Apple today has spoken out against a controversial new bill in Mississippi that was signed into law by the state’s governor earlier this week. House Bill 1523 is spun as protecting religious freedom but has been criticized for enabling LGBT discrimination. Apple today has joined a variety of technology companies in voicing its opposition to the law.
In a statement shared by The Clarion-Ledger, Apple said that it believes the new law “empowers discrimination,” while also reiterating that its stores are open to anyone, as is the company as a whole:
“We want Mississippians to know that our stores and our company are open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love.”
In addition to Apple, companies including HP, IBM, PayPal have spoken out against this controversial law and similar legislation in North Carolina.
Apple has been vocal about other laws similar to the Mississippi one, as well. A year ago, the company and CEO Tim Cook spoke out against controversial religious freedom laws in Indiana and Arkansas. Tim Cook even penned an open-letter in the Washington Post to reiterate Apple’s stance. Cook at the time said that the laws were “dangerous” and that they echoed the days of racial segregation. Additionally in 2014, Apple joined a variety of companies in urging the governor of Arizona to veto a religious freedom bill.
Tim Cook has spoken about racial equality and gay rights in several other instances as well. He took time in 2014 while being inducted into the Alabama Academy of Honor to say that many are “still too slow” when it comes to accepting people for who they are, while also noting that “one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time” is the lack of equal access to quality education.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The end of discussion is the laws for a church and state divide, simple as that. This is just another example of the government contradicting their own laws.
These right-wing zealots never learn…We went through this already! In the days of MLK Jr. they didn’t want to serve blacks, because of “religious freedom” — they didn’t want to have to recognize interracial marriages; same justification. Now, since that’s gone, homosexuals and transgendered people are the new blacks. Same bible verses quoted, same nonsense bigotry and hatred. Enough is enough already. If you don’t want to serve everyone equally, as a business, then close your shop and take your hatred elsewhere.
“..The same bible verses quoted….” Really?
We should remember that the proponents for- and against slavery also used the same biblical texts to justify their positions.
While the Scriptures are indeed pro-slavery; and none of the verses actually can be conscripted into defending its abolition, slavery was abolished on sectarian grounds… Reason trumped man-made idiocy.
Thomas Jefferson: “There shall ever be a wall of separation between the Church and the State…”
When a “revelation” is used to justify a Law, it’s not just stupid – it’s unconstitutional.
It will be challenged – and the challenger will win the Case, forcing the State Legislators to re-write the law (again).
All at great expense, and wasting precious time, which could better have been spent searching science text-books for creeping nonsense being inserted slyly to give “revelation” a mask of Science; and perpetuate stupidity…
I wasn’t talking about slavery…I never even said the word slavery. I said in the civil rights days.
Spoken like a true faggot. Are you gay, Mr. Mac? Way to offend the majority. If you don’t like it, then move your faggot ass elsewhere. Talking about hatred, the “accepting left” can’t seem to accept that men having sex does not babies make. Take your cry to Mother Nature. She won’t give a damn shit.
Why doesn’t Apple STFU and try to put out updates that aren’t so dam buggy???? Who cares what opinion Apple has? They are a multi-billion dollar business not a political advocacy! Hey Tim Cook how about worrying about why Apple products have declined under your watch not politics!
Apple, like many large companies, believes that curating and enforcing an inclusive brand image is good for business. If you are a shareholder and don’t like it, sell your shares. If you aren’t a shareholder, take your own advice and shut your stupid trap.
John, totally agree with you. I only want Apple to make great products. I have no interest in Apple’s opinions on politically correct rubbish, especially while their products go from bad to worse. Can you imaging this happening if Steve Jobs was still around? Never. And Flavio (who things he’s “cool” judging by his moniker), clearly Apple curating an inclusive image is not good for business. Your excitement for inclusivity has precluded your dim mind from noticing that Apple market share has declined in every segment it is active in. So get your facts right before you open your abusive trap.
