilt sensor).

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:19:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Every black man in Mississippi... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uncle Moji, annieli

    Just became 'vaguely gay'.

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

    by RichM on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:28:01 AM PDT

  •  Crash and burn (0+ / 0-)

    I wish someday someone would explain why Republican lawmakers are so intent on legislating crap that is nearly certain to crash and burn in the courts, wasting the taxpayers' money.

    In 2010 AND 2011, I paid more taxes than General Electric.

    by GrogInOhio on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:16 AM PDT

  •  "so, hey, let's take it on faith that (0+ / 0-)

    it's not going to lead to horrible discrimination. After all, it's being enforced by the government of Mississippi, a state with no legal protections for LGBT people to begin with. Trust is definitely the watchword here. "

    And no history of systematically discriminating against any other minority group based upon inherent characteristics, like, say, skin color.  Oh, wait . . .

  •  Blatant move towards Theocracy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Teiresias70
    It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.
    those who are trying to quarantine faith within the walls of our churches or homes," Perkins said
    http://www.politico.com/...

    Biblical Law is in a desperate race to beat Sharia Law to the finish line. I lose in either case.


    The next house I build will be a military industrial complex. It seems to be the only structure that is impervious to anything man, or nature, can throw at it.

    by glb3 on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 11:41:15 AM PDT

  •  Organized religion: a mind destroyer. (0+ / 0-)
  •  The law attempts to create a cutout not in the AZ (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Goose for Obama

    law, in that it says the "state" or any of its "political subdivisions" cannot act against a person who acts, or who refuses to act,  based on their "sincerely held religious beliefs" regardless of whether or not those "sincerely held religious beliefs" are actually supported by any actual religious text or religious group or tenet.  

    It attempts to separate private business actions from state actions.  It says individuals may sue one another in civil court (meaningless because MS does not offer equal protection to LGBT citizens) - so the private photographer who refuses to photograph my wedding can be sued by me in civil court (I would lose), but that the state cannot act against a person who takes discriminatory action, Jim Crow action, if that person claims "sincerely held religious beliefs" at a state university or a state hospital or any of its "political subdivisions" like a local government or a supervisor of an EMS worker or firefighter or police officer.  I'd have to personally sue the EMS worker who refused to render aid to me in a car accident because of his or her "sincerely held religious beliefs" that queers shouldn't be allowed to drive or be in MS or whatever.

    This is not a per se "same sex marriage" discrimination law, it does not mention "marriage" or "same sex" or "same sex couples" it simply says privately held "sincerely held" religious beliefs trump any and all laws or civil governments in any situation unless a "compelling reason" can be shown for those laws - the onus shifts to the government to prove why that "action" or "inaction" taken by a religious claimant was not in the best interest of the whole.  

    I remains shocked that so broad a law, even as I know how much the queer haters are crazy, made it through the legislature and was signed into law.  

    An effeminate young boy comes to public elementary school and his teacher has a "sincerely held religious beliefs" that "homosexuality is an abomination" and the teacher refuses to allow him in his class, does this law protect the teacher?  And the teacher makes the boy stand in a time out in the corner all day.  And the teacher makes the boy stand up in front of the class and ridicules the boy and invites the other children to call him names.  And the teacher sincerely believes his God mandates that evil suggests "spare the rod and spoil the child" and so beats the child with a metal rod to beat the devil out of him.  

    IANAL, so I don't quite get the reach of this law, and I suspect neither do most of those who voted for it.  They thought they were voting against gay marriage, but this law is potentially way broader than that.

    MS SB2681

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of these United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 12:35:07 PM PDT

  •  Here's to the State of Mississippi ... (0+ / 0-)

    (Phil Ochs)

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 01:22:14 PM PDT

  •  It should be noted... (0+ / 0-)

    That this goes to a trio of the worst courts for us:

    Southern District of Mississippi: 5-1 GOP + 4-0 GOP Sr Judges (no vacancies)
    Northern District of Mississippi: 2-1 GOP + 2-0 Sr Judges (no vacancies)

    On Appeal:

    Fifth Circuit: 10-4 GOP (3 vacancies)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    That's pretty much the drizzling shits of courts.  We would need the perfect storm of getting the right judge on the district level.

