Mississippi’s Anti-LGBT Law Is the Most Dangerous One Yet

MadHatter wrote: And? People have a right to their views no matter how loathsome we might find them.

I'm not saying they don't. What I am saying is that we, as a society, are under no obligation to legally endorse them.

steamboat28 wrote:

MadHatter wrote: And? People have a right to their views no matter how loathsome we might find them.

I'm not saying they don't. What I am saying is that we, as a society, are under no obligation to legally endorse them.

What the law does is protect their right to live by them. It prevent the suppression of those views via lawsuit and government threat. That does not mean they are endorsed it means they cant be bullied into the ground with government guns and courts. That is what people dont get. Its not that people are getting some new right or that some how the government is lending support for these views. They are saying we will not arrest or sue you into submission for having and living them. No different then if I posted some Jedi stuff online and someone wanted to sue me for offending their Christian faith and the government said no we wont allow that.

MadHatter wrote: What the law does is protect their right to live by them. It prevent the suppression of those views via lawsuit and government threat. That does not mean they are endorsed it means they cant be bullied into the ground with government guns and courts. That is what people dont get. Its not that people are getting some new right or that some how the government is lending support for these views. They are saying we will not arrest or sue you into submission for having and living them.

It is implicitly saying that. Any law that protects discrimination (which, btw, is separate from free speech, and is not a right protected by the US Constitution) actively harms people by perpetuating division within the community. It actively promotes the ability of people to hide behind religions that they claim give them license to hate other human beings. I literally cannot understand how anyone would support these laws who honestly believed in the equality of the human being.

No one is going to bust your door down and haul you off to jail for hating people. But discriminating against them when you're providing a good or a service cannot be allowed if this country is to progress beyond internal warfare escalating from culture clashes.

These laws are discriminatory, hateful, bigoted, and small-minded, just like the people who support them.

steamboat28 wrote:

MadHatter wrote: What the law does is protect their right to live by them. It prevent the suppression of those views via lawsuit and government threat. That does not mean they are endorsed it means they cant be bullied into the ground with government guns and courts. That is what people dont get. Its not that people are getting some new right or that some how the government is lending support for these views. They are saying we will not arrest or sue you into submission for having and living them.

It is implicitly saying that. Any law that protects discrimination (which, btw, is separate from free speech, and is not a right protected by the US Constitution) actively harms people by perpetuating division within the community. It actively promotes the ability of people to hide behind religions that they claim give them license to hate other human beings. I literally cannot understand how anyone would support these laws who honestly believed in the equality of the human being.

No one is going to bust your door down and haul you off to jail for hating people. But discriminating against them when you're providing a good or a service cannot be allowed if this country is to progress beyond internal warfare escalating from culture clashes.

These laws are discriminatory, hateful, bigoted, and small-minded, just like the people who support them.

Freedom to control your property, freedom to associate, and freedom to run your business as you wish are all protected rights. Further your feelings are not protected by law. Allowing people to run their business and dispose of what they own as they see fit does not harm you. It neither breaks your bones nor picks your pocket so you get no say in it. Finally your comment of calling all who support these laws bigoted is the same as if you said all who support free speech are bigots because people use it to say offensive things. Its attacking people not ideas and against the rules of this forum.

MadHatter wrote: Freedom to control your property, freedom to associate, and freedom to run your business as you wish are all protected rights.

Please cite your sources here, because these kind of laws run counter to the protections of the 14th Amendment.

Finally your comment of calling all who support these laws bigoted is the same as if you said all who support free speech are bigots because people use it to say offensive things. Its attacking people not ideas and against the rules of this forum.

It was a logical conclusion; the laws themselves are rather inarguably discriminatory. Who supports discriminatory laws except discriminatory individuals and ignorant people who listen to their counsel?

steamboat28 wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Freedom to control your property, freedom to associate, and freedom to run your business as you wish are all protected rights.

Please cite your sources here, because these kind of laws run counter to the protections of the 14th Amendment.

Finally your comment of calling all who support these laws bigoted is the same as if you said all who support free speech are bigots because people use it to say offensive things. Its attacking people not ideas and against the rules of this forum.

It was a logical conclusion; the laws themselves are rather inarguably discriminatory. Who supports discriminatory laws except discriminatory individuals and ignorant people who listen to their counsel?

Sources hmm lets see first amendment protects freedom of association. Laws such as the Private property protection act and many many others protect businesses and private property rights. Or do you now have the right to kick me off your property if I offend you? Can I walk into a store and exercise my right to free speech by going on a racist rant? Or would the property owner not only be able to boot me but ban me from ever coming back? Yea sorry but there are many protections for your control of what you own.
Oh the 14th amendment you say? Which part? Do you mean the equal protection clause? Hmm funny you see it grantees LAWS be applied equally. No shop owner can enact a law. In fact the Constitutions are not chains upon the people but upon the government. As such you do not have the right to carry a gun on someones property if they dont wish you too, see all the no firearms allowed signs. You cant just start exercising the right to assembly on someones front lawn etc.
Finally sure you can say its a logical conclusion but it still violates the rules of the temple. Further then you must feel all people who support free speech are the same as the KKK or other people who use that speech to spew hate. You must feel all people who support freedom of religion are the same the the Westboro Baptists who protest soldiers funerals and spread hate. Because hey they support liberty. In short nothing you have said is logical. Are you unfamiliar with the phrase " I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." I dont have to like how people use liberties to support their freedom to have them.