Lionsgate has started moving their productions out of North Carolina because of their law.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lionsgate-north-carolina-bc-hb2-1.3522818
Hit them in the pocketbook, they’ll change their mind.
I do find these laws interesting. The language in them makes it sound like bigots are an oppressed minority.
Isn’t is ironic? Religious freedom was always meant to be used as a shield; and they’re using it as a sword! There’s a war on Christmas! Christians are being oppressed everywhere! What planet do these people live on!?
YOU are the reason that men are suing Hooters for not hiring them as waitresses. Go slap yourself. Then go slap yourself again.
Lionsgate has started moving their productions out of North Carolina because of their law.
cbc.ca/news/business/lionsgate-north-carolina-bc-hb2-1.3522818
Hit them in the pocketbook, they’ll change their mind.
I do find these laws interesting. The language in them makes it sound like bigots are an oppressed minority.
It’s not necessarily fair to penalize the people of an entire state for the actions of elected officials on social issues. Most state legislators come from highly gerrymandered districts and are pandering to a small base of voters. There are more effective ways such as withholding campaign donations or funding opposition ads or candidates.
I agree with that but there needs to be a line drawn, because this kind of hatred should not be tolerated.
This is no different from Jim Crow laws of segregation…And here I thought that those days were long gone.
And do realize that there are many people in these states that DO agree with these laws; and that is a huge problem.
Maybe Apple should start moving out of these states as well. Or what about move out of countries that treat minority’s or women like dirt?
That should show them!
It would be a huge undertaking for Apple to pull out of the US.
LOL are you for real? Apple is a for profit company that is beholden to its stock holders. If Cook does that Apple will be sued in to bankruptcy! Dam do I miss Steve Jobs and Apple products that worked!
No clue why this is up here twice. I only posted it once.
So people shouldn’t be provided services just because they’re different?
No wonder the US is going to shit.
On the contrary, I think Mississippi legislation is responsible to allow persons to attend only bathrooms of their biological sex. It protects women from possible misuse of contrary legislation. I wonder why Apple and other companies are succumbing to pressures from the more left wing LGBT?
I’d say Apple isn’t succumbing to anyone or anything. You do realize their CEO is gay, right? Additionally, you honestly believe that law was passed to protect woman…? Lol..
I could also argue that the passed law would allow non religious people to discriminate against anyone they don’t like bc simply saying its against their religious views. That road goes both ways..
If Mississippi could realistically pass a law to keep women at home barefoot, they would.
Also, the law goes beyond bathrooms. It allows hospitals, schools and even homeless shelters to refuse service to anyone that doesn’t fit their religious views. Time to be blunt, that’s f**king disgusting and all but confirms the view the world has on America. I have NEVER been more ashamed to be a US citizen. You don’t have to like it or embrace it, but to be able to refuse helping someone that is ill or doesn’t have a warm bed at night is not right, regardless of the convoluted view someone puts on it.
You’ve apparently swallowed the propaganda by these hateful people. “Protect the women” is the oldest trick in the freaking book. Look it up, and men sneaking into the ladies room by claiming to be transgender isn’t an issue. It doesn’t give suddenly give carte blanche to harass other people.
In any case, the opposite will now happen. Transgender men – that is, biological women who consider themselves men, act like men and appear like men – would be forced to use the ladies room now. And vice versa. This is a situation where a transgendered person wouldn’t be comfortable AND the others in the room won’t be comfortable!
This level of hate has always been in the US, it just wasn’t getting the voice and traction it is now. Things are going to get worse before the get better unfortunately.
Let me ask you a question: If a famous photographer takes pictures of naked women his whole life, and does so for a living–do you think that you can go into his studio and ask him to take naked pictures of you? And sue him if he declines? Why not? What would your rational objection be at that point, Vicio? What objection would you have then, that would not also be the same objection in the case of the Cupcake or Wedding Cake or Photography incidents?
Yawn. I can’t wait until we get Apple news that isn’t something to do with the FBI and encryption or another state law that Apple is speaking out against.
