SUPREME COURT WON’T HEAR MISSISSIPPI LAW PROTECTING CHRISTIANS FROM LGBT BULLYING
Law prevents faith-based businesses from being forced to promote gay ideology
WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) - The highest court in the land is refusing to rule on a Mississippi law protecting Christian business owners from being forced to condone homosexuality.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal over a state law, House Bill 1523, which allows faith-based businesses to refuse to take part in gay weddings against their religious beliefs.
The law was first blocked by a Mississippi federal judge who ruled against it, claiming it "discriminates" against the LGBT community. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling in 2016 because the challengers were unable to show how they were actually hurt by the law.
"Two years ago Mississippi passed one of the strongest religious freedom laws in the country. I was pleased to read today that the United States Supreme Court refused to intervene, allowing our law to remain in full effect," said state House Judiciary B Chairman, Andy Gipson, R-Braxton in the The Clarion-Ledger on Monday. "Congratulations to Gov. Phil Bryant and his legal team."
The Missippi legislature approved the religious freedom law in 2015 following the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay "marriage" nationwide. Governor Phil Bryant signed the measure into law in 2016, but it did not take effect until October 10, after President Trump broadened exemptions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that required employers to provide abortifacients and contraceptives in their health plans.
The law defends marriage between a man and a woman, sex within marriage, and the biological sexes of male and female. The law also protects businesses' religious liberty in cases involving gay marriages, including protecting county clerks from being forced to issue gay marriage licenses and faith-based adoption agences from being forced to adopt children out to gay couples.
Mississippians [should not] live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union.Tweet
The Human Rights Campaign, a the world's largest LGBT activist group, refers to the law as the "most sweeping and devastating state law to be enacted against LGBTQ people in the country."
"We will keep fighting in Mississippi until we overturn this harmful law, and in any state where antigay legislators pass laws to roll back LGBT civil rights," commented Beth Littrell, a gay rights lawyer with Lambda Legal, an American civil rights organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom is supporting the law, according to Kevin Theriot, one of the group's lawyers, noting, "Good laws like Mississippi's protect freedom and harm no one."
Theriot remarked that the purpose of the law is "that Mississippians don't live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union."
In June, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the constitutionality of a Christian baker's refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, as doing so would go against his Christian beliefs.
Law prevents faith-based businesses from being forced to promote gay ideology
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/supreme-court-defends-mississippi-anti-lgbt-law
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
This is a sword that can cut both ways
Most businesses have already seen what happens to a business that discriminates. The state has lost tourism dollars because of these discriminatory laws, but there are always some conservative politicians that support them as a way to pander to their religious right constituents.
Maybe the state will next try to repeal the Civil Rights act to defend the state from the Afro/mixed race Gestapo that corrupts white women. The arguments that they use now are the very same that were used 55 years ago.
s/.
How dare the courts limit the churches ability to be racist bigots based on their bronze aged myths!!! /sarc
The courts have a long and disgraceful history of doing just that in this country.
Makes me want to move to Mississippi, open a business and post a sign out front, "We do not serve Christians!". Not a damn thing they could do about it.
Actually in response to this law many ethical businesses in Mississippi have joined the "If you're buying, we're selling" campaign where they put a sticker in the window indicating that they don't discriminate against customers. By default that means the businesses without that sticker are bible-babbling bigots who deny service to the minority groups their cult teaches them to hate.
It's really pissed off hate groups like the FRC and AFA.......
Jesus would never have treated a gay person the way modern day Christians treat the LGBT community nor would he appreciate the religious right of today using his name to bash and degrade people in the LGBT community. If Jesus came back today, there are a LOT of, "Christians" that would be shown the down elevator, not the up. You want to preach the word of God? Fine, learn his teachings and stop with the hate. I swear, the Evangelical Christians are the nations largest hate group... absolutely sickening.
Plus they sure whine about it when they're called out for being bigots and haters.
They want the right to act hatefully with impunity and without consequences......and that's exactly what this Mississippi law is all about.
Yep! My best friend, (who I met on NV in 2009), lives in Mississippi... She is constantly apologizing for her backwards state.. Must be hell for her being a liberal dem in Mississippi..
