MS Passes Right to Discriminate law, is mad when shops don't

[Crossroads Inc.]

The story is perhaps a bit old, but just recently found it and thought it "Interesting"
To summarize, Mississippi basically passed a law that Arizona "Chickened Out" on, basically a law that allows people to refuse the right to serve them at a business based upon Religious reasons. "My Religion doesn't like you, so I don't have to welcome you in my business."
The response however from MS business is more noteworthy...

Not all Mississippi businesses plan to take advantage of a new law making it easier to discriminate against LGBT people in the name of religion. The American Family Association, apparently, would like to change that.


In a blog post published this week, the fundamentalist Christian activist group printed a list of what they called "Mississippi businesses that discriminate against religious freedom." That list, which the anti-LGBT group says is "taken directly from a pro-homosexual website," includes a number of businesses in the state who have agreed to display the sticker at right in their window. That sticker clarifies that the business in question will not refuse to serve a customer because of his or her sexual orientation.

The AFA believes this amounts to discrimination against Christians who might want to refuse to serve LGBT people in the state:

Ironically,this sticker represents the very promotion of discrimination...against the freedom of religious convictions. Businesses that display this sticker believe Christians should be forced, by law, to embrace homosexuality and deny their faith in personal business practices.

Get that? If you advertise that you don't discriminate, you're persecuting people who want to discriminate.

In fact, the "If You're Buying, We're Selling" campaign is a response to the state's new "religious freedom" law, which goes into effect on July 1. The vaguely-worded measure allows any person or business "whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government" to sue the government against those laws. As the Washington Post notes, the two sides of the debate over the bill disagree on its scope. Its supporters argue that the version of the bill that passed won't allow for discrimination, although the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins praised the measure because it would mean that "individuals do not have to trade their religious freedom for entrance into public commerce.” And the American Family Association's own take on the bill notes that it will "protect Christian business owners against lawsuits from gay activists."

The ACLU remains opposed to the measure, especially after lawmakers refused to add language clarifying that the law can't be used against anti-discrimination laws. Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU told the Los Angeles Times that the new measure could, for example, be used to legally justify a health care worker's decision in the name of religion to deny fertility treatment to a lesbian couple.

The Mississippi sticker campaign does contribute to one major push from national gay rights groups: an awareness campaign about the existing LGBT communities in southern, conservative states. As Oklahoma and Virginia wait for the federal appeals courts to rule on challenges to their state bans on same-sex marriage, states across the south have had to contend with the possibility of equal marriage support and rights moving beyond the borders of traditionally liberal states. The Human Rights Campaign launched a video earlier this week highlighting those communities, part of an $8 million dollar campaign focused on Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama:

So... Can you say persecution complex?
To quote a friend:

What's happening is some fundamentalist Christian activists are saying that businesses who post stickers on their windows which state they do not discriminate against anyone, are discriminating against Christians who want to discriminate against gay people...just by having that sticker in their window.

[Purple]

So... Can you say persecution complex?

I don't think it's that. At least not in this case. The way I understand it, fundamentalist Christians have absolutely no desire to boycott those they disagree with for the sake of it. After all, that achieves nothing. What they want is for everyone in the society to do so and thus force those people in order to force them to conform to Christian standards. Up until the point where this law was passed they were going after the first step, legalizing that. Once that is done, their next step is to try and convince everyone who won't do what they want to play along.

Remember. Freedom of religion for some people means the freedom to impose their religion on others.

[Borgholio]

That's fucking hilarious. "Oh you won't discriminate against those we discriminate against? Why do you hate Jesus?"

Crossroads, got a link to that article? I want to share it with some friends.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Crap I forgot the link!
At work can't exactly get it :/
Want to say it was in "the wire" you can find it if you just google "sore losers, gay, Mississippi"

[Borgholio]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/05 ... ys/370872/

Thanks! Got some gay family members who will love reading this, and a Tea Party neighbor who I'm gonna heckle...

[Ralin]

You know, I can at least -get- someone saying that having to cater to gays and Jews in order to legally do business is a violation of their religion because those people literally murdered his Lord and Savior with their sins. This takes mental contortions that are impressive even by Christian standards.