Apple stay out of politics, stop discriminating Christians and stick with making killer Apple products – that is why we love the company. Its products – not its politics and ideology.
Last I checked, they’re still pumping out killer products. Nothing wrong with voicing a moral compass from the company. The point is that these laws are discriminating against those that help create these products.
The truth is not everybody shares the same moral compass. Just look at the divorce rate? I’ve been married for 20 years and when I tell people they look shocked in disbelief like it’s an impossible task. People give up to easy.
If you’re a Christian, then you’ll be supporting Apple and also speaking out against these kinds of laws.
Very true! Also, if you’re a Christian you won’t judge others for the lifestyle they choose to live since we are ALL sinners in the eyes of God. A true Christian not only recognizes this very fact but also acknowledges the need to love one another as brothers, sisters, and children of God.
These issues incidentally aren’t political, they’re about basic human rights and affect everyone, including Apple employees.
“discriminating Christians” ?
Not even going to touch that.
“Discriminating Christians”? Please. Let me guess, you enjoy Fox News’ segments about the “War on Christmas”?
Making the empowered majority feel like they’re under siege by 1% of the population – and inducing a reactionary hatred toward them – has been used by racists, fascists, and dubious leaders throughout history. Black people are coming for your women! Jews are ruining Germany! Lock up the Japanese-Americans! It’s called “scapegoating”, and you should learn to recognize it.
acslater017, So, Sir!: You are saying that if you are the boss at a Costco you can send a Muslim employee in to slice the pork? Someone else can do that, but not the Muslim. And that’s a fact. The BUSINESS has the obligation to perform, but not the EMPLOYEE, who can have moral objection. If it a 1-person business, such as an LLC, then the employee wins. It is well-held what moral ground the average Christian stands upon. Stop bringing rae into the equation, because it was under the Catholic, Cristina front that Lincoln released the slaves. Don’t slippery slope this and say that gays are a “race”.
Agreed! Steve Jobs did not politicize the company. He’s probably rolling over in his grave:What have I done!?”
Why does Cook discriminate against fellow businesses who have been targeted by the LGBT and forced to either close their business in US States, or face steep fines?
This is a very simple issue. Back in the days of the civil rights movement, businesses in the Southern USA said it was their “constitutional right” to not have to serve black people, or to put them in different parts of a store, different bathrooms, etc.
This was disastrous to allow this; it caused a lot of problems, so we came together as a nation and said no more discrimination, separate but equal is total garbage.
These “Christian” right-wing zealots want to go back to those days, but now, homosexuals and transgendered people are the new “nigg..s” — it’s nonsense.
If we let a small shop do this, it opens the door for everyone to do it; and now we even have hospitals and doctors who don’t want to take on gay patients or the children of gay patients. It needs to end.
If you want to open up a business, be prepared to serve everyone. If you don’t want to serve everyone, equally, then don’t open a business in the USA — take your HATE and your bigoted ideology somewhere else; it’s not welcome here.
This.
SRGMAC, NO ONE is coming into my store or home-based business and demanding that I attend a PERSONAL, PRIVATE event, such as a wedding, and to take photos of them, therein. Not a gay, and not a straight. A wedding is not a PUBLIC event. It is a PRIVATE event. It is thusly intensely personal. I wouldn’t even want a photographer to take my pictures if she/he did not want to be there. If the PUBLIC can’t show up to a wedding, then how it is that US PUBLIC Law is expressed in this continuum? If I was a videographer, can you force me to take porn videos of you? What? That’s not discrimination?Well, if I was a videographer, then you are saying that can come in and DEMAND that I take videos of you, too, or sue? It doesn’t work like that. If I don’t like your face, don’t make me look at you. That’s common sense.
Spencer, if that’s what your business does (cater to any event, I don’t care if it’s open to the public or not), then of course, if you personally don’t support that event, no one expects you to go there. That’s not a problem, and I don’t think anyone would disagree.
So — arrange for the customers to pick up the cake \ flowers \ etc. at your store. Very simple solution.
