{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Madman Mordo:
4/4/2014 4:39:33 PM
13
Huh, I guess I'll see what the Flood has to say about thi...
*sees replies*
Oh dear.
English
-
Had to sign out to see why the thread exploded in replies. The people I expected (and of course, have muted) to defend this bill turned law are defending the law, even though it's just a front to discriminate. I'm sure there are nice people in Mississippi, but I wouldn't want to visit that place anymore because I might get persecuted for my beliefs and now, possibly my race.
-
lol no you won't. we're very kind down here. we are the "hospitality" state ya know.
-
Edited by Madman Mordo: 4/4/2014 6:39:39 PMIt honestly seems like supporters of this bill just want to see the First Amendment as a one way ticket to religious power, not a two way street of exercising volition for both parties.
-
>I have a different opinion then them, so I mute them
-
So are you like Icy and don't understand the law? Do you understand what this does and doesn't allow?
-
Edited by Madman Mordo: 4/4/2014 7:08:33 PMI honestly wouldn't have an issue with the bill if it didn't delve into state matters. Separation of Church and Government goes both ways, and allowing governmental/legislative bodies to actively discriminate someone based on sexual orientation (hell, even race, but I guess it is Mississippi) honestly sounds like something Saudi Arabia would do, which is dare I say, on the dangerous slippery slope to a theocracy.
-
Except this is separation if church and state? This law does not allow a government body or building to discriminate against people because it is illegal for the government to do that. A police officer cannot deny helping a gay couple, a hospital cannot deny helping a Muslim.
-
Edited by Madman Mordo: 4/4/2014 6:45:34 PM[quote]Except this is separation if church and state?[/quote] Except it's not. Not even close. Allowing people to use religion as a hall pass to discriminate is religion interfering with state matters. It's...what's that word they use? Oh yeah, unconstitutional. [quote]This law does not allow a government body or building to discriminate against people because it is illegal for the government to do that.[/quote] Well that's what the bill aims to accomplish so...
-
Edited by MoReCoWbELLx2x1: 4/4/2014 6:46:55 PMThat's what it aims to accomplish? Please show me where it says that. This bill is only about not forcing people to do stuff against their religion. Within the law
-
Edited by Madman Mordo: 4/4/2014 6:51:34 PM[quote]Mississippi lawmakers in both chambers of the legislature passed the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 2681) Tuesday. Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has said he will sign the bill. When it becomes law it will prohibit the state from taking action that "burden" a citizen's right to religious exercise. LGBT activists have attacked the bill as discriminatory. The legislation was approved in the Mississippi House with a 78-43 vote and was approved in the Senate with a wide majority, according to BuzzFeed. A copy of the bill defines "burden" as "any action that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies the exercise of religion by any person or compels any action contrary to a person's exercise of religion." This burden includes, but is not limited to, "[b]withholding benefits,[/b] assessing criminal, civil or administrative penalties or exclusion from [b]governmental programs or access to governmental facilities."[/b][/quote]
-
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. But can you link me the actual bill? And show me in the bill were it says that. Despite me asking multiple people, no one has yet to link it. I havnt seen anyone in this entire thread link the actual bill. Only what they think or what a news outlet thinks. Which is a horrible way to get news.
-
Best I could find. Going to continue to defend it now?
-
Thank you, someone finally links it. And I agree, it could probly be better worded. But also, and I'm sure even most people didn't read it. AFTER someone says it is a burden to them. Keep reading and it says this. Two things have to happen. 1) If further government involvement is needed, you cannot say it is a burden. 2) After someone says it is a burden, then the action still has to be carried out in the least intrusive manner involved. (Such as getting someone to do it that is not burdened by it) So the person that is being a "burden" still has to be helped. They cannot be out right denied help. Like everyone is claiming.
