Are you for or against the new bill signed by the Miss. Governor?


0|0
3|9

Most Helpful Guy

  • From what I understand of the rather confusingly worded article, it is already legal in that state to refuse to serve people in the private sector out of an opposition to extra-marital sex or homosexuality or transgender. What this new bill does is to re-affirm that freedom, while expanding this 'protection' to employees of the state government.

    I therefore oppose this bill on two grounds. 1. The good part of it merely reiterates existing law and is therefore superfluous. 2. By extending this to cover state government employees, this bill ignores the fact that a free society requires a government that performs its legitimate functions, among them the enforcement of contracts, such as marriage contracts: a government agent is not a private-sector worker.

    But, if you are asking in general, whether someone has the moral right to deny service (private-sector service) because of a religiously-motivated opposition to homosexuality, extra-marital sex or transgender, I would go further and say that everyone has the moral right to deny service (private-sector service) because of any motivation.

    Would I be 'fine' with being denied service because of my race, for example? It depends on what you mean by 'fine'. I would support the right to do that. But, I would consider it immoral. Not all actions that are immoral ought to be illegal. Only rights violations ought to be illegal. I do not have the 'right' to be served: that would be the 'right' to enslave!

    0|2
    0|0
    • If a business can deny service to a person based on his or her gender and sexual orientation then the business can also deny service to a person based on his or her beliefs, religion, gender (male, female), race or any other factor. This kind of business is just purely bad but there is nothing wrong with operating a bad business.

      While I do not agree with what some businesses choose to do, I do agree that a business has the right to choose their customers. You might not agree with what someone said but you will certainly fight for his rights to say it.

    • @oddwaffle Way to halfass-ly quote Voltaire 😂

Most Helpful Girl

  • For it. The person running the business has as many rights as the people he is serving/refusing to serve. People tend to forget that when rallying for the cause of the day.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 8

  • Yes I am for it. If a private establishment wishes to deny services because of religion then that is their right to do. Just as I would think that its okay for say homosexuals to boycott a business because the ceo said they did not support same sex marriages. It goes both ways if one has the right to speak out so to does the other. We have no issues with these groups harming the economic earnings of an entire corporation so why would we be concerned if they do not serve those people. If their is a company that is provides services only for homosexuals I do not think that the government should have the right to force them to accomadate heterosexuals. Its a private company and therefore should be allowed to function based upon their choices and no one elses. Now if its a public institution then they have no right what so ever as they are funded by the people irregardless of their religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation and therefore lose all privledge to determine who gets to use their services (ie government organizations public education etc). Now do I think thats stupid? Yes. Why would you refuse to provide a service to some one simply because they have a different sexual orientation/religion etc? Especially when its completley unrelated to what service you are providing (like selling food). I think its stupid on the individual level since your reducing a person down to one thing (just because some one has a different opinion then I do on one subject doesn't mean I can't agree on others) and its stupid economicly because they are giving you their money which is what business is about, the earning of money. However they should be allowed to exercise that right to operate their private business at their discression. If we remove that right from them then we have to remove every single other one that we give to every single other group other wise we create an imbalance which would cause many issues. Its not societies place to dictate to the individual what is right and wrong (that mentality allowed for slavery and the prevention of homosexual marriage).

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's their right to not serve or to serve anyone they want. Everyone should have a right to that.

    1|1
    0|0
    • And you would be fine with someone denying you service based off the fact that you are Christian or atheist? Or because you have received a vaccine?

    • I disagree.

    • If it's a private business, absolutely. It's their business they should be able to do what they want. Let them be responsible for whatever gain or loss that causes. I owned a retail business for several years. I viewed it as an extension of my home. I was there more than home, I slept there many, many nights. It was a very personal place even though it was a business. I should be able to choose anything and everything that comes through the door. It's my property, it's my money buying it, it's my ass on the line it's the least thing to allow who/what I want to go in there. Now, I personally wouldn't discriminate but if another business owner chooses to, what right do I have to tell him different?

  • Against. It'll be unconstitutional in the long run anyway.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it is a good thing, it protects people who are forced to go against their religious belief just to make people feel better

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think he is just an old backwards redneck that knows nothing about being governor. Mississippi has many problems and he is cares more about this. I think we need to ban religion.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm against the bill, I don't think it's right that businesses get to pick and choose who to serve.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It is fine with me. In the free market, these businesses will fail or succeed based on such choices. If you don't like they don't allow a certain group in, then go start a competing company that accepts everyone and put them out of business.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I have always thought laws compelling private businesses to not be allowed discretion in who they serve or deal with to be a government overstep which has unpleasant implications we haven't seen the end of.

    I'm against discrimination and have no sympathy with people who want to use religion to vent their prejudices but the cure can be worse than the disease, though it may take a while for that to become apparent.

    So while I don't like this law I don't like the ones it is designed to circumvent either.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 2

  • Just not the best way of doing your job. Mississippi needs to find a new governor.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Mississippi is just a disturbing state. It's the fattest and the poorest state in the nation.

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...