Ok...lets try this again.
Section 2 clearly defines the three protected religious beliefs as including:
The belief that marriage is between a man and a woman
or
The belief that sexual relations are reserved for persons married in male/female relations.
That covers 99.9999% of non-transexual Gay/Lesbian persons (who, 99.9999% like straight persons, are not lifelong celebates)
----
Now, the bill includes psychology too, which is a MEDICAL field.
---
There have been cases where insurance companies have only allowed persons who refused to serve LGBT persons, then used the 'no approved provider' excuse to simply deny coverage. Denial of insurance for services in many cases is the same as denial of all service. Off the top of my head, I can think up this case from CALIFORNIA (!) where an insurance company effectively used the 'religious beliefs loophole' to completely deny service to LGBT persons. This is now illegal in California. It appears to be completely legal for an insurance company to do that in Mississippi.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4941377&page=1
---
There is no requirement in this law that the denied person be provided the medical care in that area, in any area, either. I note that you don't think that it is any bad thing if LGBT persons can't get equal treatment because of discriminatory insurance practices.
---
If a definition is vague, like 'emergency', then those using it can be protected broadly. You used the words 'can be' to describe a possible denial of surgery for complications from sex reassignment surgery. That, legally is the opposite of 'must be'.
---
Look, if Mississippi didn't 'broadly interpret a ban on same sex marriage' to deny to rent a publicly owned venue open generally to rentals to couple, simply because they are LGBT, then maybe you could discount my fear that Mississippi's anti-Gays will interpret this bill in the most broad way possible
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/tag/mississip...ry-museum/
Or if municipalities didn't create 'de facto' bans on LGBT persons owning businesses catering to the LGBT community, you might be able to credibly argue that Mississippi will implement this in as non-discriminatory manner as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04...83751.html
Or if the Sheriff of a large Mississippi County (Forrest) didn't fire a LGBT employee simply because he was 'outed' as being gay as the result of being the victim of A CRIME. And then that same Sheriff used as a legal defense.."well its legal to fire someone for being Gay in Mississippi".
https://www.aclu.org/video/mississippi-s...being-gay.
Or if transgendered students in Moss Point aren't hounded out of their schools by Principals.
https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justic...ict-et-al. Something that also happened in Itawamba (and its NOT the Candace McMillan case).
And Phil Bryant will have a strong input as to the implementation of this law. If you know any LGBT Mississippians, ask them about how they think Phil Bryant will 'protect' LGBT persons from discrimination. You'll probably get a story about callousness that will make your head spin.
And I'm not even going to go into the Ovett case, the refusal of the Harrison County Sheriff's Department to properly investigate a murder of a Gay man in Biloxi, or the Candace McMillan case, or the denial of the ability of LGBT persons to even publicly protest their legislature at the moment they were debating a bill impacting their community.
Look, I get that you're from Mississippi. But you don't live there anymore. You have to realize that sh*t like this is extremely rare outside Mississippi. Yes, there are LGBT people in Mississippi that have never been refused medical care, beaten up for being LGBT and then have their father place their career over justice for their kids, been hounded out of school by the principals for being LGBT, been denied a business license for being LGBT, etc. But there's an environment in Mississippi where not only these shocking events are a lot more frequent than elsewhere, but also that when these events happen, resolution usually involves not an appeal to fair treatment (which sadly hasn't worked very well there), but a lawsuit. And that's why laws designed to protect those discriminating against LGBT Mississippians are very dangerous.
Not all Mississippians are bad people. But there are plenty that are malevolent. And there are bad folks elsewhere. But in Mississippi, too often the government and the 'majority culture' sides with those doing bad things. I have no idea why they keep doing it.
---
Seriously. There's a history here. A recent history. A shocking history. It seems to me that what comes out of Mississippi is far too frequently so discriminatory as to raise legitimate questions as to how this will be implemented in practice.
