Federal Court Upholds Law Allowing Refusal Of Service To LGBT Couples. If you own a business and don’t want to serve gays you better move to Mississippi.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th circuit struck down a district court’s injunction against the law, which now allows business owners to refuse to serve gay, lesbian, or transgender couples on grounds of religious objection and also permits clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples.
Foster care and adoption agencies can also choose to reject potential LGBT parents under this law, according to an AP report.
View Comments (26)
Remember the old days, every business had a sign above the door.."We reserve the right to refuse anyone"...Made things a lot simpler before assholes like Obama got involved with endless laws and fairness. By the way a fair? that is where you go to ride the rides, eat cotton candy and step in monkey poo. Life ain't fair and never will be no matter how much some militant bunch of assholes screams about it..
What I was trying to illustrate is that the use of "muh religion" can and will be used against those who believe that it is a good strategy in order to avoid doing certain things they rather would not do. I'm actually trying to help yooz sort this out.
Meantime, after reading the summary of this piece of legislation or law, whatever, it still allows for a person to file suit. The question is how will the defendant prove whether they acted upon their religious beliefs or not.
In the case of various religions, most of them require an indoctrination and numerous rituals. Then you've got the one where all you need to do is invoke the name of a dead man and claim him as your lord and savior. This makes the person an official follower. It will be interesting to see that play out in court.
I see a huge problem with this that ought to be remedied in a different way, or the people involved in lawsuits will have wished they'd not gotten sued. The only people, and I want to emphasis this, that will come out happy over this law, are the lawyers. As usual.
You just don't want to admit that this issue is so due to the Alphabet Rainbow Soup Brigade militant edition. They went through the process incorrectly, the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly and outside of Constitution and in response to REAL abuses upon private citizens by the Brigade, these unnecessary laws are being enacted as a way of protecting the people who are being victimized by the Alphabet Squad. This is the Brigade's doing.
This entire situation was a TAX matter. The lady was a widow, she already had her marriage, she just wanted to keep her wive's money. Just like the abortion ruling, Regressive Squad of something or another perverting a situation to advance cultural change outside of the Constitution, this issue became about marriage instead of tax. Why must ANYONE not married pay any inheritance tax? Why are married people exempt from paying inheritance tax? Why IS THERE an inheritance tax? THAT is THE question right there. Inheritance tax is double taxation. It is immoral. Other questions: The hell is the Government doing in the marriage business? (Just like healthcare). Why has the government been allowed to regulate marriage to this extent and who the hell is the government to require people register their marriages with it?
Had the lady been a conservative ALL US citizens would have benefited, instead the Brigade went searching for fake equality, essentially having the SCOTUS create a right out of their asses and undermining the real Constitutional rights of others WHILE allowing for the continued establishment of the very immoral and unConstitutional inheritance tax.
I am not part of the brigade, dear.
No one said you were hon'
This isn't about you, it is about the truth. I am all about equality under the law, but it must be done correctly. Just because I am Black, it doesn't mean that I am okay with the entire Civil Rights Act. It had a lot of bad in it, ended up being Trojan horses for Constitutional problems that we feel this day. For me to go off on a it is all about White Supremacy bullshit, completely misses the point about the Constitutional issues at hand. The SAME thing that happened with the gay marriage rule happened with the CRA. Desperation to get the cultural changes done in favor for those perceived or that truly were oppressed, lead to others constitutional rights being trampled upon... even those that one, on principle or bias disagrees with. That is not equality.
I agree with you, totally... and yes, it was always financial for the marriage act, or it would have merely remained a civil union. (Widow's bennies, and all that.) I totally get it and the idea wasn't lost on me. I am just concerned whether an open-ended law can and will be used against the very people who seek protection by it, but it's neither here nor there. Eventually, it will be heard by the SCOTUS and I guess something will arise as a remedy. BTW, good sparring. :)
Yes it was fun. :-)
That is my point with the laws of the past and the allotment for them to expand. The laws about making sure there are equal numbers of people of color in institutions, were "nice", but wrong, unconstitutional and racist. If done as a DIRECT response to institutionalized racism or segregation (which was the case AT ONE POINT or another in our history) it should have been LIMITED and it should have been allowed to expire to never return to only benefit ONE generation after the horrible situation happened.
The Fourteenth Amendment is very very nice, but vague and open ended. It should be kept tight and strict and to the real point. This is ONLY for former slaves who were specifically brought to the US for slavery and their descendants. DONE. However, centuries later women jump the fence or overstay visas and have "American" babies and use the poor children as shields against deportation. Disgusting. Sure the Congress at the time, probably NEVER thought it would be used like that, but there you go, those are the wages of more and more laws based on emotion and wanting to make cultural changes that are legitimate t the time, but without account for the future.