That way you’re not being forced to attend the event yourself, and those evil gay deviant satan worshipping customers won’t ask you to do a 3 way anal session inside of your store. What’s wrong with that?
If you’re open for business, and your business is to serve the public, then logically I would think anyone would be prepared to actually serve the public…That means everyone, including people you may not like, for whatever ridiculous bigoted (religious nonsense) reason :)
@srgmac
When I was a kid my folks ran a business in Oregon. At the time the Rajneesh cult was getting a foothold in Antelope. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh_movement
My folks were appalled. They never had a good thing to say about them. Then the Rajneesh’s tried a deliberate food poisoning attack on locals to change the outcome of an election. They were a real piece of work.
Anyway, the cult had an airplane. The pilot was a professional that my folks had known for years before the came up. They asked him why he worked for them. Did he really believe? “Nah,” he replied. “But they pay well. I also wondered about this and asked my folks why we sold to them because of what they were doing. I got two answers. My mother said “Their money’s still green.” and that was that. But I did notice that she doubled the prices for them. When I asked my dad he was a bit more circumspect. “When you run a public business, a corporation, one of the things you agree to is not to discriminate. You can have no shirt, no shoes no service signs, that sort of a thing. But you can’t discriminate for race or religion, or that sort of a thing. You can get in a lot of trouble for that.”
So, @Spencer Baleniesiefer No you don’t have yo do anything that you’re person objects to. But your business will get in serious hot water if you just refuse to serve people of a different race, religion, orientation, etc. Go a quick google search for the cases, there have been a number of them, when hotel owners refused a room to unmarried couples because it was “against their religion”. They didn’t get too far with that. This is why I expect this law to get blown away at the first appeal.
Doug, you do know that smaller businesses get “freebie” passses that large business must still adhere to, correct? This is the reason that you can hire only your family until you have a 20-person employee constituent, etc.
@Spencer: Let’s flip this and see how it feels. Billy believe in a god, well I don’t. I don’t want to provide flowers for Billy’s wedding. I should not have to provide services to someone that supports something that very much contradicts my beliefs, or lack of belief. Whichever way you see it.
Cool? Cool….
What’s the difference…?
Let me tell you another “bigoted” reason that uses the same logic, Mr. Mac: A chearleader was assaulted by a football player, off-campus. She pressed charges. The charges stuck. But because she was a charge of the school that she “Cheered” at, she was removed from the chearleading team because her cheer “paused” when it was supposed to be a team cheer for the accused, who still got to play. Bigot that. Political correctness is correctness that never can stand the test of logic. Men are men, women are women. We will all have our differences and, at the moment, we all prefer to have our own public bathroom. Until the PC police come in and we all have to share–to keep liberal “logic” intact. In 10 years there will only be one bathroom, to the chagrin of the masses like you who voted for it, all because the 1% of us messed it up for all others. I call bullshit before that happens.
DCperin, this you would get away with; as long as you never provided flowers to anyone–then there would be no discrimination effected. This is why businesses are choosing to not supply ANY wedding paraphernalia, period. Because there is no technical discrimination if the effort is constant across the board. Try again.
Spencer, I think you’re the one that needs to try again. That’s NOT what some businesses are doing. If a business doesn’t cater to ANY wedding service, then that’s just not their line of business. That’s not exactly the argument though.. The flower shops or cake shops that DO provide wedding services are still filling orders for heterosexual weddings. They’re flat out refusing to if its for a homosexual couple. So let me clear it up.. Another hypothetical; I own a flower shop AND I CATER TO WEDDINGS regularly, but Billy walks in and wants flowers for HIS WEDDING. He’s a Christian, I’m an atheist. I don’t want to provide flowers for his wedding bc his beliefs don’t align with my lack of belief. Is that not discrimination…? It absolutely is, and it’s wrong. Period…
And if something like that was done to a God fearing Christian…… Wow! You think the LGBT community has pull…. You’ve seen nothing until you’ve seen the church go after something they want.
