ForumGarden

There's a news article on the consequence of legalizing discrimination on the grounds of "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions".

A US interracial couple was turned away by a wedding venue because the owner said their union went against her Christian beliefs, video shows.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49571207




So, was this the intended consequence of the Mississippi legislators when they brought it in three years ago?

I have very little doubt at all. I expect there's a lot of nudging and winking at the after-drinks party down the Old Boy's club this week, along with the secret handshakes.

"First of all, we don't do gay weddings or mixed race," says a woman in a grey shirt, identified as the venue's owner by US media.

Asked why not, she replied: "Because of our Christian race, I mean our Christian beliefs," adding: "We just don't participate. We just choose not to."


I'll go and put Gil Scott-Heron on the sound system to restore a sense of sanity.

Religious bigotry at it's vibrant best.

All is well in this the best of all possible worlds. Ever wish you were reading about all this in a history book?

I believe these are a part of the "Religious Freedom" agenda being pushed by the religious right through politicians such as Ted Cruz.

spot;1524790 wrote: There's a news article on the consequence of legalizing discrimination on the grounds of "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions".



So, was this the intended consequence of the Mississippi legislators when they brought it in three years ago?[b/]

I have very little doubt at all. I expect there's a lot of nudging and winking at the after-drinks party down the Old Boy's club this week, along with the secret handshakes.



I'll go and put Gil Scott-Heron on the sound system to restore a sense of sanity.


What does any Mississippi law have to do with religious practices?

As long as it does not run afoul of our natural, rights as spelled out in our Bill of Rights.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

tude dog;1524795 wrote: What does any Mississippi law have to do with religious practices?

As long as it does not run afoul of our natural, rights as spelled out in our Bill of Rights.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


So do you think the religious have a right to dictate what colour your chosen life partner or who you should have sex with? The refusal is on the grounds that they believe interracial marriage is agasinst god's law. If they are licenced to conduct marriages in a secular society then they should respect the laws of the land.

Do rerligious beliefs trump the rights of non believers?

tude dog;1524795 wrote: What does any Mississippi law have to do with religious practices?


Perhaps you missed it. https://static.votesmart.org/static/billtext/56232.pdf

It means Mississippians who are quite certain God never intended the bloodline of inferior races to mingle with pure-bred Anglo Saxon stock are encouraged to refuse access to their commercial services. I don't think it yet goes so far as to re-introduce populist lynchings for such uppity lack of respect but it's a step in that direction.

If you feel the Mississippi legislature was wrong in thinking it had the capacity to enact this particular law perhaps you would like to write to them and complain, with a copy to the local clergy.

I know my place.





(In case you wondered, the sponsor and all the co-sponsors were Republicans. Extremely white male Republicans going by their photos, except perhaps Bubba Carpenter. 13.8% women in the Mississippi Legislature, since you ask, which is the worst figure across all States.)

gmc;1524797 wrote: So do you think the religious have a right to dictate what colour your chosen life partner or who you should have sex with? The refusal is on the grounds that they believe interracial marriage is against god's law. If they are licenced to conduct marriages in a secular society then they should respect the laws of the land.

Do religious beliefs trump the rights of non believers?


Explain to me why a non-believer expects a right to be married in my place of worship or even a right to enter???

spot;1524799 wrote: Perhaps you missed it. https://static.votesmart.org/static/billtext/56232.pdf

It means Mississippians who are quite certain God never intended the bloodline of inferior races to mingle with pure-bred Anglo Saxon stock are encouraged to refuse access to their commercial services. I don't think it yet goes so far as to re-introduce populist lynchings for such uppity lack of respect but it's a step in that direction.

If you feel the Mississippi legislature was wrong in thinking it had the capacity to enact this particular law perhaps you would like to write to them and complain, with a copy to the local clergy.

I know my place.





(In case you wondered, the sponsor and all the co-sponsors were Republicans. Extremely white male Republicans going by their photos, except perhaps Bubba Carpenter. 13.8% women in the Mississippi Legislature, since you ask, which is the worst figure across all States.)


Thank you for that link.

Did a little research and found it is nothing you claim.

tude dog;1524810 wrote: Did a little research and found it is nothing you claim.


If it is nothing I claim, perhaps you could say what it is.

It's exactly what I've claimed. It's an exclusion for Christians from supplying goods and services to anyone they think God considers abhorrent, inferior or damned. How the hell else do you read it.

tude dog;1524807 wrote: Explain to me why a non-believer expects a right to be married in my place of worship or even a right to enter???