Hey, I live in MS. Trout lives in Arkansas.
Believe me, it is a riot when most people are deep red.
Trout is a hottie...
The Greenhouse on Porter sticks it to HB 1523 with 'Everyone Mississippi'
New business campaign to proclaim 'Everyone's welcome' in Mississippi
I think that's a continuation of the same campaign I mentioned up thread, so it's good to see that it's still active. The first version was started when the legislature passed the bill several years ago. Thanks for the link!
The part I like best is that it passively exposes the bigots who don't join the campaign.
Such an interesting title to this article. I wonder how many Christians have committed suicide because of LGBT bullying? Shouldn’t it really refer to Christians being annoyed by LGBTs?
Comment removed for TOS and CoC violations [ph]
Oh?
Sorry, I thought I had used those terms before and it had not been a problem.
let me try it in a more civil tone.
Christians are not prone to suicide due to bullying, unlike homosexuals, who have a very high rate of suicide, I believe it is due to homosexuals having a mental disorder.
better?
Let me see if I understand this... I can't call homosexuals names, because that is a TOS and COC violation, but liberals can call Republicans and Trump supporters every name under the sun, and that's ok?
hmm, how disappointing.
Why would you want to call homosexual names? That seems rather mean spirited. It also speaks volumes about you.
Probably because of bullying from Christians, bigots, and homophobes.
And you would be wrong about that!
I am a mean spirited person, I'll admit that, unlike the other 90% of people on this site who call Republicans all kinds of names, but won't admit they are wrong for it.
No doubt, but that still does not address the issue that Christians are not likely to kill themselves from being bullied by homosexuals
Prove me wrong.
I am a mean spirited person, I'll admit that
Skirting the CoC [ph]
You have absolutely no clue, lol.
Then why don’t you enlighten me, meanie?
That's not something to be proud of.
Take it up with them.
I didn't say they were. But then, Christian are probably not bullied to the extent like homosexuals are. Neither are homosexuals likely to bully Christians to such an extent.
The APA does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Consider yourself proven wrong!
Perhaps it's because homosexuals DON'T bully Christians. In FACT, the VAST majority of homosexuals ARE Christians.
That's not how any of this works. YOU made the assertion, it is your responsibility to support it.
Indeed. But in addition to the fact that he cannot support it with anything credible or valid, the APA also contradicts his opinion on the matter. Double whammy to his credibility.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders :
Don't try and bullshit me, ok?
(1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.
Do you think that this describes all homosexuals? It’s pretty clear that it doesn’t. This describes a homosexual who wishes they weren’t, probably because they are surrounded by conservative douchebags who constantly deride homosexuals. Remind you of anyone?
Hey, I didn't write the book.
Anyways, I have a gay cousin, he is a really nice guy, so no, I have no hate for homosexuals in general, just certain homosexuals.
For instance,
Remember when Ellen came out of the closet, everyone hated her because she was some sort of militant gay, but now everyone likes her again, she's still homosexual, but she is no longer "in your face" about it.
Can't wait for your proof of that!
ROFL
But in all seriousness, there is a decent chance that you are correct, seeing how Christians outnumber homo's by about a million to one.. /shrug, I still want to see your proof, you made the claim, back it up, lol!
1987? Really?
The point is that the majority of people in the USA identify as Christian, so by default, most gays will be Christians. That's just basic math.
Same goes for abortions and prison populations.
I'm still waiting for YOUR proof.
So you're demanding that we do as you say, not as you do?
Seriously, it's 2018.
Everyone 'hated her'? Seriously, that's bullshit.
BTFW, you obviously don't watch her show. Ellen is still VERY 'in your face' about her sexual orientation.
BTW, glad to know you like Ellen too.
I forgot what it is you want me to prove, I've provided proof of everything so far.
So your position is that you're incapable of following the thread. Got ya.
And how many times have you flagged violations you have seen? Don't blame the Mods for not being able to be everywhere at once and read ever comment. If you don't flag the ones you see, then don't complain about what the Mods. That is what the Flag on the comments are for.
However, I guess it is more fun to trash the Mods than give them a heads up on such comments.
wasn't that the Terminator, the former California Governor,
talking to the motel counter man, in response as to what smelled so putrid ?