[Borgholio]

This takes mental contortions that are impressive even by Fundie standards.

Fixed that for you. I imagine most "rational" Christians are scratching their heads at that one too.

[General Zod]

I'd love to see a business there have the balls to refuse to serve self-identified Christians.

[Borgholio]

I would patronize that business just to see that happen and record the tears.

[SCRawl]

I wonder where the law would come down on that. On the one hand, discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation is against the law. But what about overt self-identification? In other words, if I choose to serve only those customers who don't show outward signs of their religion, am I in violation of the Civil Rights Act?

[General Zod]

I wonder where the law would come down on that. On the one hand, discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation is against the law. But what about overt self-identification? In other words, if I choose to serve only those customers who don't show outward signs of their religion, am I in violation of the Civil Rights Act?

I bet if you called it a dress code you could get away with it.

[Elheru Aran]

Title is a bit misleading. The state itself isn't "mad", the article mainly speaks of the American Family Association, which while probably influential enough in the state isn't the government of Mississippi.

The big problem with the whole Christians-hating-gays thing is, well, a.) we're not supposed to and b.) we're ultimately just as bad sinners as gays and atheists and so forth are. The only difference is our profession of faith, and even after that, we're still capable of sin. We are saved only by the grace of God and have a moral obligation to extend that grace to all around us, sin notwithstanding (that whole 'let him who is without sin cast the first rock' thing). So, don't hate gays, because hate is a sin. Love gay people. Don't excuse what they do, on your own personal level-- you can't change anything about them, that's their own decision-- but they are still fellow people, as worthy of God's love as we are.

So even theologically? The whole discriminating against gay people (discriminating against anybody, really) is pure bullshit, and Paul can go take a flying leap off a long dock.

(Not trying to start a religious debate here, btw. Don't have the time for it. Just tossing in my two cents)

[Zaune]

You know, I can at least -get- someone saying that having to cater to gays and Jews in order to legally do business is a violation of their religion because those people literally murdered his Lord and Savior with their sins. This takes mental contortions that are impressive even by Christian standards.

Oh, it makes perfect sense to me. They're afraid of being guilty by association in the eyes of God and sent to hell for not doing enough to enforce His edicts... Or maybe just fraternising with the un-Saved.

But either way, they're taking the "Our Father who art in heaven" thing a bit literally and thinking of God as one of those classic Southern redneck dads who beats his wife and kids for doing anything he disapproves of.

[Irbis]

The big problem with the whole Christians-hating-gays thing is, well, a.) we're not supposed to and b.) we're ultimately just as bad sinners as gays and atheists and so forth are. The only difference is our profession of faith, and even after that, we're still capable of sin. We are saved only by the grace of God and have a moral obligation to extend that grace to all around us, sin notwithstanding (that whole 'let him who is without sin cast the first rock' thing). So, don't hate gays, because hate is a sin. Love gay people. Don't excuse what they do, on your own personal level-- you can't change anything about them, that's their own decision-- but they are still fellow people, as worthy of God's love as we are.

So even theologically? The whole discriminating against gay people (discriminating against anybody, really) is pure bullshit, and Paul can go take a flying leap off a long dock)

The problem is, using other bits of the bible you can construct diametrically opposed argument. "Thou shall not suffer with to live", "despise people who live as a man would with woman", and so on.

And anyway, people who question the American Family Association, you completely miss point of the law. It's literally to make sinners suffer, dressed in barely-legal means. Why you are surprised they are upset when it fails to do so, worse, what they see as people joining the Big Satan in sin is happening?

If I wanted a good old round of persecution, I'd be upset with people siding with target too, and I don't have the extra voodoo excuse and impulse "I am saving them from eternal damnation, Deus Vult!".

[Elheru Aran]

[snip for space]

The problem is, using other bits of the bible you can construct diametrically opposed argument. "Thou shall not suffer with to live", "despise people who live as a man would with woman", and so on.

And anyway, people who question the American Family Association, you completely miss point of the law. It's literally to make sinners suffer, dressed in barely-legal means. Why you are surprised they are upset when it fails to do so, worse, what they see as people joining the Big Satan in sin is happening?