I don't know whether the venue in this particular case was a church it seems simply to have been a a venue lent out for such events. Don't quite get ypur point as a non believer is hardly likely to want to be married in a church although I dare say one might to humour a future spouse. If the couple had been of different christians sects would you still think the refusal was OK? Living in sectarian scotland I knew several who ended up estranged from their familes because they chose to marry a "non believer" be it papist or proddy both sides are equally bad. How woul you like to get your head kicked in because you went out with someone from another religion or of a different race woiuld you agrue they have a right to exercise their freedom of religion?

Are you saying you would refuse to allow a non believer to attend a wedding as a guest? What about funerals? I have attended religious funerals as imo how someone wishes to be laid to rest is up to them and you should respect their wishes and I would have been very surprised to be told I should not attend as a non believer.

Don't know about the US but civil marriage is a relatively recent development in the UK and there are still many who refuse to see it as a "real" marriage. Born out oif wedlock, bastard legitimate/illegitimate the consequences of religious bigotry colour our language.

It's only in the sixties that Miscegenation laws were ruled unlawful in the us, no doubt there arte many who would like to have them back. This is racial discrimination and bogotry justified in the name of religious freedom.

tude dog;1524807 wrote: Explain to me why a non-believer expects a right to be married in my place of worship or even a right to enter???


The place in question was an "Event Hall"

They rent their space out to people for all sorts of gatherings.

LarsMac;1524822 wrote: The place in question was an "Event Hall"

They rent their space out to people for all sorts of gatherings.


The plot thickens.

tude dog;1524830 wrote: The plot thickens.


Yup. yet another example of someone hiring themselves out to do a job for people, who then claims that they can't do that job for people who are not of their ilk.

interesting . We're having this very conversation in this country (albeit not to do with marriage) But does anyone see how weird it is that political gusto is all over the place ?..at the same time?

magentaflame;1524835 wrote: interesting . We're having this very conversation in this country (albeit not to do with marriage) But does anyone see how weird it is that political gusto is all over the place ?..at the same time?


Yep. I've noticed that, too.

I still think it is some sort of weird residual from the days of Leaded Gasoline (Petrol, I think it's called in your neck of the woods.)

As an aside, curiosity got the better of me. I had to go and look since I had no idea what it meant.

bubba vote n. (usually with the) that part of the United States electorate consisting of white, working-class males from the rural southern United States, especially those regarded as unintellectual or socially conservative.

OED




Digression over. Carry on.

"Political gusto" was very good, by the way.

Here in Colorado, a health provider fired a doctor for wanting to assist a dying cancer patient in choosing his death.

They claim the law which permits terminally ill patients to choose to die instead of waiting for death goes against the corporate Christian philosophy.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/04/c ... ying-laws/

LarsMac;1524859 wrote: Here in Colorado, a health provider fired a doctor for wanting to assist a dying cancer patient in choosing his death.

They claim the law which permits terminally ill patients to choose to die instead of waiting for death goes against the corporate Christian philosophy.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/04/c ... ying-laws/


So it's OK for them to infringe on his religious freedom by imposing their beliefs while refusing to accept his right to his own. Wonder how long before they start refusing medical aid for those whose lifestyle they deem as unworthy.

Suicide is a mortal sin to christians for the simple reason that the early church realised that if they didn't make it so an awful lot of christians would be suiciding to get away from the lives they were leading. Great way to keep the slaves and plebs in their place, god made it so so don't challenge theowrls order and suicide is not an option as you will not get to heaven.

They keep blocking assisted dying in this country as well, not out of concern for the welfare of those who wish to terminate their lives but because they see it as another weakening of their grip on society.

spot;1524811 wrote: If it is nothing I claim, perhaps you could say what it is.

It's exactly what I've claimed. It's an exclusion for Christians from supplying goods and services to anyone they think God considers abhorrent, inferior or damned. How the hell else do you read it.


It is illegal to deny service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.

Mississippi law or not.

What I can do is not participate or contribute to a perverted ceremony.

