LGBT Extreme Discrimination Legalized in Mississippi

The law too effect on October 10, 2017. After the article below was published the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court andhas refused a rehearing by the full court on a lawsuit attempting to block state House Bill 1523, a religious objections bill that opponents say codifies discrimination against LGBT people.

The lawsuit to have the law declared unconstitutional has been filed with the Supreme Court but the court has not yet decided whether to accept or decline the appeal.

This is some incredible legalized hate here. Please read the article or at least google Mississippi HB 1523.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/why-mississippis-law-on-religious-rights-and-lgbt-got-blocked/489731/

Remember, the law is now in effect because the court in the article was overruled by the appeals court.

This is terrible news.

It's pretty sad to see this kind of things happening still in the "modern" US.

This is a complicated issue. The idea of gay marriage is related to freedom of speech, while the idea of religious organizations refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies is a relate to freedom of religion. While I don't see this as a pressing problem because of "separation of church and state," there is some concern among Christians that the government may force churches to do it regardless of their theology. And this kind of thing is being done in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe. The discrimination side of this issue is complicated, because which side is being discriminated?

I personally am not opposed to gay marriage, but I do have a problem with the Supreme Court unilaterally deciding to legalize it. Such actions should go through Congress.

When discussing this sort of issue it would also be prudent to remember the difference between "de jure" and "de facto" application/interpretation of laws.

Also, this is NOT, I repeat NOT, a religious issue. This is a LEGAL issue. Marriage has not been a religious issue in the modern, developed world for decades, if not centuries. Anyone who says different does not understand what "marriage" even means. Forcing someone to do anything they don't agree with is inherently unconstitutional. However, I would also argue that anyone refusing to carry out their LEGAL duty to marry anyone who comes to them to be married should have their license to marry any couple revoked. Again, not a religious issue here. Religion, in reality, has NOTHING to do with marriage unless someone personally chooses to include religion in their marriage rituals/beliefs. One person's personal choice should NOT deprive another individual of their legal rights.

scifiwriter4 wrote: This is a complicated issue. The idea of gay marriage is related to freedom of speech, while the idea of religious organizations refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies is a relate to freedom of religion. While I don't see this as a pressing problem because of "separation of church and state," there is some concern among Christians that the government may force churches to do it regardless of their theology. And this kind of thing is being done in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe. The discrimination side of this issue is complicated, because which side is being discriminated?

I personally am not opposed to gay marriage, but I do have a problem with the Supreme Court unilaterally deciding to legalize it. Such actions should go through Congress.

No church or religious organization ever had to conduct same sex marriages anyway. That's protected by the First Amendment. This law is about much more than same sex marriage. A person can sit down in a restaurant and they can be kicked out because they are gay.

Was the Supreme Court wrong when it ruled that marriage between different 'races' (example: a 'white' person and a 'black' person) was a constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause? When I was 7 it was a felony in several states. Should it have refused to take the appeal and waited until the state legislators got around (if ever) to repealing those laws?

The US Congress does not define marriage. The states do.

Sci-fi I disagree with your last sentence. Being able to marry the person you love should be a basic human right. Last time I checked the law shouldn't be influenced by religious beliefs. Therefore lgbt should have the same marriage rights.
That being said churches shouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies if it is against their beliefs. There are other legal avenues to get married.

It's a widespread myth in the US that churches will be forced to recognize and conduct same sex marriages. That is not true now and it's never been true. Some churches will not ordain women. Some churches will not conduct a marriage except between members of the church or will not marry someone with a spouse of a different faith. That is legal and protected by The First Amendment. If a church will only marry persons who are at least 25 and members of that particular church, that's legal and protected by The First Amendment.

scifiwriter4 wrote: I personally am not opposed to gay marriage, but I do have a problem with the Supreme Court unilaterally deciding to legalize it. Such actions should go through Congress.

Marriage is an issue of freedom of association and freedom of contract. Rights with any American of legal age ( 18 ) have and should have without question. So SCOTUS was absolutely within its right to do this. This is not a matter of a law needing to be passed its a matter of rights deprivation which is what SCOTUS is for.

Br. John wrote: The US Congress does not define marriage. The states do.

John, you are pretty clear where you stand on this but if the states and not federal legislatures are the ones to define marriage then this would be within the power of the state that passed the law would it not? Otherwise, it is a federal issue correct? Or am I thinking about this too simply?

---

Now on to my own views on the matter. Private persons should have the right to discriminate in any way that they wish for any reason they wish. RIght up until it impacts the rights of another or causes them physical harm or costs them money/product that they earned/paid for. This means that government employees should not be able to discriminate. Nor should places that accept government funds such as WIC, SNAP, VA monies etc. ( Taxes do not count as they are YOUR money handed back to you ).
However, outside of that, I am fine as a gay man myself with a baker telling me they do not want my business for a same-sex wedding cake. That product is not mine, if they do not want my money for that product/labor then they should not be forced to take it. I would rather rot in jail than take the money of the Westboro Baptist church and so I do not want to force others to do something I would not want to do.
Further, think of the long game of this. Prostitution is legal in one US state. Would you tell one of the girls that worked there you will have sex with a man against your will or go to jail? For any reason? Even one as vile as racism? Trying to say it is different in that case is a special pleading fallacy and shows that your argument is not working.
Now I am personally against discrimination and think its crappy. But I you cannot force a person to be decent and using the threat of government guns to do so will not change them and it will only deepen the hate in their hearts. To quote Qui-Gon Jinn " you cannot force people to be just and decent such qualities must arise from within" People have a right to control the property they own, their labor, and how such things are used and sold. That means that some people will be scummy about it. But trying to take away someones ability to make a living to force them to be decent will only lead to deeper hate and potentially push them towards more violent expressions of hate/bigotry.

MadHatter wrote ... if the states and not federal legislatures are the ones to define marriage then this would be within the power of the state that passed the law would it not? Otherwise, it is a federal issue correct? Or am I thinking about this too simply?

The states define marriage, not the federal government. But the issue was many states were defining it in a way that violated the US Constitution. If any state or federal law, or a state constitution, has a provision that is alleged to be unconstitutional it's usually an issue for the federal courts. Although state courts can rule a state law violates the federal constitution, it can be appealed to federal court. The final say if something is federally constitutional or not is the US Supreme Court.