At the end of the day green is the primary reason for being in business. It is the prime directive. Even not-for-profits must be green to survive because economically it is the only way to insure the mission is self-perpetuated in our (supposed) market economy.
But now the Gov and the legislature, pandering to the very worst in base, petty human emotion have insured that the trailer trash element in our state can use their supposed religious beliefs to deny service to those that offend their self-righteous, faux Christian sensibilities despite Federal laws that clearly state the contrary.
House Bill 1523 brings into sharp focus why Mississippi leads the nation in the export of Human Capital who escape a place that legislates ignorance in the name of ole time religion. And while these new style Mississippi Republicans certainly know how to pander to the majority of those who stayed, I submit they know jack shit about the Constitution.
I’m proud to disclose I have a client on the Sun Herald list of business that understand Green. I’d submit the very act of having to advertise that you serve everyone with green is a sure sign of an overall hostile business climate. For those that depend upon tourism to make their green, things are certain to get worse while ignorance reigns supreme at the Capitol.
House Bill 1523 is blatantly discriminatory and all those who formally supported or signed this into law should be charged with a crime. Plain and simple.
This bill is the prime example of the RRRSM at work folks. A pack of radicals which are more concerned with pressing their biblical beliefs on the general public than they are with real job creation and fixing the education system.
Our back woods, ignorant governor is the leader of the pack. But hell, it looks like the majority wanted him đ If you voted for him, don’t ever complain about Bill 1523 because you got exactly what you ordered. A radical regime leader who expects the citizens of Mississippi to fit his ideal mold.
Doesn’t it make you wonder why Billy Hewes doesn’t have the balls to come out and make an official statement if he is “for” or “against” Bill 1523? He is Ball-Less, Gutless and controlled by the agendas of the RRRSM.
Maybe he’s hoping some of his old statements on the topic have been lost down the memory hole?
(They haven’t been.)
2003:
Hewes Leads Council In Voting To Condemn Sodomy Decision
Gulfport City Councilman Billy Hewes put his conservative beliefs against homosexuals into city policy Monday, and a majority of the Council agreed with him. The council, after only a brief discussion, voted to condemn a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas state law making sodomy a crime. …
It was councilman Billy Hewes who introduced the resolution. When told of the picketers, Hewe’s said that’s okay with him, but…
”I just feel like what they are protesting and what they want to do violates the laws of God and I am opposed to that,” Hewes said.
Hewes, in the past, has made no secret of his oppostion to the gay lifestyle. During the meeting, he said there was nothing more despicable than a homosexual act. …
“We said the pledge of allegiance in there, that said we are one nation under god, with liberty and justice for all, for all does not mean for the straight community only,” Pat Gonser with Equality Alabama said.
As for Billy Hewes , the man rumored to be considering a run for mayor, has no intention of backing off from his controversial stance…or controversial comments.
“Gay used to be a good word when I was growing up, we called homosexuals queer at that time, I am sorry they have the problem they do, but I think they are the ones who are sick,” Hewes said.
From November of 1997:
“I don’t know that much about [AIDS], and I don’t want to now that much about it. tell these people to be responsible in their actions and get right with God, and this virus will dissipate.” Gulfport Miss., city councilman Billy Hewes, after the South Mississippi AIDS Task Force requested $20,000 in city funds, in the November 5 edition of The [Biloxi] Sun Herald
As reported in The Advocate Dec 9, 1997 page 10.
As is sometimes done here on Slabbed let’s go beyond the stupid things pols say to the friends and associates embezzling and indictments report.
The most recent report I saw has Billy’s former campaign manager Morgan Shands (and Shands sister- Rachel Shands Buser, ) still waiting for their turn at justice for the Mississippi Delta American Legion Post #1776 looting spree. Indicted in 2014, maybe there will be a trial or plea deal this year?
As usual rfp delivers the goods.
rfp,
I agree with you that all those who violate the law should be held accountable, but Billy Hewes statement about the spread of AIDS was being stated by every medical professional at that time. There was no cure or even effective treatment, so personal responsibility was the most effective action at that time for all, gays and straight members of society. I would still recommend it for many other reasons and conditions. Talk to some health professionals especially those that come in contact with our youth.
And, I know I’ll get trashed for this because the climate is just not good right now, but it’s never bad advice for any of us to get right with God. I work on it daily!!
I posted the comment below before reading Lana’s comment.
but Billy Hewes statement about the spread of AIDS was being stated by every medical professional at that time. There was no cure or even effective treatment,
This is not an accurate statement. While there still is no cure; there were effective treatments long before 2003, as evidenced by the many who were diagnosed in the 1990s and are still alive today. AZT was approved for use in 1987.
1987
In March, the FDA approved the first antiretroviral drug, zidovudine (AZT), as treatment for HIV.37/
Scroll through either of these links:
http://www.avert.org/professionals/history-hiv-aids/overview
https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/
Some additional things the citizens and patrons of Gulfport businesses should be aware of with respect and Mayor Hewes’ weak tea non positional comments on to HB 1523.
From the files:
Wed, Jul. 23, 2003
Council condemns sodomy ruling
Hewes: Gulfport is a âstraight townâ
By MIKE CUMMINGS THE SUN HERALD
GULFPORT – The Gulfport City Council formally condemned the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday for overturning a Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy.
Councilman Billy Hewes, who introduced the resolution criticizing the high courtâs decision, said the ruling striking down the law “corrupts the moral fiber of this nation.”
In June a majority of justices ruled that the Texas law was an unconstitutional intrusion into peopleâs private matters.