The gay marriage situation lead to an immediate negative effective after it was passed. It was immediate, it will only get worst. The solution is not more laws but fewer and tighter and directed at the real problem.
The SCOTUS will have to revert a great deal, many of its own doing in order to make things right. More laws are never the answer, G-D Himself PROVED it. When people are overwhelmed with laws they miss THE POINT.
No doubt. The same happens with not discriminating against the disabled. How can an employer stay within laws against all sorts of discrimination and not get sued? Job posts therefore now include phrases like "must be able to lift 20 lbs" b/c while they can't discriminate, they obviously don't want to hire someone who might occasionally ask for help to lift a heavy box as a data analyst or a secretary. Am I going to sue a bar owner for not hiring me as a bartender, knowing full well I can't stand on my feet for hours? So, yes, more laws make it more challenging to do business, and the concept of trying to please everyone regarding equal treatment has arrived at the law of diminishing returns - legally hostile in most cases.
This was fun to watch!
Hurrah
There are a lot of people I don't want to do business with for what they do or will do that I disagree with, once I find out or their BEHAVIOR is being flaunted.
Example: If I know a ho bitch knew a man was married, didn't care and he being also a ho left his wife and kids, divorced, not wanting to pay alimony yet planning a lavish wedding with the ho bitch... You better BELIEVE I won't be servicing them in any way nor form... Of course all contingent on my knowing. If I know no details, the story is not told to me nor flaunted, the services shall be provided. Otherwise I cannot service these hos.
Now I don't hate the members of the rainbow alphabet brigade for who they are. I disagree with what they do, but that is my problem not theirs. Don't include me in your shit. You NEED the government to give you legitimacy? Why?... but Whatever... You want to have a ceremony and call it a wedding... don't agree but whatever, you want to call your relationship a marriage? aight you do you.... Why must I be forced to participate, agree and service all of that?
Bitches leave me alone! You do you... ok? I'll do me... aight?
You walk into my store, you order a lavish birthday cake (or whatever), you keep your life story to yourself... without my knowing, you ordered a lavish wedding cake (or whatever) for your gay wedding, not only did you pay less due to getting a "birthday" cake, you got me to do you a service because for some reason I give you life, and I didn't get to know about your business. Kudos. You did you, I did me. I still got your money and you got what you wanted and probably cheaper. If it is a service that requires my presence, I get there it is a gay wedding, I have the right to return your money minus travel and get on, you should have not try to force me to participate, especially if you know how I feel.
This is a stupid law for a stupid state. Perfect together.
Sorry, but it just is. Mississippi can also, by this precedent, refuse to serve anyone they want using this same logic. If someone is a known Pagan or Muslim or Jew or if a bride is known to have had a hysterectomy or the groom to be known as someone who has had a vasectomy. The possibilities are endless for refusal of service on the grounds of religious beliefs.
How is this not similar to radical Islam? My question is, if it were legal to throw gays off roofs, what religious Baptist not do it?
You are asking the wrong questions based on biases, misconceptions and ignorance of our Constitutional rights.
We agree that this particular law is incorrect, but not for the same reasons, for your disagreement is based on your personal biases and circumstances, whereas I disagree as I put it against the Constitution.
They are not refusing to serve anyone, they are refusing to do things that are contrary to their religious beliefs. In other words, they are not refusing to serve gay people; they are refusing to participate in a gay person's marriage ceremony because they consider it a sin. What I do not understand, and which I defy you to justify, is why the Gay Mafia insists that everybody must applaud and participate in their perversions. Why do they INSIST that the Christian baker make them a wedding cake? Why not have someone else bake their cake?
Then they need to make this law specific only to baking cakes. The way this law stands, it does allow all sorts of discrimination, because it is not specific to certain transactions. So, it leaves any person to interpret it in many ways, and we pretend that only good people will interpret it in very good ways, which is only a set of beliefs in their own repertoire, to begin with.
So, if a pagan couple who decide not to have children wanted the same baker to bake them a wedding cake, will that baker refuse them also on the grounds that they are 1) Not Christian or even believe in G-d, and 2) They are not marrying in order to have children.
If this law only applies to gays, and not atheists or pagans, then there is a little bit of a problem regarding what values some people overlook or apply, as they interpret these beliefs.
You are complicating your life unnecessarily and your focus is all wrong. Your fixation on religion as the problem is the problem. The problem is once again government and the citizens that are too stupid, ignorant, greedy, and else that is fast asleep while the government takes over all aspects of our lives.
