MS Governor Signs Discrimination Bill

If it walks like a duck....The Governor of Mississippi claims the anti-gay bill he just signed is an expression of religious freedom not discrimination. Baloney.

The bill, H.R. 1523, as sent to the Governor, is here.

The Governor and legislature call it an anti-discrimination bill -- it prevents legal action against those who discriminate against gays and transgenders, provided they say they are doing so for religious and moral reasons.

What a shameful and disgusting bill.

< Monday Open Thread: A New Network to Watch | Amnesty Int'l: "Alarming Rise" in Global Executions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They almost have it right... (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    it's an anti-anti-discrimination bill, otherwise known as a discrimination bill.

    Mississippi Goddam

    Miss Simone! (none / 0) (#6)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    Just saw the documentary.  Your comment wins!

    I predict an injunction against enforcement (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 09:01:14 AM EST
    within a week. No law can single out one particular religious belief over others for favorable treatment. Such laws violate the Establishment Clause. (Even assuming that such sincerely held religious practices actually exist.) Also, a law whose purpose is to diminish the fair and equal treatment of a particular, disfavored group is unconstitutional for that reason as well.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    Without really knowing anything about it but what I have read here.

    I think this stuff being repeated in state after state is really nothing more than a sop to the haters.  A sign they are "doing something".  It's a last gasp.  That said I expect they will be gasping for some time.   But the truth is they know they have lost.  I find it strangely satisfying.


    A perfect example (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans:

    The Republicans never stop pushing!

    The People vote for a Democratic President....No problem, just restrict voting rights for next election.

    The People vote for Progressive Representatives.....No problem, just obstruct more in the next Congress.

    The People support Progressive laws.....No problem, keep filing Supreme Court challenges.

    Does the unique support for, out-of-the-box Candidates like Trump and Sanders send a clue to "the establishment?" Their answer, "it's not our policies that are the problem, it's our "messaging."

    I hope this helps explain, to a small degree anyway, the recent chatter about a so-called, "revolution."


    And By That Time... (none / 0) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    ... groups/companies/governorments will have their policies written in regards to not spending funds in Mississippi/North Carolina.

    Even if these laws are repealed or retooled, they aren't getting people back once they find alternative locations.

    In Mississippi, objections have been raised by companies such as Tyson Foods, MGM Resorts International, Nissan and Toyota, all of which are major employers in the state.

    But the biggest backlash has come in North Carolina, a deeply divided state with conservative, Republican-dominated rural areas and suburbs vying for influence with tech-savvy, Democratic-leaning urban centers like Charlotte and the Research Triangle area of Durham, Raleigh and Chapel Hill.

    With its announcement, PayPal became the first major company to announce it was pulling out of an existing project, saying that "becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable."

    PayPal's president and chief executive, Dan Schulman, said that if the state repealed the law, "we will reconsider our decision."

    "But obviously there's a time frame," he added. "We are now in the process of talking to a number of other states."

    Other companies reconsidering their business in North Carolina include Lionsgate, which is filming the musical "Dirty Dancing" in the state but said in a recent statement that it would be "hard pressed to continue our relationship with North Carolina if this regressive law remains on the books." Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, which had announced plans for a $20 million expansion in Durham, said it was "re-evaluating our options based on the recent, unjust legislation."


    Throwing it in the face (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    of the Research Triangle Park image makes you wonder wtf they expect to get out of this - and who "they" are.

    What an epic own-goal.


    Federal Funding... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    ... for certain areas could be pulled if there are civil rights issues, like housing and education.  Grant money could also be pulled.

    The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina's new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.

    Cutting off any federal money -- or even simply threatening to do so -- would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use. A loss of federal money could send the state into a budget crisis and jeopardize services that are central to daily life.


    As presented (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 11:23:06 AM EST
    in my earlier post, "License to Discriminate" (Monday Open Thread), the pernicious bill signed into law by the Republican governor of Mississippi, makes the N.C. (signed),  the Indiana (re-worked), and the Georgia (vetoed) bills look like love letters.

    In Mississippi, as of July,  individuals, businesses, religious organizations,private associations, employers, landlords, may discriminate against a class of citizens on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. A bill that promotes segregation of classes of citizens by the government.

     Protected by the government by this act are religious beliefs OR moral convictions that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.

    The Mississippi framers, perhaps blinded by their poisonous enthusiasm as they penned this bill, included the right to discriminate against those unwed, who as they might say about gay people, have chosen the heterosexual lifestyle.

     The law even protects employers who might chose to fire a woman who violates, literally, a dress code. Show up in a pants suit, and your wrongly clothed posterior could be out the door. And, mean spirited: denial of medical care, hospital visits by a same sex spouse, denial of space in a homeless shelter.

    Protests  are likely more difficult in Mississippi---a kind of "Neverland" that hasn't grown into a state that supports adults.  No Fortune 500 companies, no major professional sports teams, no significant technology sector. Maybe, an effort by Churches, maybe, just maybe, there is something helpful in their good book--oh, never-mind. Best hope is those activist judges who look to the Constitution.

    "Just say No" to visiting Mississippi. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    Thanks for the bumpersticker Nancy!

