(04-09-2016 09:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1. Meanwhile, in Mississippi SB 1523 allows medical providers to refuse to serve LGBT persons.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and explicitly says the opposite. What the law says is that they can not be forced to CHOP OFF A DICK OR TRANSFORM A VA-GINA INTO A PE-NIS if it violates their religious beliefs. Sorry to be so blunt, but apparently blunt is what you need if you think the law says anything but that. If you believe the law says anyting but that, point it out in the law. Dont come on here with your LGBT talking points and try to talk dumb to people who can think and read for themselves.

Quote:There's no requirement that the person be provided that service in Mississippi or that Mississippi insurance companies be required to ensure that LGBT customers receive the same level of service as straight persons.

Actually, thats exactly what the law says. And also what the law says is that a surgeon doesnt have to perform transgender operations. Since a "straight" person isnt going to a surgeon to have his dick transformed into something resembling a va-gina, then what you have said is wrong. If a transgender breaks their arm they will receive the same care as a straight person, and even states so in the law. If they break their arm, and want the doctor to put their arm in a cast and chop off their pe-nis at the same time, the doctor doesnt have to do that. Clear??

Quote:The bill appears to protect those that harass LGBT persons in the provision of health care from any corrective action.

Link?

Quote:The bill does mention that someone can't be refused 'emergency services'. But 'emergency services' is undefined. Does it mean only care for immediate, life threatening medical care?

Thats what emergency services usually means. I know uninsured libturds would just show up to the ER for a sore throat, but emergency services mean life threatening. In other words, dont show up to the ER and claim you are going to die if your pe-nis isnt transformed into a va-gina.

Quote:Who knows, but Mississippi is not known for interpreting things in LGBT persons' favor.

Link

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Show me in this law where anyone can deny anyone medical care, sans transgender operations.

Quote:Seriously, it appears that if (when) a nurse or clerk or doctor decides to spew unwanted anti-Gay preaching at LGBT patients at Mississippi's government owned hospitals (or even hate speech, deliberate misgendering, etc.), that the hospital can't do anything to punish the offensive medical provider or even stop them from continuing to do so. Its open season on LGBT persons in Mississippi, especially in health care.

You simply dont want to hear the truth. it is a medical persons RESPONSIBILITY to point out a life style that is DANGEROUS to one's health. If cross dresser comes in with herpes of the mouth, and says its because he likes to go to bars and blow random dudes, it is the doctors responsibility to let them know that this is a health risk. (Because ,obviously, the guy hasnt figured it out yet.) Just like when some guy shows up complaining of breathing difficulties, and says he smokes 4 packs per day.

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Even if this was true, the issue you have is that you denying someone else's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of religion. A right that is in the consitution is going to trump a right that is not directly spelled out in the constitution.

Bumping for Tom......

Addressed using the text of the bill.

(04-09-2016 07:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tom,

Can gays get married in Cuba?
Can they get married in North Carolina / Mississippi?

Does McCrory/NC GOP/Phil Bryant support marriage equality? No.
Does Castro support marriage equality? No.

Don't even talk to me about Mississippi. Its worse than Cuba. Mississippi just passed legislation protecting harassment of LGBT persons. And allowing for discrimination in HEALTH CARE.

That would be wrong if true (and would probably fail in a court). But I suspect you are just gullible and believe everything you hear. Got any links?

How about the text of the law

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documen...1523PS.pdf

I'll start with Section 3, Part 4. Very broadly written my friend. Allows for the denial of health care. And there's no provision ensuring that those needing medical care get it in Mississippi or that Insurance carriers ensure that LGBT persons in that state receive the same benefits IN MISSISSIPPI that are provided to straight persons. This bill enables far reaching discrimination in health care. And it goes well beyond simple sex reassignment surgery too. Someone has a problem with their psychological meds? Sorry, no medical care for you. Crisis counseling? Problems related to sex reassignment surgery? Nope. What is 'an emergency' under the law? Who knows.

A lot of medical care might be essential but not an immediate emergency. Chemo isn't handed out at the emergency room, but its necessary and essential, for example. So might proper medication for psychological issues. As well as counseling. There might be initially minor complications from sex reassignment surgery that might not initially be an emergency, but might require attention to prevent it from becoming one.
#4 refers back to Section 2 which is only about gay marriage and sex change. It is not as broad as you claim.