The ruling invalidated similar laws in 12 other states, including Mississippi, which outlawed sodomy for gay and straight people.
Hewes said the ruling is “the worst thing to happen to this country since they took prayer out of schools.”
Jody Renaldo, director of Equality Mississippi, a statewide gay rights organization, told Hewes he was elected to serve gay and straight people alike.
Speaking to the council, Renaldo said many homosexuals own homes and pay taxes in Gulfport and deserve the same rights as other residents.
“To my knowledge Gulfport has always been a straight town and it needs to stay that way,” Hewes said. “… These things violate the laws of God.”
“To my knowledge Gulfport has always been a straight town and it needs to stay that way,” Hewes said. “… These things violate the laws of God.”
“To my knowledge Gulfport has always been a straight town and it needs to stay that way,” Hewes said. “… These things violate the laws of God.”
“To my knowledge Gulfport has always been a straight town and it needs to stay that way,” Hewes said. “… These things violate the laws of God.”
“To my knowledge Gulfport has always been a straight town and it needs to stay that way,” Hewes said. “… These things violate the laws of God.”
Perhaps Mayor Hewes has been the recipient of updated guidance on this subject in the intervening years. If so, he could choose to let people know that his views have changed.
In many places in the not too distant past there used to be a similar certainty in interpreting the âlaws of Godâ with respect to racial segregation and discrimination.
On the Gulf Coast in 1960 Chancery Judge William G. Hewes kept the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission informed as to success of the continued efforts to maintain the separation of the races in all aspects of life. As did Hancock County Sheriff Gerald V. Price and other local officials with last names such as Ladner. Here is an example of how the devout were upholding the “laws of God” 1960s style:
June 27, 1960
MEMO TO: Director, State Sovereignty Commission
FROM: Robert C. Thomas, Investigator
SUBJECT: Harrison County NAACP Activities
On June 24, 1960 I talked with Mr. Louis Hollis of the Citizens’ Council who was in Biloxi. He stated to me that a member or new member of the Biloxi Citizens’ Council had gone to his box on approximately June 20th, and gotten a letter out of his box addressed to a Marvin Dickey of Biloxi, but it was sent to his Box number by mistake. He opened the letter and it stated, “Dear Member; The regular meeting of the Biloxi Branch of the NAACP will be held on June 21st at 7:30 p.m. at McDaniel and Son Funeral Home, 438 East Division Street. Please be present and on time.” This letter was signed “Yours, by Gilbert R. Mason M.D., President.”
I also talked with Chancery Judge William G. Hewes of Gulfport, who stated that he felt that the Sovereignty Commission was doing an excellent job as far as the Gulf Coast racial situation was concerned. I told him that we were here to help him in any way that we could; that we wanted him to feel free to call us in any way at any time. He stated to me that he felt that we had this situation well under control. He stated several instances of things that had happened over on the coast which we already have in our files and he felt though at this particular time there was nothing that could be done that hadnât already been done. He said that he would call us if he knew of anything that we would need to know.
On Friday, June 24, 1960 I went to Bay St. Louis in Hancock County, where I contacted first Sheriff Gerald V. Price. The sheriff here used to be the constable and he stated that he always controlled the Negroes and after being elected sheriff, he has had no trouble at all. They still observe the same old customs. He stated there was one incident where a Negro went on the beach or where Negroes when(sic) on the beach; that a Negro by the name of Zinglind, this being a Negro woman, had six little kids and she sent these children down on the beach. The Sheriff sent his deputies down there and made them leave. He told them that the people who owned the lots had the beach rights. This Negro woman said she thought that since she paid taxes she had a right to the beaches; however, they moved on peacefully.
Read the rest of the report at the link.
I do believe that you guys are giving WAY TOO MUCH credit to House Bill 1523. It does NOT provide a means for the blatant discrimination in the magnitude I’ve read on Slabbed and the Sea Coast Echo. I would suggest actually reading it and considering the very detailed examples that it provides; which is uncommon in a bill, but, used here for real-time examples of the discrimination that has occurred in other states that do not have laws to protect anyone who doesn’t agree with the LGBT lifestyle. As a business owner, I think it is bad business to turn away $$ for any reason, but, if I had a moral obligation to refuse my services; based solely on established religious principles (that I can prove did not just appear), then I should not live in fear of the State of MS retaliating against me because I did not compromise my religious beliefs. We already do this for certain groups!
All of these crazy stories about the bill allowing unlimited discrimination; including refusal of health services, allowable racism, etc. are just NOT TRUE. Yes, the bill does allow, for example, a Muslim doctor who practices his religion, the ability to deny a sex change operation, but he cannot deny basic health services or most definitely not emergency services (that’s all in there). Should the state of MS or anyone else penalize a doctor who has a religious belief that prevents him from performing surgeries that are contradictory to the very detailed Section 3 of the bill? Wouldn’t that be discrimination as well? It also does not allow the majority of foster/adoption agencies the ability to deny qualified people, unless they are ran by a religious organization, as defined by the House Bill. Regardless of how I feel about the governor, which is not that great, I think the media in Mississippi are just following suit with what is being pushed by the liberal national media. Why don’t you give Arlene’s Flowers up in Washington a call and see how they feel about the bill or post another story when you actually have a case where this bill came into affect and discriminated against someone in the LGBT community, but didn’t violate someone else’s religious freedom. It is not acceptable to demand that someone perform services that contradicts their religious freedom so that someone else’s beliefs are confirmed as law. We all have equal rights of our moral beliefs in this country. THERE WILL BE SOME REDNECKS IN MS WHO TRY TO USE THIS BILL AS A TICKET FOR DISCRIMINATION, BUT THE BILL DOES NOT PROVIDE A LEGAL MEANS FOR THEM TO DO THIS. My personal opinion, is that the bills that all of these cities in MS have been passing to prevent discrimination against the LGBT community are just as useless as MS House Bill 1523; the US CONSTITUTION provides all the guidance we need; live and let live, but do not require someone to believe or agree with everything that you believe!