    Here's another (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    Mississippi gave us the blues.

    They Have Already Put Up New Signs (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    Mississippi state slogan: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    "Litterasy Ain't Everything."

    Colorado got saved by the SCOTUS striking (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    down Amendment 2 before grave economic impact could be felt.

    MS might not be so lucky

    Mississippi's not Colorado. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    Colorado is a place people want to visit. You ever hear many people expressing any desire about vacationing in Mississippi? So, there likely won't be much of a backlash, since there's really not much of a back to lash in the first place.

    Actually (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    MS has a pretty decent tourism business. Buses of people from here in Atlanta go to the casinos and then there are historic sites that people visit. So yeah, they are probably going to be hurting in the tourism businesses for sure. I'm surprised the companies that own the casinos didn't say anything about this bill.

    I've been known to frequent (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    the casinos in Biloxi when I'm visiting New Orleans. Wrote the Mississippi Tourism bureau today to let them know I won't be back.

    I've heard that Biloxi is beautiful. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    But I've never been there, even though I've been to nearby New Orleans on several occasions. The only two places I've visited in that state are Jackson and Vicksburg, and that's only because I'm something of a Civil War buff and did the battlefields circuit. Can't say as I have any desire to return, and I daresay the Mississippi legislature is certainly incentivizing lots of people to feel the same.

    I guess they have to bus them in. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    Southwest Airlines recently dropped Jackson as a destination, which sort of surprised me because that carrier tends to not leave a market. So business on its routes there must've been poor.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    it's a bus tour kind of thing. But if you flew into Jackson you would have to rent a car to drive down to Biloxi where the casinos are.

    ... and drive from there? It sure looks a lot closer to Biloxi on a map, than does Jackson. But you know the region far better than I do, so maybe not.

    Well (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 06:22:24 PM EST
    yes, but generally how people seem to do it is if they are going to New Orleans, that's generally where they stay the entire time with maybe driving over to Biloxi for a day. These chartered bus trips are for ones that only go to the casinos and you stay there for a couple of days. I have been to one of these casinos when we went to New Orleans. We drove over there but honestly casinos don't hold much fascination for me and a few hours wandering around one is enough time spent there for me.

    There are casinos in northern MS too, near Memphis (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    They try to attract the tourist visiting Memphis. Will be interesting to see if any tourists really observe any kind of a boycott.

    Like someone alluded to with CO - when people really want to vacation in a place they tend not to observe boycotts. Businesses relocating someplace are another matter.


    From My Observance... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    ... no discrimination law is going to keep folks out of the casinos, no way, no how.

    And considering every border state has casinos and that most of those states are trying to enact the same type of legislation, I don't see how it's going to change much.


    The Civil War battlefield at Vicksburg (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    is totally fascinating.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 04:25:32 PM EST
    And what's even more fascinating about that Civil War battle is that one of its key moments, Adm. David Porter's Union fleet steaming south on the Mississippi River past the gun batteries of Vicksburg to transport Gen. Ulysses Grant's across the river from Louisiana, could not take place today. The Great Flood of 1927 caused that river to dramatically shift course just south of the city and bend sharply west, so that it no longer runs directly by the Vicksburg waterfront.

    Vicksburg is arguably Grant's most brilliant campaign of the war. The city's formidable defenses under Gen. John Pemberton were mostly facing west and north. After several failed attempts to breach them, Grant withdrew to the southwest away from the city. That's when Porter's fleet made its legendary run on April 27, 1863 to meet up with Grant and transport his army across the Mississippi River.

    Once he was across and in Mississippi itself, Grant immediately headed due east and seized the state capital at Jackson, then pivoted westward and approached Vicksburg from the east. Pemberton and the defending Confederates were caught completely by surprise, and after a desperate attempt to halt the Union Army at the Battle Champion's Hill, they fell back to Vicksburg where Grant quickly bottled them up and besieged them.

    The city fell to Grant on July 4, 1863. On that same day in Pennsylvania, Gen. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia withdrew from Gettysburg and began retreating back to the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. The war's tide had turned against the Confederacy, and it never again regained the military initiative.

    (Trivia: Gen. John C. Pemberton, the Confederate commander who surrendered Vicksburg to Grant, was actually from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was a career U.S. Army officer who had married into a prominent Virginia family after his return from the Mexican-American War in 1848. When Virginia seceded from the Union in April 1861, he chose to remain loyal to his in-laws rather than his country, and resigned his commission to join the Confederate cause.)

    Given that some people have failed to heed the lessons of 150 years ago, perhaps we need to lay siege to Vicksburg again and starve them out, just for old time's sake.



    I was going reference Charlemagne (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 06, 2016 at 05:54:54 PM EST
    on the NY primary thread, and I'm glad I didn't..

    The South does seem to love their Great Lost Causes though, don't they?

    What does this kind of thing actually accomplish in the real world? Folks get to experience the emotional catharsis of affirming their group identity; politicians get a chance to make their constituents "like" them more with some old fashioned grandstanding;
    and with tornado season almost upon them, Mississippians can feel hopeful that the wrathful God will be temporarily appeased by them punishing gays.