I STAND BY MY COMMENTS. UNLESS 'EMERGENCY' IS DEFINED, THIS APPEARS TO ALLOW ANY DOCTOR OR NURSE OR MEDICAL WORKER TO DENY OR INTERFERE WITH MEDICAL CARE RELATED TO ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUE RELATED TO ANY GAY PERSON OR ANY MEDICAL ISSUE OF ANY KIND RELATED TO A TRANS PERSON. SECTION TWO COULD COVER ANY GAY PERSON. FURTHERMORE, YOU PROVIDED NO REBUTTAL AS TO HOW A LGBT PERSON CAN GET TREATMENT IN MISSISSIPPI EITHER UNDER THEIR INSURANCE PLAN OR OTHERWISE. IT SIMPLY ESTABLISHES THE 'RIGHT' OF AN ANTI-GAY MEDICAL PROVIDER TO DENY SERVICE. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE DENIED MEDICAL CARE BE PROVIDED.

Then take a look at Section 7. This appears to give a license to harass and insult LGBT Mississippians who are conducting business with their government, including in state owned and operated hospitals.
You're gullible. This is just a statute of limitations. And it appears to relate to the religious being discriminated against. It gives them 2 years to assert their claim against the government.


YOU APPEAR TO BE GULLIBLE IF YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL NOT EXCUSE UNWANTED ANTI-GAY/TRANS HARASSMENT. IT PROVIDES BROAD AND CLOSE TO LIMITLESS IMPUNITY FOR STATE ACTORS USING THE POWERS OF THE STATE TO HARASS LGBT PERSONS.
---

And then look at Section 2. It isn't a protection of religion bill, but rather a bill that elevates 3 (and only 3) religious viewpoints. These are evangelical Christian viewpoints not shared by other religions. This establishes evangelical Christianity above other religious viewpoints.


I think you would find Muslims believe the same thing. And its only these viewpoints that the gay community is attacking and threatening the religious liberty of.
---

THERE ARE RELIGIOUS GROUPS THAT DISAGREE. THIS BILL ELEVATES ONE SET OF RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS ABOVE OTHERS. EVEN IF SHARIA LAW AND EVANGELICAL/POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY ARE IN AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD. EITHER WAY, THIS BILL ONLY PROTECTS 'SOME' RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS, THEREBY ESTABLISHING THEM.

And then look at Section 3, section ©. What legitimate state interest exists to allow for organizations to refuse to SELL property to someone?

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE?

---

Section 3, part 5. Is so broadly written that it allows for discrimination against any married LGBT person or any Transgendered person is just about every area of commerce. Refuse to rent an apartment or even a hotel room to a Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse to serve a dinner to a married Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse just about any service to a Transgendered person? Yep.

No its not. It is solely about providing services for a gay wedding. THE BILL DOESN'T JUST ADDRESS GAY WEDDINGS, NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO SPIN IT. PLEASE LOOK AT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION B. IT GOES BEYOND WEDDINGS. THE BILL PROTECTS ALL DISAPPROVAL OF ALL GAY RELATIONSHIPS, BEYOND WEDDINGS. AND THEN LOOK AT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION C. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A WEDDING.
---

I'll just leave it there. But there's more, so much more. I didn't even go into the Romer v Evans argument. I'm sure Lambda Legal and the ACLU will do that in their lawsuits too.

I'd be very surprised if this bill is ever implemented. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. My guess is that it never goes into effect.

None of what you claim is in there.

My comments in ALL CAPS. And its not like Mississippi hasn't played fast and loose with civil liberties. Like when the Mississippi Department of Agriculture decided to 'interpret' Mississippi's ban on Gay marriage to deny LGBT persons the ability to rent out the Ag Coliseum (open for rentals to the straight public) or when Shannon Mississippi decided to allow bars to operate in its city limits, but not a Gay bar. Mississippi has provided every indication that they will 'interpret' any law in the most anti-Gay manner imaginable. And even in ways that most people couldn't imagine.

And Gov. Phil Bryant? Lets just say we have every indication that he's going to be as malevolent as possible. You can ask any LGBT Mississippian for the details on that one.

(04-09-2016 11:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Everything is a pejorative to someone. They need to get over their faux outrage and until they do, **** em.

No it isn't. There are words that are designed to demean and degrade. There's no point in using them except to lower the discourse to the level of insults.

Ummmm.... Tranny originated in Sydney, as a way to unite trans people and drag queens under an umbrella term. It was not "designed" to demean them.

In the US, its consider a VERY strong pejorative. Period.

What you consider it to be and what it was "designed" to do are two different things. But in typical drama queen fasion you treat everytihing as it's personally designed to offend you.

Did it ever occur to you that you're britches just bunch up a bit too easily

(04-09-2016 11:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Everything is a pejorative to someone. They need to get over their faux outrage and until they do, **** em.

No it isn't. There are words that are designed to demean and degrade. There's no point in using them except to lower the discourse to the level of insults.

Ummmm.... Tranny originated in Sydney, as a way to unite trans people and drag queens under an umbrella term. It was not "designed" to demean them.

