Divisive or pragmatic?

[Workingman]

Mississippi has passed a controversial 'religious freedom' bill.

It allows businesses to refuse their services to anyone if they hold sincerely held religious and moral convictions.

My question is: Why was this needed, and why on religious grounds?

If I own a business and do not want to serve you, that's up to me, it's my business. If I don't serve you and it hurts my business, you win.

I am not keen on the religious aspect, but my freedom to serve who I want should be my choice.

[Suff]

If I own a business and do not want to serve you, that's up to me, it's my business. If I don't serve you and it hurts my business, you win.

I am not keen on the religious aspect, but my freedom to serve who I want should be my choice.

Not true.

Just ask the B&B owners who, as devout Christians, were against allowing homosexual activity in their own home. Yet the courts found against them and forced them to allow this.

So that is exactly why this law has been created. So that the neo liberalists, who believe that their views are more important than yours or mine, can't take people to court for refusing to breach their religious principle.

This is something which is currently taking the English speaking world by storm and being supported in the courts, no matter how unfair it is.

Personally I applaud the legislation.

[Workingman]

If I own a business and do not want to serve you, that's up to me, it's my business. If I don't serve you and it hurts my business, you win.

I am not keen on the religious aspect, but my freedom to serve who I want should be my choice.

Not true.

What I am saying is that the B&B and the bakery owners should never have been taken to court. My business is my business and it is wholly up to me to accept anyone as a customer.

Shops, supermarkets etc. can refuse to serve you, anyone, as can pubs and clubs.

I do not agree with the law as it is religiously motivated, but I do agree with the principle.

[Suff]

I do not agree with the law as it is religiously motivated, but I do agree with the principle.

I know what you mean and I don't like the religious connotation either. Although I believe the scope is more "strongly held belief" rather than just religion, but I could be wrong as that would lead to the ability to enact racism against people, so restricting it to religious belief tends to take that away.

Sadly laws like this are forced by those who use the law to override people's beliefs so that a very small minority of the population are allowed to do what they want, regardless of what others want.


Not my favourite position.