I dont have to like how people use liberties to support their freedom to have them.

I definitely see your point. And I can definitely see the danger in having a big government enforcing morality...
The question is, how do we draw the line? On one hand, we face the danger of having the government getting too much into our lives. In Ecuador we currently have a very leftist President in power, whose political party also has majority in our Assembly (our legislative branch, not bicameral like in the US), and he has enacted a bunch of antidiscriminatory laws. Government got so deep into it, that it had many networks pull shows off the air (comedy shows) because they "offended" groups of people by sketches that reinforced stereotypes. Many people applauded the initiative, but many more got scared by how much the government is meddling in our lives.

So, I do get your point, Madhatter.

On the other hand, I just think... what if this same logic had been applied to dismiss the black civil rights movement? What would have become of africanamericans then?

It's a complicated issue.

Manu wrote:

I dont have to like how people use liberties to support their freedom to have them.

I definitely see your point. And I can definitely see the danger in having a big government enforcing morality...
The question is, how do we draw the line? On one hand, we face the danger of having the government getting too much into our lives. In Ecuador we currently have a very leftist President in power, whose political party also has majority in our Assembly (our legislative branch, not bicameral like in the US), and he has enacted a bunch of antidiscriminatory laws. Government got so deep into it, that it had many networks pull shows off the air (comedy shows) because they "offended" groups of people by sketches that reinforced stereotypes. Many people applauded the initiative, but many more got scared by how much the government is meddling in our lives.

So, I do get your point, Madhatter.

On the other hand, I just think... what if this same logic had been applied to dismiss the black civil rights movement? What would have become of africanamericans then?

It's a complicated issue.

Indeed it is. Its a very complex issue. On the one hand at the time I think maybe the laws passed to force integration might have been needed as racism was very pervasive at the time. On the other I think it might have done a mild disservice to the African American community. Now many people would think I am nuts for saying that but hear me out. By forcing integration much pressure was taken off of the African American community. Had that pressure continued many African American people might have created their own businesses catering to their own communities and this created a strong social and economic power base for themselves. So in the long run it might have lead to a better situation. Maybe.
In this case however I think the situation is not so pervasive and not so wide spread that laws are needed. I think that enough people just care about getting paid that the impact of a few bigoted minds amounts to little more then hurt feelings. I could be wrong but that is how I see it. I dont want to force the baker here in Colorado to bake me and my boyfriend a cake against his will because I would not want to be forced against my will to fix a computer for the Westborro Baptist church. I extend the liberties I want to others even if I dont like how they use them.

MadHatter wrote: Now many people would think I am nuts for saying that but hear me out.

Oh no.

MadHatter wrote: By forcing integration much pressure was taken off of the African American community. Had that pressure continued many African American people might have created their own businesses catering to their own communities and this created a strong social and economic power base for themselves. So in the long run it might have lead to a better situation. Maybe.

0____0 So you're saying that we should've... slowed down a bit in trying to right our society having treated African-Americans as literally and legally less than human until 1865 and then, as a society, as such in practice for another century and change after that? Because that is the "pressure" African-Americans were under from day one until the civil rights movement of the 20th century (and, sadly, a pressure that *still* endures, in different forms.)

This is like me saying, "Well, maybe we put out that fire too fast. We really should've let it burn the whole thing down." Like...

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Now many people would think I am nuts for saying that but hear me out.

Oh no.

MadHatter wrote: By forcing integration much pressure was taken off of the African American community. Had that pressure continued many African American people might have created their own businesses catering to their own communities and this created a strong social and economic power base for themselves. So in the long run it might have lead to a better situation. Maybe.

0____0 So you're saying that we should've... slowed down a bit in trying to right our society having treated African-Americans as literally and legally less than human until 1865 and then, as a society, as such in practice for another century and change after that? Because that is the "pressure" African-Americans were under from day one until the civil rights movement of the 20th century (and, sadly, a pressure that *still* endures, in different forms.)

This is like me saying, "Well, maybe we put out that fire too fast. We really should've let it burn the whole thing down." Like...

No because a fire does not leave a stronger base then what it started with. What I am saying is that MAYBE had the pressure kept on the African American community by necessity might have created their own businesses. Which would lead to economic power, which generally leads to political and social power. What I am saying is it COULD have been better not that it would have. In fact I said at the start of my post that those laws may well have been needed because of how pervasive the issue was at the time. I do not know the right answer here. I know that I feel accepting everyone's cash is the moral and economic right things to do. However I do not know that one should force that idea on others. I also know that necessity is the mother of invention and that most great things come from great struggle. Doesn't mean claim to know the answer I just posted a what if or a differing point of view.