Please spare me Phil Bryant’s talking points Fishbait. This law singles out a group of citizens and makes it legal to deny them the same access to public accommodation that everyone else enjoys.
As a libertarian, I find the intrusion of certain religions and their backward beliefs about homosexuality into the civil law to be especially repugnant.
It would be nice if just once in the sad history of this once great state that everyone’s liberty could be respected. Claiming you are protecting your values by taking away civil rights from others is plain wrong but entirely in keeping with the backward history of this state where many of the same religions that supported HB1523 justified slavery in the 1800s. HB1523 is the devil’s work just the same as slavery.
I think the comparison is not even close on this one. You can’t call yourself a libertarian and agree that a person should be forced to contradict their religious beliefs because a city, as BSL, adopts a policy that says you have to provide services to everyone, including people who directly contradict your religious beliefs; that ARE protected by the constitution, “Claiming you are protecting your values by taking away civil rights from others is plain wrong.” Your words, not mine, but I agree. It is funny how one side of this argument believes laws are needed to protect the LGBT community from being forced to conform to Christian ideals; yet when a law comes out that protects Christian, or any other religious organization from having to conform to the LGBT ides; then it is unconstiutional???
I still believe you are reading this bill as being open-ended; which it is not. There are specific cases in which this bill applies and for every other case; it simply does not. It is not a “hide-behind” law that allows persecution and discrimination based solely on prejudice, but, a law that prevents people who do not agree with the specific items listed in Section 3 of House Bill 1523 from being persecuted, specifically in legal form, only as described in detailed occasions by the bill.
Please don’t try the media tactic that says this bill allows racism, slavery, etc. to be accepted once again; because it does not.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS BILL IS NOT NEEDED, BUT IF CITIES ARE GOING TO ADOPT POLICIES THAT REQUIRE THE LGBT COMMUNITY TO BE PROTECTED, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE SAME PROTECTION BE OFFERED TO THE NON-LGBT COMMUNITY. ALL ARE PROTECTED ALREADY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, SO, LET”S GET RID OF ALL THESE BS LAWS AND MAKE KEEP IT SIMPLE. (KISS)
Thank you, Fishbait. Will post later.
What’s it to you what consenting adults do in their own homes?
That’s exactly the response that has this bill posted all over the media….nothing Chuck, its when consenting adults come out of their home and force their beliefs on people who do not agree, as in OR , ID and WA, that the problem occurs. The bill is designed to protect people who provide services, own businesses, etc. from being forced to provide those services when their religious beliefs (prior established) are forced to be thrown to the curb to appease someone who decides to bring their home life into their business. For example, if a person requires a sex change operation, it allows a doctor, who has a disagreement with the procedure for religious reasons, to decline to perform the procedure, WITHOUT BEING PENALIZED BY THE STATE, as was done in other states. There are many Muslim doctors in America; is it fair to force them to perform a surgery that is directly in contradiction to their religious beliefs and if they do not; be forced to pay fines and maybe even lose their license? Or should that person simply find a doctor who is ok with it?
I would suggest to the Miss. legis. to give up their legal fight for right now against LGBT as I feel it will get only worse as the LGBT community keeps getting more arrogant each year in their demands until their immoral House of Cards come crashing down.
As the Bible says that at some point God gives up on reforming the immoral vices of HIS CREATIONS and in final judgment allows his peoples practicing such vices to self destruct all by their corruption.
I will say that when this Califorincation crap demanding” transgender” restrooms heads North- South – East and West there will be restroom sexual molestations which will result in massive lawsuits against the state governments that sponsor such insane BS.
Finally, the way I fight back and suggest to others is via the same economic boycott the supporters of TV’s Duck Dynasty group used – in other words, Christians need to boycott the national corporations who love to economically boycott certain people ( who constitutionally just express their 1st Amendment right Christian morals/beliefs) and our state and/or local governments, all because they don’t like certain laws on their books.
These liberal, BIG SHOT type, national, multi-international and/or one world government corporations who now control our national government and international policies; and who now additionally wish to blackmail conservative states’ economies need to be chopped down economically as this country was founded on Christian principles and the individual, and not on CORPORATIONS or the morals they wish to force us to follow. There are millions more moral upstanding people and families who spent way more money then the BLGT minority community.
For instance,Bruce Springsteen cancelled his appearance I believe in N.C. or Ga.. So if you are Christian and like to go to his concerts, buy his music or watch him on cable IMMEDIATELY just STOP doing so. And so forth for every national corporation and Hollywood star-type wanting to publicize their corporate or personal stand against what you hold to be Christian or moral values. When Hollywood’s producer and director, Tarrantino, puts his face on national news to encourage Black Lives Matters power and their “Fry Them Like Bacon” hate speech then don’t watch his movies on cable or at theaters.
Finally, there needs to be a website compiling the names of all such liberal personalities and boycotting corporations so Christians can do a” reverse boycott” and spend their monies accordingly in order to stop the corporate unconstitutional, outrageous economic boycotts targeted against them and their moral lifestyles.
On page 19 of the Supreme Court’s ruling which gave same sex couples the right to marry, the majority opinion states:
“Many who deem same sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premise, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.”