In the US, its consider a VERY strong pejorative. Period.

What you consider it to be and what it was "designed" to do are two different things. But in typical drama queen fasion you treat everytihing as it's personally designed to offend you.

Did it ever occur to you that you're britches just bunch up a bit too easily

Seriously dude, he trades in pejoratives. Repeatedly. Go back to post 42 in this thread. And then look at the sentence. This was designed to demean transgendered persons. Contributed nothing to the discussion but a crass insult.

Did it ever occur to you to stop defending the indefensible?

This whole thing can be blamed upon the social warriors in power in Charlotte that decided to try and fix something that was not broken. They poked the hornets nest without considering the consequences. I hope they are happy.

(04-09-2016 11:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Seriously dude, he trades in pejoratives. Repeatedly.

The problem is, Tom, you define pejorative as "offends me" when he is only saying it because it offends you..

Quote:Go back to post 42 in this thread. And then look at the sentence. This was designed to demean transgendered persons.

He said it to get you to bunch you panties and have a tantrum for the group. He played you.

Quote:Did it ever occur to you to stop defending the indefensible?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Can't have a free society without that idea.

(04-09-2016 11:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This whole thing can be blamed upon the social warriors in power in Charlotte that decided to try and fix something that was not broken. They poked the hornets nest without considering the consequences. I hope they are happy.

Yup... This is a reaction not an action.

(04-09-2016 11:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Seriously dude, he trades in pejoratives. Repeatedly.

The problem is, Tom, you define pejorative as "offends me" when he is only saying it because it offends you..

Quote:Go back to post 42 in this thread. And then look at the sentence. This was designed to demean transgendered persons.

He said it to get you to bunch you panties and have a tantrum for the group. He played you.

Quote:Did it ever occur to you to stop defending the indefensible?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Can't have a free society without that idea.

I hadn't been on this forum in MONTHS when he threw that out there. He wasn't trolling me. Just throwing out hateful, crass invective.

What's next.....throwing out N-bombs if he finds an African American person on here he disagrees with?

(04-09-2016 11:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This whole thing can be blamed upon the social warriors in power in Charlotte that decided to try and fix something that was not broken. They poked the hornets nest without considering the consequences. I hope they are happy.

And in Mississippi?

---

Nah, this is all on the NC GOP. They decided to try to scapegoat the LGBT community and then get an ALEC wage suppression bill added to it.

The consequences are more likely to fall on the GOP though. I haven't seen any polls on the NC Governor's race, but I'd be willing to bet that McCrory is taking a terrible toll as a result of this. He gained zero votes. He lost all the moderates that voted for him last time. And the damage is not done yet.

(04-10-2016 12:19 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This whole thing can be blamed upon the social warriors in power in Charlotte that decided to try and fix something that was not broken. They poked the hornets nest without considering the consequences. I hope they are happy.

And in Mississippi?

---

Nah, this is all on the NC GOP. They decided to try to scapegoat the LGBT community and then get an ALEC wage suppression bill added to it.

The consequences are more likely to fall on the GOP though. I haven't seen any polls on the NC Governor's race, but I'd be willing to bet that McCrory is taking a terrible toll as a result of this. He gained zero votes. He lost all the moderates that voted for him last time. And the damage is not done yet.

I dont give a schit about Mississippi. They can do what ever they want. I know exactly who caused this problem in NC.... That batschit crazy social warrior Mayor in Charlotte and her minions on the city council. They started this nonsense. No one but them gave a damn about this issue until they decided to fix something that was not broken.

(04-10-2016 12:14 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Seriously dude, he trades in pejoratives. Repeatedly.

The problem is, Tom, you define pejorative as "offends me" when he is only saying it because it offends you..

Quote:Go back to post 42 in this thread. And then look at the sentence. This was designed to demean transgendered persons.

He said it to get you to bunch you panties and have a tantrum for the group. He played you.

Quote:Did it ever occur to you to stop defending the indefensible?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Can't have a free society without that idea.

I hadn't been on this forum in MONTHS when he threw that out there. He wasn't trolling me. Just throwing out hateful, crass invective.

What's next.....throwing out N-bombs if he finds an African American person on here he disagrees with?

Tranny and the "N-bombs" is not only not in the same ball park, it's not even the same sport.

I know you're keen on arbitrarily controlling other peoples language but even you can do better.

(04-09-2016 09:01 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 01:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 09:08 PM)Max Power Wrote:  That's ******* awesome. Springsteen rules.

Transgender people are 12 times more likely to get murdered than married. They don't need ignorant rightwing rednecks spreading misinformation about them being perverts or sex offenders to increase that number and make them feel even further ostracized. North Carolina deserves this and much more.