Again, this argument should be moot. Any TRUE Christian would tell you they don’t support this law, bc it’s wrong. Unfortunately, most of the people that identify as Christian or Catholics in this country are not.
That IS what I am saying. Businesses do not cater to either because of that, and that is similarly the reason wal-mart and other companies do not celebrate Christmas: because some other entity steps in and requests equal treatment, then Christmas is stopped to neutralize the field, or else the lawsuits begin. Do you not see the slippery slope? Additionally, using the logic it takes to wed gay people, then under what laws can I NOT marry my cousin?
I think you’ve already said this twice, DCPerin.
So, a hypothetical from me:
A hooker in Las Vegas is incorporated. She only bones women. You come up to her, are definitely not her type (she likes women), and she says “no”.
You sue on the grounds of sexual discrimation.
So, if you were the female, you now have a choice:
1) Be sued
2) Open your legs and effectively be raped.
“…Is that not discrimination…? It absolutely is, and it’s wrong of her. Period…”
Use your logic.
@mbalen: Your comment is so out of left field and has nothing to do with the argument that I actually had to read it 3-4 times to not laugh. Walmart might not celebrate Xmas, but they sure as shit SELL Xmas stuff.. Gay people aren’t asking everyone to celebrate the marriage with them. They’re asking to buy things for their wedding from vendors…. Again, you’re out there buddy.. I’m not even addressing the differences in being gay and f**king your biological cousin. What you typed have nada to do with the actual situation. Educate yourself.
You are right. I am nowhere in the Left’s field. Neither is real logic, apparently.
Tell me this: as a father, WHY can’t you marry your own son? Procreation is nowhere in the equation for marriage, now.
By the way; regarding the Gay Photographer topic: The lesbian couple were willing to drop the charges if the owners sold their soul and went to and photographed their wedding. Are you saying this is not “pulling someone into their world”?. Educate yourself. As stated previously: in a perfect world, everyone can do everything as long as no one gets hurt. But when you FORCE me to attend your wedding, your are making me enter your world. Private, not public.
‘Nuff said.
Spencer, you bring shit up that people aren’t even talking about. No one is asking a hooker to have sex a certain way and no one is asking to marry their own child. You’re deliberately going out of your way to try and compare it to useless crap. No, I don’t think they should force someone to their wedding, but you’re only representing a very small portion of the problem. literally, you’re taking a single instance and trying to make it out like the entire LGBT community wants to drag a homophobe photographer to their wedding. How dense are you…? Truly, there are people out there just want to be able to go in ANY store and buy something and not be worried about whether they’re normal enough in the eyes of the seller to actually buy it. Again, you’re thought try to make it much more dark than it really is and that’s disgusting. No one thinks you’re funny or even remotely correct. No one wants to hear your dark and twisted thought as you try to pass them off as the LGBT’s thoughts. No one is thinking of that other than you. Your mind brought them into this…..
“No one is asking a hooker to have sex a certain way and no one is asking to marry their own child…You’re taking a single instance and trying to make it out like the entire LGBT community wants to drag a homophobe photographer to their wedding…there are people out there just want to be able to go in ANY store and buy something and not be worried about whether they’re normal enough in the eyes of the seller to actually buy it…No one thinks you’re…remotely correct.”
Single instances are all it takes to create public policy.
BTW, both the above have been challenged in court.
And, I don’t think, in all you’ve stated, you’ve challenged my comments to your own logic.
“If you don’t want to serve everyone equally, as a business, then close your shop and take your hatred elsewhere…Religious freedom was always meant to be used as a shield; and they’re using it as a sword”
So, once again: the hooker is engaging in swordplay? Or is the sword-wielder the dude trying to use the law to change her moral code?
Tell me how my hooker comment above does NOT apply in this situation. Really! Is she a hater?
In any legal situation, you have the abuser and you have the abused. If you force me to take your naked photo because so far I’ve only photographed naked women, then YOU are the abuser. Got it? Laws are made to protect the weaker party that, sometimes, other laws have enabled the opposing party to abuse.