    SCOTUS will eventually throw the law out, though lord knows where Kennedy will vote on the Hobby Lobby religious freedom case.  This law might be a good thing in that regards: it very much shows to Kennedy how far Religious Freedom can be pushed.  But regardless of that, this isn't likely to be a quickly positive case in the court system. It will probably be a struggle. We would have been far better off having this in Arizona:

    3-2 GOP + 6-4 GOP Sr Judges + 6 vacancies (hello Blue Slips!)

    Even though that's not currently great (though will be if we get those 6 through to make it 8-3 Dem), the beloved 9th Circuit is up above where the numbers swing wildly in our favor.

  •  Jeopardy question ? (0+ / 0-)

    Russia, Iran, Uganda and Misssisssipppi all have this in common.....

    "Round up the usual suspects"

    by NanaoKnows on Fri Apr 04, 2014 at 04:04:16 PM PDT

  •  Citing our Founding Fathers' attitude toward (0+ / 0-)

    religion as justification for discrimination/persecution is a bastardization of their intent. Using religion as a justification for discrimination/persecution is exactly what they were trying to prevent.  

  •  So, what about those who feel that even the local/ (0+ / 0-)

    state government  tax is against their religion, can they refuse to pay it? Hey, its only a logical extrapolation from the law.

  •  CLASSIC (0+ / 0-)

    Another legislative move in the name of hatred.  This will have many unintended consequences.  But, this is Mississippi so this should be no surprise.  

  •  Spring break (0+ / 0-)

    Missishitty a place no one should want to visit. Ya'll.

  •  No discrimination (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, this law won't be used to encourage rampant discrimination.  After all the Supreme Court realized that the Voting Rights Law was no longer necessary and promised that there would be no attempts to deny the franchise to minorities.  Look how well that worked. Mississippi was one of the first states to enact voter ID laws before the ink was even dry on the opinion.  Of course, those laws impose undue difficulties on minority voters but some people have to suffer a bit to eliminate non-existent voter fraud.  See!

  •  Refusing customers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeninSC

    I really do not agree with refusing to serve customers with different beliefs.  If a gay couple came to a baker for a wedding cake, common decency would require kindness, and the cake would be made. No one is asking the baker to become gay, like gays, approve of gays.  All they want is politeness, courtesy as a fellow human.  I am agnostic and admit I do not have any firm beliefs. Can I then refuse anyone I want?  

    •  Agreed, Pensimmon. Ultimately EVERY customer (0+ / 0-)

      has different beliefs, if one wants to get right down to it. This is about rationalizing discrimination as if it had a valid basis. As you say, it does not.

      Thank you.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT -9.62, -9.13

      by BeninSC on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We'll just have this tiny bit (0+ / 0-)

    of discrimination that no one will notice; Later on we will amend it to include other forms... but not right now. We don't want to offend anyone; trust us.

    No country can be both ignorant and free - Thomas Jefferson

    by fjb on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

  •  This is a horrible, vicious and highly dangerous (0+ / 0-)

    trend. Guess the Mississippi dipshit Bryant, et al, didn't have a possible Super Bowl looming in their future, the way Brewer did in AZ. She is no doubt waiting until after the SB and will then revive this insidious legislation. How disgusting!

  •  1420 or 2014? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet

    This country sucks!!!

  •  Dear Gov. Bryant and dear Mr. Perkins, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet

    Who died and made you God?  You are laboring under the contradictory assumption that you stand in the place of God in judging others and in declaring what is in the mind of God.  At least the Pope has declared that he is in no position to do either.

  •  Religion and gov't (0+ / 0-)

    I think this should be against the 1st Amendment. When are these Talibangelicals going to learn what the 1st Amendment is. It also guarantees freedome FROM religion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site