Now you are saying that I am not normal? Who are you to judge whether or not I am? And before you go around throwing pointed stones at others to try to make them look inferior to you, you might think of the consequences of your own words.
R U A Newsvine Refugee by chance ?
Do U recall IGKNORANTZRULZ ?
LOL!
Ever the victim, eh Raven?
Don't put the monkey on my back. Those were your words, not mine. You own them, not me. So don't try to deflect from your own hateful words by trying to put the victim card on me.
And you are piously pointing the finger at me? Go tell it to those who don't know you.
What words were my words? I understand that you Comment removed for CoC [ph], or something, but please, don't fucking lie to try and make a point against me Raven.
You know NOTHING about me. Your assumption that I am old, or something is a personal insult.
As for the words you called me a liar about, your own words,
9.1.2.2.… Old School Marine replied to Raven Wing @ 9.1.2.2.…
" That's what normal people would do."
Where is the lie you claim I made.
Not only did you infer that I am not normal, you also call me "old, or something", and you also called me a liar . All are against the CoC.
My assumption came from you old self, you have stated as much many times..
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] Seeing how I've never said anything in this thread at all.
I could report you for a personal attack, I am not "one marine", or whatever.. But I won't report you, I will have pity on you.
Prove where I said that. I have never ever given my age on this or any other board on the Internet as it is no one's business.
Comments removed for context [ph]
Keep going, the violations are adding up. And as far as not reporting me.......PLEASE, do go for it, and we'll see which one of us gets written up first.
yea, i vaguely recall you as well
let the fun begin
again
The only one with BS here is you, especially when you try to cite something from almost 40 years ago. Too funny! Go back another 5-10 years and I'll bet you can find a source that says homosexuality is a mental illness. Of course, such antiquated notions have long been abandoned and rejected. try to stay current.
And your so-called "proof" has been shown to be total BS so far.
No, you are not, and I do apologize for that mistake on my part. However, your subsequent comments to me are still CoC violations.
You can't call any religious group a derogatory name.
And no one call insult any other member. If you see it flag it.
Politics is in a class of their own. Any party, or politician can be called anything. It goes on here daily by both sides.
OSM...
You and I went over that and it was a CoC violation.
No political group or party is protected from name calling unless it is directed to a specific member. And no you can't call homosexuals names.
Well then we will have to be more vigilant about flagging such comments as Bible Thumpers, Bigots, Homophobes, etc. directed at Christians.
Will you ever stop carping and whining about this fake persecution? Man-up for once, for Christ's sake.
It must be tough for Christian extremists to have everyone else point and laugh at their bigoted superstitions.
We need a law to protect these fragile and extra white snowflakes!
The diagnostic category of "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM in 1987.
Since 1987 ( DSM III- Revised ) there have been several more revisions, the latest being 2013 version DSM-V (Five)
If you're going to pretend to be something, you should use the latest information, not a publication from 1980 or 1987.
Are you a big fan of the UN or WHO?
Yes.
Stop deliberately taunting and trolling me and I won't need to respond to you. I am never a victim, merely standing up for my own rights not to be bullied by you or anyone else here on NT. This is not the other site you came from, there are rules here and if you don't want to abide by them, then I suggest you find a more suitable venue to attack others with your snark and personal insults. That does not fly here on NT.
That is right. And you kind of gave me a giggle there from a moderators stand point. Republicans/Conservatives do as much insulting of Democrats/liberals.. what you can't do is do a direct insult of a member and call them a political name. But you can make sweeping generalizations about either. although I don't see how it fosters good dialog.
Carry on.
Ok, I understand the direct insult of a member is no go. I understand that sweeping generalizations are ok, so what was wrong with the sweeping generalization of "homo's" or "faggots"? I understand it is very not nice to refer to them as such, but it is also not nice to refer to me, a Trump supporter, as a racist.. Yet that is allowed.
What difference does it make? "Husband" and "wife" is merely a description. The legal term in a marriage is "spouse."
Nice ad hom attack.
Because a specific group of people are being refused, which is discrimination and against the law. How do you not get that?
How is a baker being hurt by baking a wedding cake, which is his job anyway? Or is his fragile religious sensibilities being hurt?