“this kind of hatred should not be tolerated.”
Damn straight!
“If we let a small shop do this, it opens the door for everyone to do it; and now we even have hospitals and doctors who don’t want to take on gay patients or the children of gay patients. It needs to end.”
You seem to be contradicting yourself. No “common” religion that I can think of does not serve gay people. a gay person making someone who believes in nuclear-marriage come into their world through FORCE is mental rape.
“I respect Apple for what they are doing, these bigots need to get the message somehow.”
Apple is the bigot, here. Actually, it’s Tim Cook. Sell Apple products to Saudi Arabia, but threaten to pull out of Indiana. Ha. The bigot MAY be you. Tell me how the hooker above is not discriminating?
You compare gayness, or sexual orientation, to race. Has it ever BEEN a race? Is it a race? It’s not. Stop saying that.
I will say the same thing AGAIN, you’re taking a single wrong instance and trying to throw it on everyone that wants equal rights for the gay community. There’s always gonna be people inside the LGBT community that wants absurd rights and there’s always gonna be religious people that want absurd rights. I’m telling you I don’t agree that a Christian photographer should have to GO TO a gay wedding. Where you’re wrong is that ANY business can refuse service to someone that is gay. You’re telling me it’s okay that a homeless shelter can refuse a warm bed to someone because they’re gay? You’re telling me it’s okay that St Joseph’s hospital in Whereeverville can refuse to save someone’s life because their transgender?
If you don’t see why who you choose to have sex with isn’t the same thing, then im not even going there.. Then again, seeing some of your comments, I’m not surprised u think it’s the same things. You’ve taken it as far out of context as you possibly could to make yourself look like you have a point. Here’s the reality, no 1% should be left out just because they’re the 1%. No true Christian or Catholic would be okay with these laws. That’s reality. I don’t believe in God, but my family is very religious, with my paternal grandfathers side being Catholic, and I’ve yet to find one that thinks it’s okay to treat the 1% like this, just bc it appeases the 99%. The true word of God is to accept everyone, help everyone and love everyone. I don’t agree with the LGBT community that goes out looking for trouble, but I do think the ones that are just trying to live their life shouldn’t be treated different. Both sides have their bad apples.
Everything else you typed was other people’s words, why you’re trying to push them off as my own opinion is beyond me. Argue with them about what they typed. Not me…
Apple and PayPal would be on more solid moral ground if they responded in kind with their foreign business interests in countries like Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It boggles the mind that Tim Cook and Apple have no problems doing business with Saudi Arabia, a country that routinely executes gays in public squares around the country.
I have to agree. Saudi Arabia beheaded over 150 people last year; it was a record high IIRC.
Unbelievable that ANY self-respecting US companies do business with any of those savages.
And yeah, I don’t care about PC — their leaders are savages (not all the people who live there are, obviously).
It’s a theocracy FFS…The exact form of government our founders swore to NEVER allow here.
Apple sells all over the middle east. Women can’t drive. Gays can’t come out of the closet. Christians can’t profess their faith.
Hypocritical much?
I hate to say it but you do have a point, and a pretty good one…However, this is in their own backyard. This is the United States of Merika! We’re supposed to have a separation between church and state…This isn’t supposed to be a Christian Caliphate / theocracy. I respect Apple for what they are doing, these bigots need to get the message somehow. Change is difficult especially with issues like this, when people were raised to hate others for who they like to rub their genitals against.
I don’t care what Bubba thinks of his iPhone and I sure as hell don’t care about what Apple thinks of a law in Mississippi. Oh, please, what does Kim Kardashian think about her toaster?
A decent article would have at least linked to the law, so people could read it before commenting. Not that I couldn’t find it otherwise, but if you’re going to start ff by saying, “House Bill 1523 is spun as protecting religious freedom…” you should at help your readers find it so they can read it and make their own decisions (like anyone would ever actually read something or understand it before commenting on a blog post).