Yup. Tragic.

Murdered by whom? And to the male gay population generally, who are the biggest offenders against other gay males?

I'll take the answer off the air.

They're all murdering each other? That's your theory?

I'm just saying try to put yourself in their shoes. It's not a life you'd trade for, and the government doesn't have to make it even harder.

So you can't answer a pretty simple question, and further you apparently can't read.

Don't put words in my mouth I didn't say.

Either answer the legitimate question or admit you either don't know or refuse to acknowledge the very real problem that exists and move along.

I've seen enough in my time to know it's not "government" nor "rednecks" that are the real issue here.

You leftists chase so many white, male, redneck boogey-men that at some point it becomes simply amusing. Pro-tip- We ain' the problem in your chitcago either.

(04-10-2016 12:27 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:19 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This whole thing can be blamed upon the social warriors in power in Charlotte that decided to try and fix something that was not broken. They poked the hornets nest without considering the consequences. I hope they are happy.

And in Mississippi?

---

Nah, this is all on the NC GOP. They decided to try to scapegoat the LGBT community and then get an ALEC wage suppression bill added to it.

The consequences are more likely to fall on the GOP though. I haven't seen any polls on the NC Governor's race, but I'd be willing to bet that McCrory is taking a terrible toll as a result of this. He gained zero votes. He lost all the moderates that voted for him last time. And the damage is not done yet.

I dont give a schit about Mississippi. They can do what ever they want. I know exactly who caused this problem in NC.... That batschit crazy social warrior Mayor in Charlotte and her minions on the city council. They started this nonsense. No one but them gave a damn about this issue until they decided to fix something that was not broken.

Guys, the reason for this is that the anti-Gays cannot stop non-discrimination ordinances unless they appeal to anti-Trans hysteria. The number one goal for the anti-LGBT groups is to ensure that it remains legal for state actors (contractors) and private businesses to fire or harass or not serve persons for not being LGBT.

But the better news is that even Georgia and South Carolina and Arkansas look like they're going to avoid these types of bills. Alabama's GOP is kind of busy right now with their Governor. Texas' legislature doesn't sit till next year (at which point, I think a lot of these bills will be seen as either beyond the pale, been ruled as unconstitutional, or otherwise be irresponsible by that point. My guess is that Texas tries something next year, but it might be very limited.

So North Carolina, Mississippi, and the City of Houston are on the clock right now. Kansas and Tennessee might join them. But that's about it right now. If its limited to those areas, then the pressure on the individual offensive jurisdictions can be effective. The big fear was that these anti-LGBT bills would sweep 20 states or so. You can't have an effective boycott/economic pressure campaign of 20 states. But you can do it to one city and two or three states.

This story has legs and will continue to have legs.

(04-10-2016 09:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, the reason for this is that the anti-Gays cannot stop non-discrimination ordinances unless they appeal to anti-Trans hysteria. The number one goal for the anti-LGBT groups is to ensure that it remains legal for state actors (contractors) and private businesses to fire or harass or not serve persons for not being LGBT.

For most people the number one reason for these laws is to protect the rights of people to raise their own families, speak as they wish, and assemble freely in a manner they want.

Everything the LGBT community is attacking.

Speech, assembly, religion....

(04-09-2016 11:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 07:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Does McCrory/NC GOP/Phil Bryant support marriage equality? No.
Does Castro support marriage equality? No.

Don't even talk to me about Mississippi. Its worse than Cuba. Mississippi just passed legislation protecting harassment of LGBT persons. And allowing for discrimination in HEALTH CARE.

That would be wrong if true (and would probably fail in a court). But I suspect you are just gullible and believe everything you hear. Got any links?

How about the text of the law

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documen...1523PS.pdf

I'll start with Section 3, Part 4. Very broadly written my friend. Allows for the denial of health care. And there's no provision ensuring that those needing medical care get it in Mississippi or that Insurance carriers ensure that LGBT persons in that state receive the same benefits IN MISSISSIPPI that are provided to straight persons. This bill enables far reaching discrimination in health care. And it goes well beyond simple sex reassignment surgery too. Someone has a problem with their psychological meds? Sorry, no medical care for you. Crisis counseling? Problems related to sex reassignment surgery? Nope. What is 'an emergency' under the law? Who knows.

A lot of medical care might be essential but not an immediate emergency. Chemo isn't handed out at the emergency room, but its necessary and essential, for example. So might proper medication for psychological issues. As well as counseling. There might be initially minor complications from sex reassignment surgery that might not initially be an emergency, but might require attention to prevent it from becoming one.
#4 refers back to Section 2 which is only about gay marriage and sex change. It is not as broad as you claim.