If I wanted a good old round of persecution, I'd be upset with people siding with target too, and I don't have the extra voodoo excuse and impulse "I am saving them from eternal damnation, Deus Vult!".

Yeah. Unlike most fundies, I don't take most of the Bible too literally. The important parts in it are the Gospels and the spiritual guidance you can derive thereof. I consider individual interpretation to be a massive part of it all. I don't agree with people who says "this book means what I think it does", because... well, that's what they think, and I think something else, and if they're trying to *make* me think what they think, they can get bent.

This is, by the way, why you can't use religion as a basis for government or policies thereof. There's simply too much room for individual interpretations. You have to base government upon certain basic principles that are common to all (reasonable) people and go from there.

And I'm quite aware what their point is. I just think they're fucked in the head for trying to force their interpretation of the Bible upon others. A person's relationship (or lack thereof) with God is ultimately an extremely personal belief that they form for themselves. Saying that "the bible says x, therefore everybody has to do x" is simply wrong.

[Ahriman238]

This takes mental contortions that are impressive even by Fundie standards.

Fixed that for you. I imagine most "rational" Christians are scratching their heads at that one too.

I'm a Christian, if not necessarily rational, and I have no clue what's going on in these maniac's heads.

Honestly, I expect this law to fold under the first Equal Protections challenge in a hurry, and then these people will cluck their tongues at the dominion of the evil Fed over their righteous state government. But as sad as it is that people are even trying for a law like this is, it's downright inspiring to see people simply refusing to play ball. And oh, the impotent howling, now they say it's unfair that not everyone wants to use the discrimination stick they handed over? Please.

Yeah. Unlike most fundies, I don't take most of the Bible too literally. The important parts in it are the Gospels and the spiritual guidance you can derive thereof. I consider individual interpretation to be a massive part of it all. I don't agree with people who says "this book means what I think it does", because... well, that's what they think, and I think something else, and if they're trying to *make* me think what they think, they can get bent.

This is, by the way, why you can't use religion as a basis for government or policies thereof. There's simply too much room for individual interpretations. You have to base government upon certain basic principles that are common to all (reasonable) people and go from there.

And I'm quite aware what their point is. I just think they're fucked in the head for trying to force their interpretation of the Bible upon others. A person's relationship (or lack thereof) with God is ultimately an extremely personal belief that they form for themselves. Saying that "the bible says x, therefore everybody has to do x" is simply wrong.

There's a story they used to tell us in Sunday School that informed a lot of my ideas of faith. Once a Roman general, curious but famously impatient, commanded a Jewish holy man to teach him the Torah while standing on one foot. If his foot hit the ground before he was finished, he got the ax. Literally. Faced with such a constraint he restricted himself to the most important bits and said: "Do not do to others what is harmful when done to you. That is the whole of the Torah, the rest is commentary. Read, think and pray on it. Then live it."

So I, and most of my peers approach Christianity. The heart of the faith is the sermon on the mount. Don't be a hypocrite, don't be self-righteous or judgmental of others. Do not value earthly good overmuch, but with them help the poor and needy. Follow the golden rule, forgive your enemies. Take responsibility for your own deeds and your own thoughts and attitudes, and trust that God has a plan and things will work out for the best if good people keep doing the best they can. The rest is commentary, illustration, interpretations, and context. Good to have in most cases, but not essential to the message and not something that should ever be allowed to drown out the core of it.

[Channel72]

So I, and most of my peers approach Christianity. The heart of the faith is the sermon on the mount. Don't be a hypocrite, don't be self-righteous or judgmental of others. Do not value earthly good overmuch, but with them help the poor and needy. Follow the golden rule, forgive your enemies. Take responsibility for your own deeds and your own thoughts and attitudes, and trust that God has a plan and things will work out for the best if good people keep doing the best they can. The rest is commentary, illustration, interpretations, and context. Good to have in most cases, but not essential to the message and not something that should ever be allowed to drown out the core of it.

That's certainly an admirable view, and if the majority of Christians in the United States adopted it, we'd have far less problems. Still... I don't understand exactly how you can rationally maintain this view.