Complete and total hypocrites. Apple is marketing company first and foremost. This bold stance is marketing and nothing more. http://9to5mac.com/2014/05/21/apple-cleared-to-operate-and-market-products-in-saudi-arabia/ http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/03/28/report-saudi-authorities-seek-death-penalty-for-coming-out/
Ok, so it is ok for the lgbt community to attack certain churches and business because of their beliefs but when it is turned the other way it’s wrong? I understand that people don’t want discrimination but aren’t you discriminating if you are trying to change the businesses beliefs? I think it goes both ways and it seems like no one gets that. I just think that if we are going to be the “land of the free” then everybody should be able to offer business and religion to whoever they see fit. I mean, Starbucks ceo said, “If you support traditional marriage over gay marriage, Starbucks doesn’t want your business.” now why didn’t anyone make a big deal of that? It is a similar situation flipped but I didn’t hear of anyone saying something about that… Just appears a little one sided to me that’s all.
“I mean, Starbucks ceo said, ‘If you support traditional marriage over gay marriage, Starbucks doesn’t want your business.’ now why didn’t anyone make a big deal of that?”
It’s possible you are too stupid to understand, but Starbucks’ CEO was saying that the company considers all marriages equally valid, i.e., they do not discriminate among married people or types of marriages. This is also in accordance with equal protection, anti-discrimination practices, etc. This is a very different thing than saying only one type of marriage is valid, and discriminating on that basis. One is discriminatory, the other is as broadly inclusive as possible.
And plenty of people said something about it, i.e., your fellow bigots.
So, Flavio; why does the government, with the creation of men’s and women’s bathrooms, support “Separate but Equal” today? Why the disconnect? Does it not occur to you that the PEOPLE DON’T WANT IT?
There should be no Men’s and Women’s Bathrooms!! They should all just be UniSex!!! If any Man can just say their gay or nothing at all and just walk into a womens bathroom anyway, what’s the difference. Lets make it simple. Unisex and that’s it.
…and that is what it has come down to, to appease the 1%. Do you not see the slippery slope?
I’ll be the first to speak up for this bill. Marriage is a religious ceremony today that’s been used for centuries based on what they believe is part of their religion. Passing a law to force others to accept a marriage that is in violation of their religion not only violates the separation of church and state, it it unconstitutional.
There’s a right and wrong way to handle these rights in the flow of government, and the government has zero business passing any law that violates peaceful religious freedoms. I never understood why someone didn’t open up the laws and do a global find/replace on ‘marriage’ for the word ‘union’ and be done with it.
I support the LGBT community for having their right to the same freedoms non-LGBT people have, but not at the expense of liberties, the continuation, or infringing on the rights of those non-LGBT people. This whole thing is a VERY slippery slope.
“I support the LGBT community for having their right to the same freedoms non-LGBT people have, but …” That’s like saying, “I’m not racist, BUT…” Either you DO or you DO NOT support equal rights for all US Citizens. If you do, then you support gay people (AKA PEOPLE) to get married just like everyone else. If you do not support equal rights, then you say things like “I support…but not really because of some reason I made up to justify my hate.” #justsayin
If you actually understood Leif’s reply, he’s not stating that he doesn’t support gay marriage (union) as defined by law. He’s simply stating that a Church or religion shouldn’t be forced by law into changing their own beliefs (remember separation of Church and State?). In other words, if you are gay don’t expect to get married in a Catholic Church and have that same Church recognize your marriage under their religion. It’s very simple if you ask me.
Now, as far as businesses go, well they have to have a business license provided by the government and with that license comes certain obligations like equal employment opportunities, etc., therefore I do think businesses have less of moral position to stand upon. All that being said, if you don’t like the way a business operates then vote with your dollars. They will either change or they will go out of business. Either way, what difference does it make to the LGBT community at large, unless of course they absolutely need Chic-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby to survive.