That is my right, and I am NOT a Christian.

gmc;1524812 wrote: I don't know whether the venue in this particular case was a church it seems simply to have been a a venue lent out for such events. Don't quite get ypur point as a non believer is hardly likely to want to be married in a church although I dare say one might to humour a future spouse. If the couple had been of different christians sects would you still think the refusal was OK? Living in sectarian scotland I knew several who ended up estranged from their familes because they chose to marry a "non believer" be it papist or proddy both sides are equally bad. How woul you like to get your head kicked in because you went out with someone from another religion or of a different race woiuld you agrue they have a right to exercise their freedom of religion?

Are you saying you would refuse to allow a non believer to attend a wedding as a guest? What about funerals? I have attended religious funerals as imo how someone wishes to be laid to rest is up to them and you should respect their wishes and I would have been very surprised to be told I should not attend as a non believer.

Don't know about the US but civil marriage is a relatively recent development in the UK and there are still many who refuse to see it as a "real" marriage. Born out oif wedlock, bastard legitimate/illegitimate the consequences of religious bigotry colour our language.

It's only in the sixties that Miscegenation laws were ruled unlawful in the us, no doubt there arte many who would like to have them back. This is racial discrimination and bogotry justified in the name of religious freedom.


Chrch or not, doesn't matter to me.

LarsMac;1524859 wrote: Here in Colorado, a health provider fired a doctor for wanting to assist a dying cancer patient in choosing his death.

They claim the law which permits terminally ill patients to choose to die instead of waiting for death goes against the corporate Christian philosophy.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/04/c ... ying-laws/


Well gee, he'll have to go somewhere else to fine a "doctor" to kill him.

A few years ago my brother in law had liver cancer and suffering great pain expressed to me he wanted to blow his brains out. I could have taken his gun but chose to talk about his mom coming to visit. He died in a hospital from cancer.

My point being it is not up to me if he wants to end his suffering, but at the same time I will do what I can to stop him from taking his own life.

"taking his own life" .....you preferred cancer to do it against his will instead. ooookay. I've always believed that my human rights end where your's begin and vice versa . that's how I've always figured out what's right and wrong and whether a law is injust or not.

tude dog;1524869 wrote: It is illegal to deny service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.

Mississippi law or not.




But that's precisely what the Mississippi law says can be done. That's its words. Here they are:

The state government shall not take any discriminatory

action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the

person has provided or declined to provide the following services,

accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose

related to the solemnization, formation, celebration, or

recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent

with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction

described in Section 2 of this act


How does that conform with your "It is illegal to deny service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth."? The Mississippi bill explicitly makes it legal. Or is it trumped by a higher law - is that what you're suggesting? Which higher law?

tude dog;1524872 wrote: Well gee, he'll have to go somewhere else to fine a "doctor" to kill him.

A few years ago my brother in law had liver cancer and suffering great pain expressed to me he wanted to blow his brains out. I could have taken his gun but chose to talk about his mom coming to visit. He died in a hospital from cancer.

My point being it is not up to me if he wants to end his suffering, but at the same time I will do what I can to stop him from taking his own life.


I am all for preventing suicide under normal circumstances.

But, if someone is terminal, and doesn't want to go through the final stages of the pain and suffering that they are certain to face, then there should be a provision to allow that.

And, the State of Colorado has passed a law to do just that.

The Corporate philosophy should not interfere with the patient's desired care plan.

"Chrch or not, doesn't matter to me."

It wasn't a place of worship else this would probably not have been an issue.

tude dog;1524869 wrote: It is illegal to deny service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.

Mississippi law or not.

What I can do is not participate or contribute to a perverted ceremony.

That is my right, and I am NOT a Christian.


OK so you do not wish to marry someone of a different colour or race. That is your prerogative. Why do you think you or they have the right to deny someone else making that choice?

Hand up! ........what's perverted about it?

magentaflame;1524883 wrote: Hand up! ........what's perverted about it?


God won't let you mix things. Seethe not your kid in its mother's milk and such, it's a perversion.

God created the races. They're part of the Divine Plan. Allowing our womenfolk to become impregnated by those who carry the curse of the Lord is unbiblical. Consider the wisdom of Bob Jones when he founded his great Bible College: "White folks and colored folks, you listen to me. You cannot run over God's plan and God's established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race."

If the American Psychiatric Association wanted to do some good in this world they'd classify religious belief as a mental disease and eradicate it.

spot;1524896 wrote: God won't let you mix things. Seethe not your kid in its mother's milk and such, it's a perversion.