I STAND BY MY COMMENTS. UNLESS 'EMERGENCY' IS DEFINED, THIS APPEARS TO ALLOW ANY DOCTOR OR NURSE OR MEDICAL WORKER TO DENY OR INTERFERE WITH MEDICAL CARE RELATED TO ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUE RELATED TO ANY GAY PERSON OR ANY MEDICAL ISSUE OF ANY KIND RELATED TO A TRANS PERSON. SECTION TWO COULD COVER ANY GAY PERSON. FURTHERMORE, YOU PROVIDED NO REBUTTAL AS TO HOW A LGBT PERSON CAN GET TREATMENT IN MISSISSIPPI EITHER UNDER THEIR INSURANCE PLAN OR OTHERWISE. IT SIMPLY ESTABLISHES THE 'RIGHT' OF AN ANTI-GAY MEDICAL PROVIDER TO DENY SERVICE. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE DENIED MEDICAL CARE BE PROVIDED.

Then take a look at Section 7. This appears to give a license to harass and insult LGBT Mississippians who are conducting business with their government, including in state owned and operated hospitals.
You're gullible. This is just a statute of limitations. And it appears to relate to the religious being discriminated against. It gives them 2 years to assert their claim against the government.


YOU APPEAR TO BE GULLIBLE IF YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL NOT EXCUSE UNWANTED ANTI-GAY/TRANS HARASSMENT. IT PROVIDES BROAD AND CLOSE TO LIMITLESS IMPUNITY FOR STATE ACTORS USING THE POWERS OF THE STATE TO HARASS LGBT PERSONS.
---

And then look at Section 2. It isn't a protection of religion bill, but rather a bill that elevates 3 (and only 3) religious viewpoints. These are evangelical Christian viewpoints not shared by other religions. This establishes evangelical Christianity above other religious viewpoints.


I think you would find Muslims believe the same thing. And its only these viewpoints that the gay community is attacking and threatening the religious liberty of.
---

THERE ARE RELIGIOUS GROUPS THAT DISAGREE. THIS BILL ELEVATES ONE SET OF RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS ABOVE OTHERS. EVEN IF SHARIA LAW AND EVANGELICAL/POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY ARE IN AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD. EITHER WAY, THIS BILL ONLY PROTECTS 'SOME' RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS, THEREBY ESTABLISHING THEM.

And then look at Section 3, section ©. What legitimate state interest exists to allow for organizations to refuse to SELL property to someone?

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE?

---

Section 3, part 5. Is so broadly written that it allows for discrimination against any married LGBT person or any Transgendered person is just about every area of commerce. Refuse to rent an apartment or even a hotel room to a Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse to serve a dinner to a married Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse just about any service to a Transgendered person? Yep.

No its not. It is solely about providing services for a gay wedding. THE BILL DOESN'T JUST ADDRESS GAY WEDDINGS, NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO SPIN IT. PLEASE LOOK AT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION B. IT GOES BEYOND WEDDINGS. THE BILL PROTECTS ALL DISAPPROVAL OF ALL GAY RELATIONSHIPS, BEYOND WEDDINGS. AND THEN LOOK AT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION C. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A WEDDING.
---

I'll just leave it there. But there's more, so much more. I didn't even go into the Romer v Evans argument. I'm sure Lambda Legal and the ACLU will do that in their lawsuits too.

I'd be very surprised if this bill is ever implemented. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. My guess is that it never goes into effect.

None of what you claim is in there.

My comments in ALL CAPS. And its not like Mississippi hasn't played fast and loose with civil liberties. Like when the Mississippi Department of Agriculture decided to 'interpret' Mississippi's ban on Gay marriage to deny LGBT persons the ability to rent out the Ag Coliseum (open for rentals to the straight public) or when Shannon Mississippi decided to allow bars to operate in its city limits, but not a Gay bar. Mississippi has provided every indication that they will 'interpret' any law in the most anti-Gay manner imaginable. And even in ways that most people couldn't imagine.

And Gov. Phil Bryant? Lets just say we have every indication that he's going to be as malevolent as possible. You can ask any LGBT Mississippian for the details on that one.

Again, #4 only gives that exception for two specific beliefs that are under attack by the gay community.

You are misreading #7. It applies to the government attacking believers and has nothing to do with LGBT people.

#3 c you are misreading at well. It prevents the government from attacking religious organizations only because they don't sell or lease their property.

You are misreading the bill as if it is all about you. Its about certain believers and protecting them from the government, not allowing the government to do those things to gays.

And yes it has to do with certain beliefs because those people have been under attack by the government because of their beliefs. And there are threats to do more.

I can't wait until this issue comes up in a general election. It's a loser for the GOP but they have to address it to appeal to the evangelical voters.