I do support the LGBT community when it comes rights provided by our government (health care, non-discriminatory business practices, survivorship, etc.), what I can’t support is the notion that Christians must change their beliefs or otherwise be thought of as discriminatory and morally in the wrong. On that same note, I can’t support Christians who claim to be of faith and judge others for how they live since we are ALL sinners in the eyes of God. A true Christian loves everyone and tries to live a life that is an example of how Christ lived so that others may want to change and accept Christ and live a life as a Christian. If you are LGBT, by all means come to Church, just don’t expect the Church to change and recognize your marriage or your lifestyle as appropriate in the eye’s of God.
By the way, I don’t support this law because all it does is further divide our country into an ‘us verse them’ conversation.
Bullshit Brandon. Just like a Union was made to help out employees from an abusing employee, the union can itself become the abuser. You are subscribing to a slippery slope yourself. I support everyone in America until the time comes when they become the predators–trampling on someone elses’ rights. I don’t want crossdressing boys to either attend my daughter’s Girls Scout camp, or show them their penises while they make up their mind about what sex they are. I don’t want a man who claims he is a woman entering the Olympics as a wrestler and then walking away with a Gold Medal. Who wins in that case? I will tell you what–a lot of women who have trained their whole lives to win the Gold are sure not. So, Brandon, is it your will to have men enter locker rooms, thusly offending women? If so, you are sexist. YOU are the Hater. Go Fuck yourself.
“Passing a law to force others to accept a marriage that is in violation of their religion not only violates the separation of church and state, it it unconstitutional.”
Actually, it’s entirely constitutional and reinforces the separation of church and state. A law requiring public businesses to treat all customers equally is exactly within the spirit of the notion of equal protection. Licensing a business is essentially the government endorsing the operation of that business. If that business discriminates based on a religious belief or position, it follows the government has tacitly endorsed that religious position, which entangles the church and the state. Government can’t tell a church how to operate, but it sure as hell can tell a business how to operate.
You’re also not the first to speak up for this bill. Plenty of your fellow bigots got there before you.
Bullshit Flavio Just like a Union was made to help out employees from an abusing employee, the union can itself become the abuser. You are subscribing to a slippery slope yourself. I support everyone in America until the time comes when they become the predators–trampling on someone elses’ rights. I don’t want crossdressing boys to either attend my daughter’s Girls Scout camp, or show them their penises while they make up their mind about what sex they are. I don’t want a man who claims he is a woman entering the Olympics as a wrestler and then walking away with a Gold Medal. Who wins in that case? I will tell you what–a lot of women who have trained their whole lives to win the Gold are sure not. So, Flavio, is it your will to have men enter locker rooms, thusly offending women? If so, you are sexist. YOU are the Hater. Go Fuck yourself.
A huge problem with your first paragraph is that marriage TODAY is about sooooo much more than a religious view. Health insurance. They can’t even leave their child to their significant other. After death benefits. So many things.
Religious institutions should simply be excluded from any legal “civil” duties. That way they can discriminate all they want because they are not agents of the state in any way. Just agents of their own religion which is up to them. Then, only a state sponsored facility actually does the civil, legal proceedings of a marriage.
Not Apple. Steve Cook. Or “He of the boring talks”
That’s right! Apple don’t care who you love to screw so long as you but their products. Even if you’re a sexual predator of the lgbt community or like screwing your little kids.
Okay–so do you believe that any business should ONLY be able to refuse service to any person (regardless of whatever type of protected class they may be in or not) IF that business (/person) is now the offended party?
…In that case, we agree.
However, the 1% situation of which you refer has already happened; with the law siding with the party that has now become the hunter (that you also spoke of). And that’s just wrong.
“Everything else you typed was other people’s words, why you’re trying to push them off as my own opinion is beyond me. Argue with them about what they typed. Not me…”
Well, the quotes I gave you WERE yours.
Anyway, I hope that, when this all works itself out, you are not still “…ashamed to be a US Citizen.”
The Mississippi legislation protects those people like the photographer and the wedding cake maker from abuse. It doesn’t allow them to OFFEND against others–or at least that is the point…