At least even those Justices that disagree with those of us who object to same sex marriage did acknowledge that we do have the right to our religious and philosophical beliefs, and should not be disparaged for them.
That would mean that our opposition to same sex marriage should not be regarded as of little worth. It is as worthy as those who support it. We are entitled to our opinion without being referred to as:
criminals, radicals pressing Biblical beliefs, back woods, ignorant, gutless, repugnant, and more interested in this issue than trying to improve education.
When we were raising our children, we used a pediatrician who was a lesbian and had a live in partner. She was a brilliant doctor, and we entrusted to her care our most treasured possession in this world–our children. She took beautiful care of them, and we shall never forget her. We maintained a business relationship with her for years.
Would we have gone to their wedding? No, because it is my personal religious belief, as stated by Justice Kennedy in the Court’s majority report, that it violates what my religion teaches, and that I embrace.
It has nothing to do with me hating her, wishing her evil, condemning her, etc.
For the 42 years that I worked as a cosmetologist in this state, I served all clients–white, black, gay, straight, Asian, Hispanic, poor, rich, nice, nasty, young and old, and everything in between. I was self employed and met all of the expenses of my business myself, no government support. And I operated it that way because it was my choice. I would not have wanted anyone telling me couldn’t nor anyone telling me I had to.
I would guess that it was no accident that the Court’s Majority Report added the aforementioned statement, because they knew what was coming.
The Court gave same sex couples the civil right to marry. It did not address who would bake their cakes, arrange their flowers, take pictures, decorate the hall, etc.
Some businesses who hold to their religious beliefs have been sued to the extent that they lost everything they owned–their business, homes, everything, all because they dared not violate their own honorable held beliefs. I ask those of you on this site, does that punishment fit the “crime?”
Can we not disagree without destroying each other?
Screaming “you hate me” sprinkled with all sorts of insulting terms about my character reminds me of being confronted by teenagers, as a parent, when boundaries had to be set on their newfound social lives.
After 47 years as a wife, mother, and grandmother, I can tell you that you can actually disagree with people you love, and sometimes it is the greatest expression of love. It certainly beats society’s form of love today which has been reduced to placating people for personal gain.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that I personally do not hate anyone involved in this debate on either side, and anyone who would accuse me is going to have a hard time gathering evidence.
So what this boils down is since you disagree with how other people are living their lives they are not entitled to the same services and benefits of citizenship that you enjoy and you would deprive them of their civil rights to register your displeasure.
Matthew 7:2-4 is applicable here IMHO.
No, not at all. I just don’t think their civil right to marry trumps the rights of private businesses owners and their privately held philosophical or religious beliefs. If they are marrying in a courthouse or in a military base chapel, or any other publicly funded place, their request has to be honored.
Even the news media reserves the right to edit and reject the opinions of their readers.
I would like to see the question you just posed to me asked across the board to the other side and refer them to the same Scripture passage.
No one is telling any private business owner what to believe. Just like you cut the hair of people whose lifestyles you disagreed without sacrificing your “privately held philosophical or religious beliefs” for many years, so can a baker equally well bake a cake for the local gay couple getting hitched without sacrificing theirs. I know I offer my services to everyone within a certain demographic without sacrificing or compromising my sincerely held private beliefs. But that particular talking point that is being used to justify denial of basic civil rights is a red herring when you think about it.
There is no such thing as a private business since we all depend on public roads and public sidewalks, public education etc etc etc to conduct business. Even more businesses need the stability of the rule of law to conduct commerce because without that there is no market economy.
But its is worse than that because now Gays are second class citizens in their own Circuit Clerks office and that is government Lana. What’s the next step, making LGBT folks put some symbol on their clothing so we can identify them immediately? It would save the baker lots of money and hassle with background checks and such to make certain they were only baking for straight people.
To the extent Mississippi steadfastly refused to move along from the 1860s in the 1960s facilitated the need for the Civil Rights Act. How telling that today that piece of legislation will be used to invalidate Mississippi’s latest attempt to disenfranchise a minority group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
So, considering your ideal that there is no such thing as a private business, is your home open to the public, since you do use all of the above mentioned services at your home as well?
My home is not a business.
But you depend on public roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc. to live, correct? That was my point. Everyone pays taxes, well most do, so, whose beliefs should be protected more? In my opinion, we have a great law on the books that deals with this issue, but, for some reason, local governments and state governments (and sometimes the fed) seem to want “customized” versions of the law.
Fishbait did you read the link about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or are you just being a troll? Persons homes are not included within the scope of the act, people who offer good and services for hire to the general public are.
The way you don’t get into trouble is BY NOT FAVORING ANY GROUP and yes, when you carve out exceptions for the expectation of receiving service from local business and government you are FAVORING ONE GROUP AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.
What is it about Mississippians that in order for them to feel good about themselves they have to unzip and piss all over someone else?
That is EXACTLY what my point is Doug, the protection acts that cities like BSL establish for protection of a group, specifically LGBT.
Being a Mississippian is not a private club. If you are a citizen, pay your fair share of taxes, abide by the law you should be able to do what any other citizen has the right to do. All businesses have to the right to deny services to anyone for any reason why reduce the language to single out a few.
Focus on illegal aliens that are sucking the system dry. Refuse services and payment to them.
How are gays second class citizens in their own Circuit Clerks offices?
I thought all were bound to issue marriage licenses now.
Do you have any law references on whether citizens who own commercial real estate have to rent to an abortion clinic?