(04-10-2016 09:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 07:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  That would be wrong if true (and would probably fail in a court). But I suspect you are just gullible and believe everything you hear. Got any links?

How about the text of the law

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documen...1523PS.pdf

I'll start with Section 3, Part 4. Very broadly written my friend. Allows for the denial of health care. And there's no provision ensuring that those needing medical care get it in Mississippi or that Insurance carriers ensure that LGBT persons in that state receive the same benefits IN MISSISSIPPI that are provided to straight persons. This bill enables far reaching discrimination in health care. And it goes well beyond simple sex reassignment surgery too. Someone has a problem with their psychological meds? Sorry, no medical care for you. Crisis counseling? Problems related to sex reassignment surgery? Nope. What is 'an emergency' under the law? Who knows.

A lot of medical care might be essential but not an immediate emergency. Chemo isn't handed out at the emergency room, but its necessary and essential, for example. So might proper medication for psychological issues. As well as counseling. There might be initially minor complications from sex reassignment surgery that might not initially be an emergency, but might require attention to prevent it from becoming one.
#4 refers back to Section 2 which is only about gay marriage and sex change. It is not as broad as you claim.


I STAND BY MY COMMENTS. UNLESS 'EMERGENCY' IS DEFINED, THIS APPEARS TO ALLOW ANY DOCTOR OR NURSE OR MEDICAL WORKER TO DENY OR INTERFERE WITH MEDICAL CARE RELATED TO ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUE RELATED TO ANY GAY PERSON OR ANY MEDICAL ISSUE OF ANY KIND RELATED TO A TRANS PERSON. SECTION TWO COULD COVER ANY GAY PERSON. FURTHERMORE, YOU PROVIDED NO REBUTTAL AS TO HOW A LGBT PERSON CAN GET TREATMENT IN MISSISSIPPI EITHER UNDER THEIR INSURANCE PLAN OR OTHERWISE. IT SIMPLY ESTABLISHES THE 'RIGHT' OF AN ANTI-GAY MEDICAL PROVIDER TO DENY SERVICE. IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE DENIED MEDICAL CARE BE PROVIDED.

Then take a look at Section 7. This appears to give a license to harass and insult LGBT Mississippians who are conducting business with their government, including in state owned and operated hospitals.
You're gullible. This is just a statute of limitations. And it appears to relate to the religious being discriminated against. It gives them 2 years to assert their claim against the government.


YOU APPEAR TO BE GULLIBLE IF YOU THINK THAT THIS WILL NOT EXCUSE UNWANTED ANTI-GAY/TRANS HARASSMENT. IT PROVIDES BROAD AND CLOSE TO LIMITLESS IMPUNITY FOR STATE ACTORS USING THE POWERS OF THE STATE TO HARASS LGBT PERSONS.
---

And then look at Section 2. It isn't a protection of religion bill, but rather a bill that elevates 3 (and only 3) religious viewpoints. These are evangelical Christian viewpoints not shared by other religions. This establishes evangelical Christianity above other religious viewpoints.


I think you would find Muslims believe the same thing. And its only these viewpoints that the gay community is attacking and threatening the religious liberty of.
---

THERE ARE RELIGIOUS GROUPS THAT DISAGREE. THIS BILL ELEVATES ONE SET OF RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS ABOVE OTHERS. EVEN IF SHARIA LAW AND EVANGELICAL/POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY ARE IN AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD. EITHER WAY, THIS BILL ONLY PROTECTS 'SOME' RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINTS, THEREBY ESTABLISHING THEM.

And then look at Section 3, section ©. What legitimate state interest exists to allow for organizations to refuse to SELL property to someone?

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE?

---

Section 3, part 5. Is so broadly written that it allows for discrimination against any married LGBT person or any Transgendered person is just about every area of commerce. Refuse to rent an apartment or even a hotel room to a Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse to serve a dinner to a married Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse just about any service to a Transgendered person? Yep.

No its not. It is solely about providing services for a gay wedding. THE BILL DOESN'T JUST ADDRESS GAY WEDDINGS, NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO SPIN IT. PLEASE LOOK AT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION B. IT GOES BEYOND WEDDINGS. THE BILL PROTECTS ALL DISAPPROVAL OF ALL GAY RELATIONSHIPS, BEYOND WEDDINGS. AND THEN LOOK AT SECTION 2, SUBSECTION C. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A WEDDING.
---

I'll just leave it there. But there's more, so much more. I didn't even go into the Romer v Evans argument. I'm sure Lambda Legal and the ACLU will do that in their lawsuits too.

I'd be very surprised if this bill is ever implemented. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. My guess is that it never goes into effect.

