Mississippi Senate passes bill on objection to gay marriage


#1

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - Mississippi government employees or private business people could cite their own religious objections to same-sex marriage to deny services to gay or lesbian couples under a bill that advanced in the state Senate late Thursday.

m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/mississippi-senate-debates-bill-on-objection-to-ga/

By far the most sweeping bill of its kind yet. Not only does it allow for discrimination against LGBT people, but apparently it also allows for discrimination against those who have “engaged in premarital sex” (though I’m not quite sure how one would know that).

Horrific bill, IMO. I don’t think it’ll survive long.


#2

Except your opinion doesn’t override state law. I guess it could if you were appointed supreme court justice. Would you stop discriminating against Christians? That would be appreciated.:mad:


#3

…how am I discriminating against Christians? I AM a Christian :confused:

I’m sorry, but I think some of the States reactions to a random gay couple across town entering into a civil marriage are a bit over the top.

I don’t think Christ would approve of this bill, and I think many would agree with me
on that.


#4

Count me among the many. And I find it interesting that there is no explanation as to what would happen if all employees of a clerk’s office cite the same religious objections. This ship has sailed.


#5

I think it’s a pretty ridiculous bill.


#6

Yeah… It’s a dangerous precedent when you allow civil servants to refuse to provide a public service to an entire segment of the public because of their religious beliefs.


#7

Kentucky, Utah and North Carolina have found a way to have reasonable accommodations for clerks.


#8

Why can’t individual democratic jurisdictions pass their own democratic local laws and if certain voters want to live in a gay-friendly jurisdiction they can. And if other voters wish to live in places like Mississippi they can.

People can vote with their feet. :blush:

I’ve never understood the argument that EVERY single jurisdiction has to have exactly the same laws irrespective of who lives (and votes) in those places. I mean, it’s not like Indonesia is ever going to copy New Zealand’s SSM legislation.


#9

Why, that’s a novel concept. It involves states rights, and the right of people to representative government. Imagine that.


#10

Good bill. I pray there will be many more to come.


#11

This is for the protection of our religious freedom. A store owner should not be fined because he/she didn’t want to make a cake for a same-sex “wedding”.


#12

Because the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the States (and by consequence to local government).


#13

Which means states rights is a myth.


#14

What kind of discrimination? According to the natural law, a society can and probably should punish fornicators and sodomites in order to correct them, for both the private and common goods.

Many of the major problems in the US stem from the madness of the sexual revolution, and the revolutionaries are still trying to incarnate its logical conclusions. For example, lust has made our citizen really, really stupid, blind, foolish, and overtly sentimental (more than normal), and has been destroyed the family.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


#15

At this point in the American project, voting is no long (if it ever really was) about you influencing politics, but rather voting is politics influencing you.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


#16

Congress, in their debates on the 14th amendment, specifically said that the 14th did NOT incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states. Funny how an amendment can exist for 57 years and suddenly change the entire meaning of the amendment!


#17

The Courts have thought otherwise for a while now, though.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


#18

Indeed and there are all sorts of creative ways to turn these laws against their proponents.


#19

The revolution eats its own :wink:

Christi pax,

Lucretius


#20

Well then maybe Mississippi will be able to as well and the law of the land can proceed without interference.


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.