I know of one small Protestant church in the Bay now who
Is no longer doing weddings. Because they are a small congregation they know they could never fight these over the top lawsuits, so they are not providing those services to anyone. They will probably eventually be forced to on some grounds.
Because, unlike the local child molester that is out of prison, a clerk can refuse to serve a Gay simply because they are Gay.
yes she can Doug, but the clerk’s office cannot refuse to serve and furthermore, cannot hinder or prolong; as protected in this bill as well. Once again, you are making an exaggeration of what this bill allows and doesn’t allow. This section of the bill was written with the Kentucky case specifically in mind. A clerk can refuse, if he/she has previously established, in writing, that she has a religious belief that creates a conflict with the issuance of a license, but the office must provide the license without delay regardless. This bill protects that clerk if the person pursues legal action that forces the clerk to abandon her religious beliefs.
What if everyone in the clerks office is a conscious objector? The law is silent on how a person gets a marriage license in that circumstance.
(8) (a) Any person employed or acting on behalf of the state government who has authority to authorize or license marriages, including, but not limited to, clerks, registers of deeds or their deputies, may seek recusal from authorizing or licensing lawful marriages based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 3 of this act. Any person making such recusal shall provide prior written notice to the State Registrar of Vital Records who shall keep a record of such recusal, and the state government shall not take any discriminatory action against that person wholly or partially on the basis of such recusal. The person who is recusing himself or herself shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.
I THINK THE BILL EXPESSES THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE THE SERVICE< WHICH IS WHY THE PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE STATE IS REQUIRED FOR EMPLOYEES WHO PLAN TO PROCLAIM THEIR RELIGOUS BELIEFS PREVENT THEM FROM PERFORMING THIS DUTY. I STILL THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT SOMETHING IT IS NOT.
On the Gulf Coast in 1960 Chancery Judge William G. Hewes kept the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission informed as to success of the continued efforts to maintain the separation of the races in all aspects of life. As did Hancock County Sheriff Gerald V. Price and other local officials with last names such as Ladner. Here is an example of how the devout were upholding the âlaws of Godâ 1960s style:
On Friday, June 24, 1960 I went to Bay St. Louis in Hancock County, where I contacted first Sheriff Gerald V. Price. The sheriff here used to be the constable and he stated that he always controlled the Negroes and after being elected sheriff, he has had no trouble at all. They still observe the same old customs. He stated there was one incident where a Negro went on the beach or where Negroes when(sic) on the beach; that a Negro by the name of Zinglind, this being a Negro woman, had six little kids and she sent these children down on the beach. The Sheriff sent his deputies down there and made them leave. He told them that the people who owned the lots had the beach rights. This Negro woman said she thought that since she paid taxes she had a right to the beaches; however, they moved on peacefully.
Really rfp? Negro is not a religion or lifestyle choice…..horrible comparison. Plus, I challenge you to pull your boat up between the yacht club and the harbor, especially directly between the BWYC and the bridge; you will be asked to leave as well, because it is privately owned land; or at least according to Hancock County, City of BSL and the homeowners who live there; been there and done that. I am a man of the sea and I believe in the shores of the waters are for all to enjoy, but, you will find that race, religion nor sexual orientation outweigh the almighty $$$ when it comes to property rights!
Now that is a new slant on this issue, Rod. I did not know you could refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Then what is all the fuss about on both sides?!
that is definitely not true Lana, lol, and I hope you don’t try it. Failure to pay and committing illegal acts (such as creating a disturbance, assault, etc.) are the only reasons I am aware of that you can refuse service. I am not a lawyer, but, I am sure one of the legal types on this site will correct me if I am wrong. There have been many times that I would have loved to just say “no, none for you” to certain people that I have little respect for, but, I always used the kill-them-with-kindness stance instead, but it doesn’t seem nearly as rewarding.
yes you can. just dont state the reason to insure that you do not infringe on the protected classes. handicap, elderly, familial status, race etc…….If you go into someones office they can deny your services just by saying we cannot help or serve you. thank you leave my property. That is the outrage to reduce it to specific language.
I think if you read the cases that the bill made examples of, you can deny services, but you may face a fine, penalty or lawsuit by doing so, regardless of whether you state your reason or not. If questioned, you will eventually have to give a reason and it has to be viable. The precedent has been set by those cases mentioned in the bill.
it is debatable but you can for instance…….. made my employees and customers nervous, arrogance and insulting, threatening, offensive etc……..aint a perfect world but with good reason anyone can be asked to leave. As a businessman if you have money to spend I have tolerance.
Fishbait,
You don’t have to worry
about me trying anything, Fishbait. I am retired and so happy to be.
No one has answered my question on people that own commercial real estate having to rent to an abortion clinic?
Lana:
In this day of secular, moral decay I doubt you could refuse to rent even to an abortion clinic as this country seemingly has total control of our lives in terms of privacy and legal rights to do as we please with our property.
You could always say generically to any person that you can’t understand their spoken word and to get an interpreter, don’t like their personal attitude and/or choice of clothes and to leave yours premises and/or hang up the phone on them.
Poor Thomas Jefferson is tired flipping in his grave over our federal, totalitarian government.
Okay, something deep down inside of me did not buy ” there is no such thing as a privately owned business because everyone has to use the publicly maintained streets and roads to get to
your budiness.”
Just got off the phone with an attorney with the Secretsry of State’s Office. Unless you sell your stock on the publicly traded stock exchanges, you are a private business.
And, if this makes anyone here feel better, he didn’t have a Mississippi accent!!lol
In addition to that, we all pay taxes to maintain the streets and roadways that our customers use to get to us.