None of what you claim is in there.

My comments in ALL CAPS. And its not like Mississippi hasn't played fast and loose with civil liberties. Like when the Mississippi Department of Agriculture decided to 'interpret' Mississippi's ban on Gay marriage to deny LGBT persons the ability to rent out the Ag Coliseum (open for rentals to the straight public) or when Shannon Mississippi decided to allow bars to operate in its city limits, but not a Gay bar. Mississippi has provided every indication that they will 'interpret' any law in the most anti-Gay manner imaginable. And even in ways that most people couldn't imagine.

And Gov. Phil Bryant? Lets just say we have every indication that he's going to be as malevolent as possible. You can ask any LGBT Mississippian for the details on that one.

Again, #4 only gives that exception for two specific beliefs that are under attack by the gay community.

You are misreading #7. It applies to the government attacking believers and has nothing to do with LGBT people.

#3 c you are misreading at well. It prevents the government from attacking religious organizations only because they don't sell or lease their property.

You are misreading the bill as if it is all about you. Its about certain believers and protecting them from the government, not allowing the government to do those things to gays.

And yes it has to do with certain beliefs because those people have been under attack by the government because of their beliefs. And there are threats to do more.

It establishes three religious viewpoints over all others as protected. Spin as much as you want. Try to justify it however you wish (including making the argument that evangelical Christians are somehow subject to any discrimination in Mississippi), but the words in that bill are pretty clear. Protects SOME religious beliefs. Those held by the power structure. To the detriment of other beliefs. Involving STATE actions and actors. Classic establishment.

I see no legitimate state interest in allowing religious organizations to refuse to SELL property to someone, simply because they are Gay or Trans (or Gay or Trans supportive).

I'm just reading the words of Section 7. How can the University of Mississippi Medical Center discipline a nurse or clerk who says to a patient or their family that "I think you're going to hell if you keep up that homosexuality"? Or even prevent the UMMC from preventing that employee from continuing to do so? And what about the case of a Principal in Moss Point who actively demeans and insults a Trans student in the course of her duties? HB 1523 is a license to harass. Or worse.

----

HB 1523 will be struck down by the courts. Probably using the establishment argument. Its just so clear. And if they go that route, the whole bill will be invalidated as a result of how that bill was drafted. The courts might use 'no rational basis' or 'equal protection' or even 'Romer v Evans' as well.

(04-09-2016 09:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1. Meanwhile, in Mississippi SB 1523 allows medical providers to refuse to serve LGBT persons.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and explicitly says the opposite. What the law says is that they can not be forced to CHOP OFF A DICK OR TRANSFORM A VA-GINA INTO A PE-NIS if it violates their religious beliefs. Sorry to be so blunt, but apparently blunt is what you need if you think the law says anything but that. If you believe the law says anyting but that, point it out in the law. Dont come on here with your LGBT talking points and try to talk dumb to people who can think and read for themselves.

Quote:There's no requirement that the person be provided that service in Mississippi or that Mississippi insurance companies be required to ensure that LGBT customers receive the same level of service as straight persons.

Actually, thats exactly what the law says. And also what the law says is that a surgeon doesnt have to perform transgender operations. Since a "straight" person isnt going to a surgeon to have his dick transformed into something resembling a va-gina, then what you have said is wrong. If a transgender breaks their arm they will receive the same care as a straight person, and even states so in the law. If they break their arm, and want the doctor to put their arm in a cast and chop off their pe-nis at the same time, the doctor doesnt have to do that. Clear??

Quote:The bill appears to protect those that harass LGBT persons in the provision of health care from any corrective action.

Link?

Quote:The bill does mention that someone can't be refused 'emergency services'. But 'emergency services' is undefined. Does it mean only care for immediate, life threatening medical care?

Thats what emergency services usually means. I know uninsured libturds would just show up to the ER for a sore throat, but emergency services mean life threatening. In other words, dont show up to the ER and claim you are going to die if your pe-nis isnt transformed into a va-gina.

Quote:Who knows, but Mississippi is not known for interpreting things in LGBT persons' favor.

Link

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Show me in this law where anyone can deny anyone medical care, sans transgender operations.

Quote:Seriously, it appears that if (when) a nurse or clerk or doctor decides to spew unwanted anti-Gay preaching at LGBT patients at Mississippi's government owned hospitals (or even hate speech, deliberate misgendering, etc.), that the hospital can't do anything to punish the offensive medical provider or even stop them from continuing to do so. Its open season on LGBT persons in Mississippi, especially in health care.