Yeah, the Sermon on the Mount is (mostly) sublime, and it's great to say "oh I just like the awesome parts, the rest is just 'commentary'"... but why is that in any sense rational? What is the rationale, besides personal taste, for saying "I like Matthew 5-7, therefore it's divinely important, while the rest is just quasi-important to varying levels, depending on my mood..."

It's fine if you derive some philosophical or ethical value from Matthew 5-7 - I certainly do as well; I also love Jesus' teaching against the legalism and religiosity of the Pharisees, such as the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee, etc., but if you're going to maintain the belief that these are divinely inspired texts, it's hard to separate them from their theological context (i.e. everything else in the Bible, or at least, everything else in the same Gospel(s).)

Jesus himself, who delivered your beloved Matthew 5-7, self-admittedly derived his authority from the Old Testament God, and indeed all of the promises in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. the meek will inherit the Earth, and the other beatitudes, are explicit promises that are directly tied into the eschatological framework of the New Testament - i.e. the Second Coming when the entire world will be separated into "sheep" and "goats", and presumably, billions of "goats" will be obliterated (or suffer eternally or whatever) somehow. When Jesus says "the meek will inherit the Earth" and "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you...", he says this precisely because of the implied eschatological promise attached to all this, which is basically: "don't worry about being poor, or insulted, or persecuted *now*... because later I'm going to come back as "One coming on the clouds of Heaven" and literally destroy anyone who opposes me, and you'll have eternal life in my cosmic Kingdom."

So yeah, the Sermon on the Mount has a lot of great stuff in it, and Jesus' condemnation of religious legalism is certainly awesome, but I don't see how you can disentangle all that from the overall eschatological framework of the New Testament, not to mention the whole Mosaic covenant of the Old Testament.

[Ahriman238]

I see no inconsistency with my beliefs. But then, people rarely do.

I'm not trying to cherry-pick what bits of scripture tickle my modern viewpoint either, but I do feel it's useful occassionally to try and reduce things to bullet points not for actual use but to discover what's really important. And surprise, surprise, I feel in Christianity some precedence should be given to the actual teachings of Christ. And the Sermon on the Mount is one of a few times he speaks at any length, laying out who he is and what he's about rather than playing word-games with Pharisees.

By way of illustration, it is my considered opinion that St. Paul was a fucking genius. His ability to incorporate neo-Platonic ideals and mainstream the church saved it from dying out. His collected letters are a fascinating window into the early years and politics of the church with a historical value that is literally incalculable, and their inclusion in the bible is well-deserved. Do I feel that because they're in the bible, I must count each line of Paul's as divinely inspired and absolutely binding forever? No. The man was brilliant, worldly and well-traveled but in so many ways still a product of his culture and era. More to the point, he wasn't God and it would be wrong to treat him as such.

Which I suppose is what I'm getting at. As a Christian I believe that Christ was a sort of divine avatar sent to teach us how to be better than ourselves. I consider his teachings and death, for the salvation of all mankind and followed by a brief resurrection, as the main point. With some allowance for their being recorded decades later from second and third-hand sources and translated numerous times. I do not consider stories to illustrate his divine and otherworldly nature as nearly so important, or necessarily true. I do not consider Paul's opinions as quite so important, and because he is a man and not god I feel I can disregard the parts I don't like. At least, as a guide for living, if we're going to discuss the bible or Paul's writings I clearly cannot.

It is useful to have the background and context for the culture and times Christ dealt with, to understand the audience for which his message was intended and the people who spoke to the people who recorded it. It is the context of a conquered people, looking for a savior who would fulfill certain ancient prophecies. But once again I feel it's important to maintain a clear separation between the parts that are coming from God and the parts that are coming from people, because only one source is infallible and we can't even absolutely rely on that because of inevitable foul-ups in the translations, in the recording.

Yet there are people who to all appearances sincerely believe that each and every word comes direct from God, as if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul had nothing to do with it, nor Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Clement, or Benedict. And they become caught up in the same sort of petty legalism Christ decried and wind up having to defend the norms of a Bronze Age culture they've little to do with besides a common God.