I had no clue the Mississippi Secretary of State was an expert on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You learn something new everyday.
You sure do learn a lot everyday, but not all of it is necessarily beneficial to you.
I am still waiting on my answer about people who own commercial real estate having to rent to businesses that are contrary to their religious beliefs such as an abortion clinic.
I would ask a real estate professional that question Lana. Let us know what you find out as it is a good question.
What I’d like to know is how does two gaye getting married hurts you?. What right do you specifically lose? What specific belief are you forced to believe against your will?
How does someone NOT believing that gay marriage is acceptable hurt you Doug?
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
At the moment you require, by law, someone to abandon their religious beliefs, especially if you use the legal system to do so, you have forcing them to believe something that they do not; specifically forcing their right to exercise their religion. Like I said so many times before, the Constitution, quoted above, already covers this topic; so, why the new laws are needed on either side is just to create turmoil as we see here.
Imposing your religious beliefs by denial of equal access is not the first amendment, quite the opposite in fact which guarantees people are free from state sponsored religion.
Doug, Doug, Doug…this bill GUARANTEES equal access, just not the ability to force others to conform to YOUR beliefs. Why is it not acceptable for someone to not agree with the LGBT lifestyle? You keep saying that this bill makes citizens second rate and allows bigotry, racism, etc, yet, being a bigot works both ways. The LGBT community is NOT tolerant of most religious organizations or religious people, especially Christians, and they have proven that over the last few years with lawsuits, riots and protests; simply because a religious person did not agree with their ideals or beliefs. It HAS TO WORK IN BOTH DIRECTIONS OR NOT AT ALL; GET OVER IT, equal protection for both sides of this argument is what the goal is. Now, it is so. I don’t recall all the backlash from the religious community down in BSL when the front page of the Sea Coast Echo raved over the new anti-discrimination policy that BSL enacted in favor of the LGBT community??????
You still can’t prove, as requested, that this bill denies equal access; because it doesn’t!!!
Lockemuptight,
You are probably right. They
will eventually take all personal rights away– no doubt.
I am amazed that no one has filed against the Governor in an effort to stop the bill from going into effect.
I think the odds are in their favor of being victorious.
But being victorious doesn’t always mean you are right.
Mississippians need to let country singer Adams ,who cancelled his performance in Mississippi, that they plan to reverse boycott his future performances, CDs and everything he tries to do economically and make him an example of what happens to musicans who try to economically boycott States because they disagree with their laws, and that goes for even the giant monopolies like the NFL.
Locke,
It’s acceptable to boycott if you are on the left-side of the issue; just not if you are supporting the traditional, American values.
Yesterday morning at 11:52am. Doug referred me to the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 7: verses 2 through 4, on not judging others. Wonderful advice for anyone.
By 4:11 yesterday afternoon, he accused all Mississipians of the following:
“What is it about Mississippians that in order to feel good about themselves they have to unzip and piss all over someone else?”
Stereotypical, judgemental, foul statements like this do nothing to further the cause for the Gay lobby. I and others are wondering why he would turn so viciously on those Mississippians who have supported this website?!
Another interesting post of his at 12:39pm was that he offers his services to ” everyone within a certain demographic.?”
Why not just open your doors to everyone. That is what he and the rest of the Gay lobby supporters are demanding of other businesses in this state.
In closing, I would submit to you, Doug, not to suggest Scripture passages to others that you apparently have not read and don’t practice yourself.
No hard feelings, but very disappointing.
What this all boils down to is because you personally disagree with how others lives their lives you’d make them second class citizens out of spite. And since the Supreme Court insured equal access to obtain marriage licenses, Mississippi pulls out an old trick from its shameful past and tries the Jim Crow approach to strip people of their constitutional rights via the backdoor. Even worse, in indulgence of that hate we pass a law without any regard to the consequences to the many innocent people that get hurt by the economic ramifications of being seen as a bunch of hicks and bigots by the rest of the country.
You may not understand why people are using the term backwards, bigots and intolerant etc but the reality is clear to all but those of you in denial on this, who understand this is really about is using government to impose your beliefs on everyone else.
Just as you judge others, so shall you be judged Lana.
“What this all boils down to is because you personally disagree with how others lives their lives youâd make them second class citizens out of spite.”
WOW…is this not exactly what this bill protects? Just happens to be that this time it is protecting a non-liberal viewpoint…..shame shame
Aren’t you a big support of SSC? Send your kids there? Doesn’t that qualify you as very much a bigot on this topic?
I totally agree with your last sentence, which also applies to everyone. The rest is your opinion, which you have the right to express.
Fishbait, I can’t in good conscience allow your comments as they violate my sincerely held religious beliefs and I can’t have you forcing your beliefs on me. We do not discriminate here at Slabbed New Media so as soon as I find someone that does not mind clearing your comments they will be passed through the moderation queue. Thank you in advance for understanding.
Maybe you should take note in House Bill 1523, that, no delay shall be incurred in processing….its in there.
Funny!
Being an American Citizen that pays taxes and contributes, and follows the laws is a small club but not a private one. I personally am looking for new members regardless of who they are.
It appears Fishbait is upset at having to wait for his comments to clear but like I said I have a real problem with his beliefs violating my own, sincerely held moral beliefs and I can’t have him forcing his beliefs on me, compromising mine in the process, by doing my job clearing his comments.
Since this is a small operation it could take a while for me to find someone to clear them but frankly I don’t know why he is upset with the inconvenience because after all, Slabbed New Media does not discriminate. Worry not because eventually, I’ll find someone who shares Fishbait’s value system to clear his comment.