You simply dont want to hear the truth. it is a medical persons RESPONSIBILITY to point out a life style that is DANGEROUS to one's health. If cross dresser comes in with herpes of the mouth, and says its because he likes to go to bars and blow random dudes, it is the doctors responsibility to let them know that this is a health risk. (Because ,obviously, the guy hasnt figured it out yet.) Just like when some guy shows up complaining of breathing difficulties, and says he smokes 4 packs per day.

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Even if this was true, the issue you have is that you denying someone else's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of religion. A right that is in the consitution is going to trump a right that is not directly spelled out in the constitution.

Bumping for Tom......

Bumping again for Tom.....

(04-10-2016 10:15 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 09:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1. Meanwhile, in Mississippi SB 1523 allows medical providers to refuse to serve LGBT persons.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and explicitly says the opposite. What the law says is that they can not be forced to CHOP OFF A DICK OR TRANSFORM A VA-GINA INTO A PE-NIS if it violates their religious beliefs. Sorry to be so blunt, but apparently blunt is what you need if you think the law says anything but that. If you believe the law says anyting but that, point it out in the law. Dont come on here with your LGBT talking points and try to talk dumb to people who can think and read for themselves.

Quote:There's no requirement that the person be provided that service in Mississippi or that Mississippi insurance companies be required to ensure that LGBT customers receive the same level of service as straight persons.

Actually, thats exactly what the law says. And also what the law says is that a surgeon doesnt have to perform transgender operations. Since a "straight" person isnt going to a surgeon to have his dick transformed into something resembling a va-gina, then what you have said is wrong. If a transgender breaks their arm they will receive the same care as a straight person, and even states so in the law. If they break their arm, and want the doctor to put their arm in a cast and chop off their pe-nis at the same time, the doctor doesnt have to do that. Clear??

Quote:The bill appears to protect those that harass LGBT persons in the provision of health care from any corrective action.

Link?

Quote:The bill does mention that someone can't be refused 'emergency services'. But 'emergency services' is undefined. Does it mean only care for immediate, life threatening medical care?

Thats what emergency services usually means. I know uninsured libturds would just show up to the ER for a sore throat, but emergency services mean life threatening. In other words, dont show up to the ER and claim you are going to die if your pe-nis isnt transformed into a va-gina.

Quote:Who knows, but Mississippi is not known for interpreting things in LGBT persons' favor.

Link

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Show me in this law where anyone can deny anyone medical care, sans transgender operations.

Quote:Seriously, it appears that if (when) a nurse or clerk or doctor decides to spew unwanted anti-Gay preaching at LGBT patients at Mississippi's government owned hospitals (or even hate speech, deliberate misgendering, etc.), that the hospital can't do anything to punish the offensive medical provider or even stop them from continuing to do so. Its open season on LGBT persons in Mississippi, especially in health care.

You simply dont want to hear the truth. it is a medical persons RESPONSIBILITY to point out a life style that is DANGEROUS to one's health. If cross dresser comes in with herpes of the mouth, and says its because he likes to go to bars and blow random dudes, it is the doctors responsibility to let them know that this is a health risk. (Because ,obviously, the guy hasnt figured it out yet.) Just like when some guy shows up complaining of breathing difficulties, and says he smokes 4 packs per day.

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Even if this was true, the issue you have is that you denying someone else's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of religion. A right that is in the consitution is going to trump a right that is not directly spelled out in the constitution.

Bumping for Tom......

Bumping again for Tom.....

There is no issue with freedom of religion in Mississippi. What Mississippi wants to do is to ESTABLISH anti-Gay religious viewpoints as holding extra protection.

Lets be clear.

It is not discriminatory for the state to demand that state actors treat everyone without discrimination. State actors cannot create a 'de facto' religious test to receive service by the state. Or to treat some persons differently based upon the state actors' religious beliefs as applied to the legal behavior of the person interacting with the state.

There is no 'rational basis' to enable discrimination against LGBT persons. Marginalizing minorities, even unpopular ones, creates all kind of problems.

You don't seem to understand the very basic concept that freedom of religion does not provide you with a carte blanche license to discriminate in commerce, education, health care, public accommodations, or state actions.

By the way, its entirely possible that the end result of this stupid, stupid bill is that the courts establishes/strengthens a precedent that will advance Gay/Trans rights. Who crafted this thing? David Barton? LOL.

Congratulations North Carolina/Mississippi. The laws will be struck down. Probably in a way that makes future arguments lean more strongly towards the LGBT side. You'll be left with the black eye in the public opinion arena. McCrory is probably going to lose his seat over this. And both states will lose thousands of jobs and millions upon millions in economic development. Only winner on the right? ALEC, whose anti-minimum wage provision in the NC bill might survive scrutiny.

I guess Redwingtom was lying when he posted this about LazyTom...

Tom's done with this place. The ankle biters drove him away.