When a nation has to 'fret' about cakes maybe its time to just hand over the keys to Putin.
It seems the only ones fretting about are certain theists who think their religious beliefs are being compromised somehow.
Perhaps it isn't that 'certain theists' think their 'religious beliefs' are being compromised, rather these 'certain theists' fear their religious beliefs are being exposed?
Bingo.
I say Russia has won when T-baggers decide that cake decorating is a straights-only sport.
By the way there's recent research which shows that FOX viewers are the # 1 consumers of fake news. Big surprise, eh? But it does explain a lot about our current government.
Putin has indeed scored a few points. Trump still standing. Ignorance is bliss and stupidity is holy. Sh**holes are legitimate speak and rendezvous with hot ex-porn stars are cleanly incinerated.
Well done Putin. Now just get into the vote counts a little better and the little puppy will be forever satiated.
I'm starting to suspect that all this fakery and lying about "christians" being persecuted by a minority is the way fascists in Germany laid the groundwork for justifying the elimination of various minorities that were a threat to German genetic superiority. This tack and the language used are open invitations to murder--on a small scale now but who knows where it goes from there.
Not that I would pretend expertise in the ways of Gayness, but I believe that it is a human condition not an ideology.
Did Jesus not tell us to love all others as we would ourselves? I really do not recall any exceptions, has there been an amendment to the bible regarding gays?
sorry folks. you can not force someone to ignore their religion just because they engage in business.
in case you can not see which way the wind blows? that ruling will support religious freedom.
Cheers
And someone cannot ignore or violate the law just because of their religion. Especially when they agree to abide by the law in the first place when obtaining a business license to serve the public.
Considering how other courts have ruled so far, the wind direction may not be blowing in the direction you want.
religious exemptions to laws are nothing new.
so far I am batting 1000 on supreme court case predictions for the last 10yrs running
my streak is not going to be broken by such an easy call.
you do not have to believe me today... the supreme court will explain it to ya in a few months.
Cheers
let me give you a hint.
are ya seeing a trend yet?
Religious exemptions are only allowed as long as they don't go against compelling government interests, and are subject to legislative revision. Allowing someone to use their religion as an excuse to ignore or violate the law in effect allows them to become a law unto themselves and effectively neutralizes the power or authority of the government. I'd say the lack of government authority, which could result if the ruling favored the baker, provides a compelling government interest. Another factor to consider is that this particular issue also involves public accommodation laws. A ruling in favor of the baker could potentially nullify state or federal public accommodation laws too, based on religious objections. The attorneys arguing against the baker could use those particular points to argue for a ruling against the baker.
On the flip side, the baker who owns and operates a business accommodating the public is bound to adhere to state/federal public accommodation laws, as he agrees to do when obtaining a business license. And the baker has already admitted to violating state law. However, the baker would have to prove that providing service to a homosexual customer would substantially burden his beliefs. Somehow, I don't see how baking a cake, something which he has done numerous times, would constitute an undue burden on his beliefs.
Actually it would be a very new thing since religious views have never been a valid excuse to violate a generally applicable law. As the court said in 1878 and Scalia reiterated in 1990:
.
What's even worse for the dumb bigots is that SCOTUS has already rejected such religious excuses in the specific context of public accommodations laws. See Newman v Piggie Park for details.
Moreover SCOTUS has always supported the right of the government to regulate religious conduct. But what it can't regulate is the right to hold religious beliefs no matter how vile they are......and as we see Jack Phillips has been free to go on TV and espouse his anti-LGBT views without any government interference.
Actually the Bigoted Bakery case was bumped at least 14 times from conference to conference. It was only granted cert after Gorsuch joined the court but even those 4 votes for cert aren't an indication of how the court will vote. What's perhaps more relevant is that when Scalia was on the court they denied cert to Elane Photography which had a far more compelling argument (because wedding photographers do have to attend the wedding). That means there were at most 3 votes for cert when Scalia was on the court.
.
I'm not sure what case you're referring to, but if it's the one in MS about HB1523 the appeals court dismissed the case due to lack of standing. That's explicitly not a ruling on the merits.
.
LOL. You don't even seem to understand how our courts work, much less have any apparent understanding of the legal issues in these cases.