Thanks for showing your true colors Doug. The moment reality hits you in the face (i.e.// your choice of private, religious-based school), you find a way to keep your bigotry flowing. Reminds me of some great politicians that I have seen your disgust with on this very website.
You know sometimes people themselves can settle differences without the intrusion or force of government. How does this sound as a compromise to the Gay lobby from businesses that do not approve of same sex marriage? (remember Justice Kennedy’s statement in the Majority Report of the Supreme Court Ruling that those whose object based on honorably held religious or philosophical beliefs should not be disparaged for them).
A sign for businesses who have a religious objection to same sex marriage:
WELCOME TO OUR BUSINESS
NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE
NO SMOKING
NO PROFANITY
WE DO WEDDING CAKES (or photography, or gown and tux rentals, or flowers, or whatever the case may be)
“FOR ALL” EVEN THOUGH, BECAUSE OF OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WE DO NOT APPROVE OF
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
The same sex couples would have the right to boycott the business based on this sign if they wished and the business owner would have the right to express his beliefs even though they agree to serve all who wish to do business with them.
Everything is out in the open and the customer and business owner can work it out.
My Fellow Americans,
Without a doubt, the bill passed by the state of Mississippi is 100% discriminatory and should not be tolerated. What will come with all of this is people will twist the bible to fit there personal beliefs. I would be willing to bet that Phil Bryant would be up in arms if an Atheist denied service on a Sunday afternoon to a family who appeared to have just gotten out of Church.
This law was nothing more that a testing ground for more Radical Christianity Laws to follow.
Ok….I have held my tongue as long as I have been able to while you all attacked Doug and drug him through the wringer. I have to put in my two cents.
First of all – it galls me that our political leaders in this State think they are God. I should not be surprised since they are all arrogant, self-serving, and ARE NOT representing their constituents (which they are elected to do because they are PUBLIC servants). The same thing goes for the licences from the clerk’s office. The clerk was hired to perform a job…which was to fill out civil (not church) forms for pay. It is Her job to perform her job that she is being paid to do. I repeat…it is NOT an official church union, but rather a license to proceed to a church to be married. Now then…all churches have the right to refuse marriages due to religious beliefs without repercussions. So, wherein lies the problem??? IMO, Why would Bryant (who btw has a gay child living in Texas), want to cause more grief for people who are working and paying taxes and are trying to get insurance for their partners? Our illustrious politicos have made the laws so ridiculous that these people are forced to marry to take advantage of insurance, tax breaks, death benefits, etc. Shame on you all who are calling yourselves Christians!!!! God wants us to love one another and try to save souls….not alienate them. The gay issue is God’s business…NOT Bryant and Billy Boy’s. Billy Boy doesn’t need to be throwing stones very far….I can really shed some light on his family and friends. The only chance this State has of recovering is the removal of all of the “friends and family” who have descended upon the Katrina and BP monies with their hands out. This all began with Fata$$ and Puhl-a$$o…both shills imo. Hopefully, Snotty Toddy’s book will tell the story and the upcoming lawsuits will fill in the holes of the entire story.
Just a reminder….The only perfect one is in heaven. We are all human beings – true Christians know they are not perfect and we are tasked with following the tenets of the Bible to the best of our ability. That does not include mistreating others who may be in need of a kind word, counseling, or understanding – which, by the way, could make all the difference in the world to that individual. We all sin on a daily basis…and a sin is a sin…which means that your sins are just as bad as you think a gay person’s sin is. Life is hard, and living by God’s word is hard…I can’t imagine how hard it must be for those of you who think you should or could do God’s job.
Well Doug, according to your beliefs, I should be able to seek legal ramifications for your actions, including, but not limited to penalties, fines, loss of license, lawsuits, etc. which is what has occurred to business like Arlene’s Flower’s and the Little Wedding Chapel. You can justify your actions by saying I am posting comments that do not agree with your religious beliefs; but we both know it wasn’t until I brought up your support of the Catholic boarding school, that you decided to take an aggressive stance. I will gladly take my commentary elsewhere if you are offended by my comments, which have nothing to do with my beliefs, but you read objectivity as opposition.
Actually, what I advocated for was no discrimination, no special classes of people defined by the law to be entitled to a lower level of service, where there is tolerance for other people and their beliefs because whether you run a blog, a business or the Circuit Clerk’s office it should be possible to do your job and not compromise any sincerely held religious beliefs. It sure makes things run a lot smoother when busybodies are not trying to run other peoples lives.
I can tell you this, if one of my employees injected their personal beliefs into how they they treated the paying clients, I’d fire them on the spot.
But for all the hyperbole Fishbait, the ones that will go to hell over this bullshit are the ones doing Satan’s handiwork – politicians such as Phil Bryant, Tate Reeves, Phillip Gunn and those that knew better and voted for it anyhow sowing hate and discord in the process.
Jeremiah 23:1 & 2
Without a doubt, I 100% support all comments on this subject by Douglas K. Handshoe.
This story actually gets more interesting when you factor in tourism as Phil Bryant is highly in support of. It’s like he killed two birds with one stone and is to stupid to realize it.
Phil’s not stupid Eye – the reason politicians keep dividing people having them at each others throat is because when people are fighting with each over the stupid shit our politicians do, they are less apt to pay attention to all the stealing the politicians are doing. Nothing gets otherwise intelligent people off track than offering up a minority group to pick on and/or scapegoat (Mexican ditch diggers, welfare recipients, Gays and blacks being the most common examples). Mississippi’s history in this regard, as one of the very most corrupt states in this Union with a history of its politicians scapegoating minorities dates back a very long time.
