Judge Blocks Mississippi's 'Religious Objections' Law


#1

A federal judge has blocked a law guaranteeing religious freedom for public officials in Mississippi:abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-judge-blocks-mississippi-law-limiting-gay-marriage-40269162 The law would have allowed officials in Mississippi to not issue same-sex marriage licenses and not give in to forced LGBT acceptance if they are merchants. The federal government likes forcing the LGBT agenda on the South. This is Northern treachery. They violate the South’s cultural values so they can help create a New World Order. Southerners have attempted to resist federal control in the past. They should continue resisting the government when it comes to religious freedom. Governor Phil Bryant will appeal the ruling.


#2

Here’s a further explanation of the judge’s reasoning:

The text and history of HB 1523, Reeves writes, clearly “indicate that the bill was the State’s attempt to put LGBT citizens back in their place after Obergefell.”
Under the guise of providing additional protection for religious exercise, HB 1523 creates a vehicle for state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. … The majority of Mississippians were granted special rights to not serve LGBT citizens, and were immunized from the consequences of their actions. LGBT Mississippians, in turn, were “put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental sphere” to symbolize their second-class status. As in Romer,Windsor, and Obergefell, this “status-based enactment” deprived LGBT citizens of equal treatment and equal dignity under the law.
slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/07/01/mississippi_hb_1523_blocked_by_judge_carlton_reeves.html


#3

An absolutely insufficient argument.


#4

If you’d like to read the entire reasoning behind the decision you can find it here: files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/35-Memo-Opinion-and-Order.pdf


#5

If being put back in their place means no state sponsorship of their lifestyle, I am all for it. The Obergefell decision was an attempt to break down the social traditions using the force of the state.


#6

#7

Please stop calling this “northern treachery” …this is not the 1860s!!


#8

Insufficient to change your mind, but totally sufficient because of the authority the judge has in making the decision. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. If the appeal process changes it, there will be another to make the same claim you are now, and the two of you will have one thing in common…that being wrong.


#9

It is becoming like the 1860s all over again.


#10

Please put the blame on the Obama administration where it belongs and do not blame the rest of us northerners who also believe he promotes evil.


#11

You’re comparing this to the struggle over racially driven chattel slavery? Really? Please read those last two sentences with the most incredulous tone possible. By trying to resurrect Old South sympathies and slogans, you’re idealizing a heinous crime against humanity and all that accompanied it. ** Stop it. **

I don’t understand the squabble here. Firstly, religious freedom doesn’t beat out the civil rights of others. Marriage is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right. From the opinion of Loving vs. Virginia: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Religious freedom doesn’t negate this right to marry. Nor does it negate the Equal Protection Clause that guarantees it to same-sex couples. Religious freedom won’t beat out freedom of speech or the right to due process, either.

But even more, nobody says that same-sex couples are guaranteed a Catholic marriage. We’re talking about a civil contract, not a sacrament, here. Nobody is forcing Catholic priests to marry gay people. It is forcing government employees to do their jobs.


#12

The secular courts uphold the secular religion of political correctness yet again.

This is completely unjust, undemocratic and encourages further division and contempt for the rule of law…


#13

Actually it is. Just yesterday I heard a northerner complaining about North Carolina’s sensible law requiring men to use the men’s room and women the women’s. He went on to complain about other things including southern racial discrimination. He may have been ignorant but racial discrimination occurred and does occur throughout the United States. There is and has been a campaign to ridicule and diminish the South. The southern spirit is the most familial and Godly, and this is at odds with the goals of globalization, the atomization of society, and complete submission to the nation state.


#14

The Civil War was not just about slavery. It was mainly about states’ rights and liberty. I sympathize with the ideals of the Confederate States of America, but I am not racist. You may favor federal control over the South in order to implement the New World Order, but I am against it. Marriage is not something that should be the government’s business. If the government is to recognize marriage, it should be left to the states. If the federal government has to get involved, it should only be between a man and a woman, which is the traditional definition of marriage.


#15

As I said in another thread, if you can’t or won’t do the job as outlined by your employer, whether due to religious beliefs or incompetence, you should not receive special considerations.

In my opinion, this is the same as giving women different rules if they want to be firefighters or Marines, really short people that want to be pro-basketball players, blind people that want to be pro-racers, people without a sense of smell that want to be wine tasters.


#16

What rights were the CSA fighting for?


#17

What ideals of the confederacy do you sympathize with?


#18

The right to have slaves.


#19

That is odd considering the Union had slaves. Why would you fight another country for a right that you would have if you were a part of it? If two countries had both granted women the right to vote would anyone say that a war between them was over women’s enfranchisement? Of course not.


#20

Please go read the various declarations of secession and tell me that absolutely NONE of them mentioned slavery.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.