God created the races. They're part of the Divine Plan. Allowing our womenfolk to become impregnated by those who carry the curse of the Lord is unbiblical. Consider the wisdom of Bob Jones when he founded his great Bible College: "White folks and colored folks, you listen to me. You cannot run over God's plan and God's established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race."

If the American Psychiatric Association wanted to do some good in this world they'd classify religious belief as a mental disease and eradicate it.


I suppose pointing out that if god didn't want it to happen he could have made impossible to work and since he did make it possible then surely it is part of this plan and maybe he wants coffee coloured peopl to take over the world is not an argument that would get anywhere. Or than china is not mentioned in the bible

gmc;1524907 wrote: I suppose pointing out that if god didn't want it to happen he could have made impossible to work and since he did make it possible then surely it is part of this plan and maybe he wants coffee coloured peopl to take over the world is not an argument that would get anywhere.


Even the most cursory reading of the Bible shows that God doesn't care two hoots what happens, he's solely concerned with being obeyed. Instant and total conformity to instructions and you get by until the next time. One word misplaced and you're doomed.

I would so like someone to say I'm wrong so I can post a dozen examples in full Technicolor gore.



Or that china is not mentioned in the bible


Thus saith the Lord, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle.

Oh. Sorry. Wrong china.

Religion and politics should not be mentioned or mixed in together. In Canada we finally have the right to choose our own end. This whole issue is exactly what gives any faith a bad name. I do mean any faith. I do accept all faiths as legit for the particular location in which it is found.

Ted;1525064 wrote: I do accept all faiths as legit for the particular location in which it is found.


That notion distresses me a lot.

Christianity is not legitimate in Saudi Arabia, for instance? That is an acceptable circumstance?

We should accept that bringing up children as Islamic is unacceptable in China or Serbia, or that Hindu worship is illegitimate in Pakistan?

And I don't think we should even contemplate the current position of Judaism. Why would you not demand that all faiths must be welcome in all locations?

gmc;1524882 wrote: "Chrch or not, doesn't matter to me."

It wasn't a place of worship else this would probably not have been an issue.

OK so you do not wish to marry someone of a different colour or race

I never said that.



[QUOTE=gmc;1524882]That is your prerogative. Why do you think you or they have the right to deny someone else making that choice?


Never said that either.

spot;1524875 wrote: But that's precisely what the Mississippi law says can be done. That's its words. Here they are:



How does that conform with your "It is illegal to deny service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth."? The Mississippi bill explicitly makes it legal. Or is it trumped by a higher law - is that what you're suggesting? Which higher law?


Two different worlds.

Secular issues or religious.

tude dog;1525079 wrote: Two different worlds.

Secular issues or religious.


Don't tell me, tell those bigoted legislators in Mississippi. They seem not to know.

The way some Christians interpret things in the bible is often either prejudiced or in serious error. It is an error itself to even think they speak for what is right or wrong, they do not. They made themselves judges of law. They do not represent God or his views. They just like to think they do. Many Christians have very harsh and merciless views on humanity; not all of them, and many of them have been misled on how to view moral issues and laws. Its a very sad subject on how historical Christianity has been taught in some areas. They think God himself is just as harsh.

xMaybe we should remove marriage from the religious sphere altogether.

tude dog;1525077 wrote: [QUOTE=gmc;1524882]"Chrch or not, doesn't matter to me."

It wasn't a place of worship else this would probably not have been an issue.

OK so you do not wish to marry someone of a different colour or race

I never said that.





Never said that either.


You said this

"It is illegal to deny service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth.

Mississippi law or not.

What I can do is not participate or contribute to a perverted ceremony.

That is my right, and I am NOT a Christian. "

The inference I took was that you considered the mixed race marriage to be perverted. Looking at it again I realise you may not have been expressing a personal attitude so my apologies if I gave offence.

However. you can't have it all ways if it is illegal to deny someone service to somebody because of race, gender, sexual orientation and so forth then what this venue did is illegal especially as it was not a place of worship where the religiuus argument might have a case (and this probably not have been an issue as the couple probably would not have planned to use it in the first place) but a place advertised as being available for weddings. The point about religious freedom is that the religious cannot impose their beliefs on others or use faith to justify hatred.

Turn it on it's head, what if a venue had refused to allow pentecostal christians to use their wedding venue as the proposed union and service went against her catholic faith.

Or a protestant owner didn't want catholics to use it as practising pagan rituals was an abomination against the laws of god - at least to them it is in light of theiri christian beliefs.