There’s equal parts of ginning up the voter base to ensure turnout in the next election and controversy to fuel donations to the party and individual candidates imo.
I can attest to have never discriminated against any gay or transgender client however everyone should put themselves in the shoes of a wedding photographer who has to personally witness and photograph men kissing men, women kissing women,transgender , etc… Truly an abomination of the sexes God created!
And as a Christian no Christian should have to stand there, witness and happily record such activity to avoid being sued and losing a business – PERIOD.
If the LGBT want to have their Decadence Orgy in the streets of NOLA that’s fine , it’s between themselves and God.But I have the right to not be nauseated in the French Quarter and forced to witness such activity.
I know some commenter will say if you can’t ‘stand the heat get out of the kitchen’,i.e. get a new profession. But no one should be forced to give up their profession which should not just be about green but about enjoyment and freedom to a profession especially one you love to perform. In the case of a phtograher seeing the happiness of a female and male become One with the future to hopefully pro-create another human through Blessed Matrimony.
Finally, Easter and Christmas are being attacked yearly – even crosses by the roadside are attacked by the ACLU- Muslims can get many work breaks to pray yet Christians can’t meet on a football field and pray-
It’s past time for the extreme liberal pendulum to swing back to the founding fathers’ Christian refuge from European persecution . If not America believe me will again be brought to its knees just as many generations of Jews were judged for hundreds of years by our Father and Creator for their disbelief.
We have through millions of abortions and now gay marriage destroyed /cursed the joy and blessing of pro- creation, the most beautiful gift Our Creator gave us. And then He even sacrificed His Only Son to give us eternal salvation in exchange only for our sincere redemption to maintain the precious gift for the unconditional eternal love of Our Father. Yet many liberal non-believers again don’t cherish these gifts but continue to do ‘their own thing’ without belief or redemption thereby creating their own illusion via their free will way to heaven .
Doug, you have asked what harm does gay marriage/abortion etc. have on anyone else.Well I love my country America and my Creator and selfishly living in the greatest country in the world I do not wish to see more judgments in the form of more 9/11 judgments cast down upon us so I will speak up for Christian Faith and beliefs till I close my humble eyes . And for me not to do so is in conflict with the commission given to me and all true Christians to do what is specifically commanded of us in Matthew 28:18-20.
Islam teaches to kill non- believers while Christians are taught to forgive and proclaim the Good News throughout the World.
AMEN
Um, wow. Seriously?
Let’s get one thing straight tonight before we all go nighty night. Jesus Christ walked with, dined with and mixed with all segments of society, but He never minced words with any of them about their lifestyles and behavior. Period. I could be wrong but am I seeing more of an opportunity to bash the Republican leadership in Jackson than a true defense of the mistreatment of Gays and Lesbians.
I still think my sign for shop owners is the best idea. And, Doug, you would have every right to fire an employee for saying something to a client that you did not advocate.
My sign was for the business owner to employ, not the employees.
Just want to try to see that in the end, no one philosophy at least is disparaged, like Justice Kennedy said.
The men that wrote our Constitution were wise and knew first hand the dangers involved mixing state and religion.
As a student of History I also know Hitler didn’t start out full bore as a genocidal maniac. He started by picking on fringe minorities thus the famous poem that ends with no one being left to speak up.
This interactive website is made possible by the very same First Amendment that Phil Bryant seeks to trash in the name of saving it. I can’t stop Phil from playing games with our constitutional rights but I can sure as heck get fired up about it and speak out.
I know Locke to be a small businessman that treats his customers with respect and dignity just like you did when you were cutting hair. We’re living proof that it is possible to do your job professionally without compromising our personal beliefs.
Like the levee failures in 2005 this disaster called HB1523 is entirely man made.
Here’s something just to toss out there: among the numerous potential consequences in this ill-conceived bill if you read 1523 carefully, a Muslim employer who “disciplines” an employee who has stolen, had illicit sex, etc., in accordance with the employer’s (and possibly the employee’s) religious beliefs – i.e., caning, chopping off of hands, etc. – could have a pretty decent defense against any criminal charges and/or civil damages, at least at state level.
HB1523 may or may not be bad because it may or may not discriminate against anyone, but it is definitely bad because it was conceived, drafted and approved by people who have very little understanding of the law and apparently, the English language as spoken in the US, a fair number of which are also dumbass redneck morons who desperately want to be “planter class,” but would not have been “planter class” even when there actually was a “planter class.”
And now, I’ll you all to your pointless arguments on the subject.
Nunn:
You express your opinions which you have a right to do but to then predict that others’ proceeding opines on your opinions are “pointless” reminds me of the liberal minded universities on the east and west coasts that claim to be open forums yet bar and band conservative speech from their campuses.
I expressed my Christian opinion last night in opposition to abortion/ gay marriage and giving reasons there on and you responded ” Wow, seriously”.You must come from and appear to be cut from the old European cloth of persecution of religion which was a reason our forefathers left Europe.
Understand I do not oppose gay unions and all legal rights attached thereto but “Marriage” -no way – as my religious belief tells me that Marriage where two persons of the opposite sex come together to become One to procreate is a miraculous Blessing and gift
of Our Creator. And if you don’t believe it to be a Blessing which should not be blasfemed then you have a right to that belief also but don’t tell others that their opinions are ” pointless” as that is not the American way.
I didn’t say that anyone’s opinion was pointless, I said the argument about it here was pointless. And argument about it here is still pointless. So I won’t be joining in.