Mississippi governor signs law allowing service denial to gay couples

[Bat-shit]

[QUOTE=Shisno;50074680]I'm fairly certain this is unconstitutional, morbidly so.[/QUOTE]

Lol, when the first amendment guarantees right to exercise freedom of religion

But is there any amendment that guarantees the right not to be discriminated based on gender, sexual orientation, [I]religion[/I] etc.?

[editline]6th April 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50075842]"This bill merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to the exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"

I'm sorry, but if "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof" also means "allowing religious beliefs to be used as a legal scapegoat for any crime or any form of discrimination" then you're gonna have a whole bunch of shit on your hands with the precedent you're setting.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it sounds like the constitution of America might even conflict itself.. somehow.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=aliendrone123;50074780]This is so dumb, didn't the supreme court have a ruling last year that was supposed to make this sort of thing illegal?[/QUOTE]

The scotus hasn't ruled on these "protection" bills as a whole but without the hypocritical scalea on the bench they would probably smite these down as being discriminatory

[timothy80]

fuck this state

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;50074930]Never understood why someone would want a religious service under someone who stands against who you are or an entire group of people who fundamentally hates you on a faith level.

I'm all for gay rights (being gay myself... duh) but why would you want to be married by someone who is repeatedly saying 'fuck you sinners, burn in hell' in his head repeatedly while going through the service marrying you to said love one?[/QUOTE]

Ya recognised religions cannot be compelled, but the one that got bleeding heart neocons upset was a chappel that advertised that they married anyone...until two gays showed up, they were not a formal religious institution, they were for all intensive purposes a public business

[Revenge282]

[QUOTE=Sableye;50076559]they were for all intensive purposes a public business[/QUOTE]

"intents and purposes"

Common eggcorn. :eng101:

[Mimi_C]

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50076461]Lol, when the first amendment guarantees right to exercise freedom of religion

But is there any amendment that guarantees the right not to be discriminated based on gender, sexual orientation, [I]religion[/I] etc.?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps not a constitutional amendment, but this bill would still be considered illegal due to the Civil Rights Act banning businesses from discriminating for religious reasons.

[helifreak]

[QUOTE=James xX;50074612]Although it sucks, the way he worded it makes me thing he's only doing something we consider wrong, for reasons he considers to be right, which I guess isn't as bad as doing it even though you know its wrong. Still.[/QUOTE]

Hitler did something wrong because he thought it was right and we all saw how well that turned out. Guess Hitler wasn't that bad after all.