The law shouldn't exist period. The issues that created the law should not have existed period. The Constitution does not give people the right to a wedding or marriage, it doesn't regulate sexual activity, it does not allow for slavery or forced servitude, and private citizens per right have a right to discriminate even if it hurts people's feelings BUT NOT if it actually hurts people's lives physically nor monetarily.
The STATE should never discriminate, however, and its participation in everyday private citizen's lives should be limited, impersonal and without looking to identity.
It is rather simple. They are trying to safeguard religious freedom by creating extra nonsensical laws, when the ones in place should be more than enough, AS A DIRECT response to unconstitutional overreaching practices that pre-dates so called gay rights for perhaps 100 years now.
Had government stayed on its lane and the citizens never allowed it to intrude in marriage (govt should have had limited role
). we would not have this situation... alas, had govt kept his role of taxation appropriately limited, we wouldn't be in this and many other situations...
Look to healthcare... govt intervenes far more than it ought, it all goes to hell.
It doesn't allow you to refuse service to a protected class unless that protected class is asking you to do something specifically against your religion. You want a cake? Fine, here's your cake. You want a cake celebrating your homosexual union with another member of the same gender? No, I refuse to write that bullshit on the cake.
No one should be forced to do business with anyone, for any reason, would be the best way around this. Just have a law that says, "We can refuse business to anyone for any reason."
Why must it be religious?
The problem is not the religion but the govt. They are creating extra unnecessary laws because religious people are truly being monetarily attacked, their businesses stolen and undermined by the courts. The militant members of the Rainbow Alphabet Brigade instead of equality wants to be treated with special behaviors. They are self segregating into an elitist class and so far allowed to by government officials. They target religious people (not much Muslims though interestingly enough), because they know they can get steal their property to finance their lives and they get an emotional victory over those that they deem evil for not agreeing and participating in their lifestyles. That is wrong.
True equality cannot be brought upon by FORCING private citizens to not discriminate. We have seen the failure of the Civil Rights Acts again and again in the private sector, and instead of curtailing and tweaking they are EXPANDING it creating the issues we have today.
The issues even go back more than 100 years I suspect in this country and definitely pre-dating even the civil rights movement for Black United Staters.
So your issues should be with the government and its inflated overreach into personal and private spaces it shouldn't be involved in. The law is unnecessary, but the issues that created it were unnecessary as well. The issues that pre dated those issues were also wrong and unconstitutional. All stacked together it creates these problems.
That's a good question. That is the way it should be. Unfortunately, bigots and racists were behaving so abysmally that Congress decided certain classes of people needed extra protection, even if it meant infringing upon individual freedom. And once they got started Congress couldn't stop adding more and more people to the list of protected classes. Now, the extra protection has expanded to the point where the protected class of gays is running roughshod over the individual freedom of everyone else.
You CAN discriminate as a private citizen. I shall never understand why didn’t Republicans negotiate the Civil Rights Act better. The Dems at the time must have anticipated population control through identity politics, Republicans just wanted to get their mandate done and over with and completely forgot about the Constitution.
There are always laws in place to punish evildoers, who do evil... PERIOD regardless of motives and reasons. Special protections are just another form of segregation. I can't blame people looking at all these "special" people and lamenting not being one of them, so they can also be special (Rachel Dolezal comes to mind and all of these men identifying as women but not transitioning)
But it's all specific now, whether we like it or not. Why should I allow a seeing-eye dog in my cab if it's against my religion? Why should I make a wedding cake for anyone if I don't believe in marriage at all?
This is just nit-picking and against certain groups b/c of prejudice against certain groups with the benefit of using the magic words, "Muh religion." What stops anyone from using the magic words, even if they are not religious? Would no one lie about it?
So, while I disagree with many of the people's reasoning for certain rationale to hide behind, you have to understand that shit will be flung back your way, as well.
Jesus never said you'll be going to hell for baking a wedding cake for queers. But the Pharisees did question why Jesus healed people on a sabbath. There is something called zealot reasoning. The belief that you're going to hell for doing something for someone who is a sinner b/c of "Muh religion."
Your focus is all wrong as I said already.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives the right to practice your religion without interference from government. If they are willing to lose money because of it, that's their prerogative. State interference should not be allowed. If they are sued the First Amendment should protect them as long as it goes against no established law or causes harm.
So all the people who DID lose their businesses had their constitutional rights trampled upon.
You CAN discriminate as a private citizen. I shall never understand why didn't Republicans negotiate the Civil Rights Act better. The Dems at the time must have anticipated population control through identity politics, Republicans just wanted to get their mandate done and over with and completely forgot about the Constitution.