MS's New Anti-LGBT Bill Claims That Women Can Be Fired For Wearing Pants

christiefan915

Catalyst
Here's the MS version of discriminating and anti-burqa laws. If you are LGBT you WILL wear what we tell you to.

Many states have considered bills that enable discrimination against the LGBT community, but Mississippi’s proposed legislation is perhaps the most explicit in this regard. HB 1523 spells out in storied detail all of the different ways that a person should be able to mistreat people for being LGBT without consequences from the government. The bill does not pretend to be neutral; it only protects people with anti-LGBT religious beliefs and nobody else.

The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

Assessing what kind of discriminatory situations this would enable is easy, because the bill spells those out as well. So long as individuals are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” any of the following behaviors would have the endorsement of the government:

  • Religious organizations can decline to solemnize any marriage or provide any services related to recognizing that marriage.
  • Religious organizations can refuse to hire, fire, and discipline employees for violating the organization’s religious beliefs.
  • Religious organizations can choose not to sell, rent, or otherwise provide shelter.
  • Religious organizations that provide foster or adoptive services can decline service without risking their state subsidies.
  • Any foster or adoptive parent can impose their religious beliefs on their children.
  • Any person can choose not to provide treatment, counseling, or surgery related to gender transition or same-sex parenting.
  • Any person can establish “sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming,” and can manage the access of restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.
  • Any state employee can openly express their beliefs without consequence.
  • Any state employee can choose not to authorize or license legal marriages by recusing themselves from those duties.
Anybody who takes advantage of any of these opportunities to discriminate would be protected from any tax penalty, any loss of contract or grant, any loss of benefit, any fine or penalty, any license or certification, any custody award or agreement, or any setback in employment. Furthermore, these protections extend even if the disagreement does not involve the government as a party. In other words, anybody can cite their religious beliefs to justify their discriminatory behavior if sued by the victims of that discrimination. When they do, they are entitled not only to victory in court, but compensatory damages as well.

The Mississippi Senate approved the bill Wednesday evening by a vote of 31-17. It now returns to the House for concurrence with an amendment.


http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/30/3764798/mississippi-anti-lgbt-bill/

 
so, is Chrispy fighting racism or acting like a fucking idiot troll?......
I don't see any racism being fought here......
 
[h=2]Women Can Be Fired For Wearing Pants?[/h]
I must have missed this in the op.....or is Christiefan having delusions......
 
Most, if not all, professional business offices have dress codes for their employees all over the country.....including grooming.
 
Women Can Be Fired For Wearing Pants?

I must have missed this in the op.....or is Christiefan having delusions......

It was the title of the article, dummy. This law spells out in plain English "Any person can establish “sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming." How do you interpret this?
 
Most, if not all, professional business offices have dress codes for their employees all over the country.....including grooming.

The bill isn't talking about corporate dress codes. It says "so long as individuals are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” any of the following behaviors would have the endorsement of the government..."

It offends my fashion sensibilities that Kim Davis dresses like an 19th century prairie farmer while on the job but that doesn't give me the right to tell her to smarten up.
 
Most, if not all, professional business offices have dress codes for their employees all over the country.....including grooming.

Is the State of Mississippi correct in legislating discrimination, BLABO?

Please explain why that is constitutional.

I'll understand if you can't.

Poor BLABO.
 
The bill isn't talking about corporate dress codes. It says "so long as individuals are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” any of the following behaviors would have the endorsement of the government..."

It offends my fashion sensibilities that Kim Davis dresses like an 19th century prairie farmer while on the job but that doesn't give me the right to tell her to smarten up.

It doesn't have to be corporate dress codes.....schools have them, restaurants have them, clubs have them, even golf courses have them....etc.. etc.....

Dress codes are not illegal.....get it ?
 
It doesn't have to be corporate dress codes.....schools have them, restaurants have them, clubs have them, even golf courses have them....etc.. etc.....

Dress codes are not illegal.....get it ?

Why do you keep skipping over the part about "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"?
 
Isn't that what they criticize Muslims for doing, telling women how to dress based on conservative religious beliefs? Seems pretty clear to me that it's the same thing.

It's different when they do it.

Doesn't this bill "authorize" wannabe Kim Davises to discriminate and deny equal treatment to homosexuals by claiming a bogus religious belief?

Where in the Bible is anyone prohibited from treating homosexuals the same as everyone else - unless you're killing them?
 
It's different when they do it.

Doesn't this bill "authorize" wannabe Kim Davises to discriminate and deny equal treatment to homosexuals by claiming a bogus religious belief?

Where in the Bible is anyone prohibited from treating homosexuals the same as everyone else - unless you're killing them?

History shows a lot of egregious behaviour has been done under the guise of religious belief.
 
Why do you keep skipping over the part about "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"?

????....why one would enforce a 'dress code' or 'grooming code' is irrelevant......

Neither your topic nor your bolded text mentions those terms.....
 
????....why one would enforce a 'dress code' or 'grooming code' is irrelevant......Neither your topic nor your bolded text mentions those terms.....

Religious belief that is not valid according to the tenets of that religion isn't a defense for illegal discrimination.

Poor BLABO.
 
Isn't that what they criticize Muslims for doing, telling women how to dress based on conservative religious beliefs?

Seems pretty clear to me that it's the same thing.

You free to have your own perspective, wrong as it is.........the law just doesn't see it your way.....and think about it....its not quite the same thing and you know it....

No one is forcing anyone, man or women to dress a certain way in the western world....only in the Muslim world are women FORCED to dress as they are told....
 
????....why one would enforce a 'dress code' or 'grooming code' is irrelevant......

Neither your topic nor your bolded text mentions those terms.....

Well bravs, I'm not sure you understand any of the arguments here. Read points a, b and c in the first post. The state is putting a religious interpretation on what people should do and how others can discriminate based on so-called religious belief.
 
Back
Top