now browsing by tag
Earlier today I made a statement concerning the LGBT conflict in Mississippi. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2016/pdf/HB/1500-1599/HB1523SG.pdf However, I made that statement before actually reading the law itself. No, it’s not a retraction of what I said earlier. It’s anything but that.
Reading it reminded me of the stories we were told by our grandparents about the rise of Hitler and his way of introducing hatred towards anyone who wasn’t the way he imagined a true German to be. (If you don’t know it, I was born and raised in Germany)
So I sat down and went down paragraph to paragraph, and now I will share my thoughts. Because laws like this, are not just a way of discriminating the LBGT community.
The name of the law: “PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT” as stated in section 1
This means that if you feel like you were discriminated and it was done because of the other persons believes, the Government won’t help. Basically, it denies you to complain about anyone telling you no because they believe you are not what they classify as right. But that is of course just a generalization of the meaning in the big picture.
When Hitler came to rise he implemented something similar, declaring that the German Race needed protection from undue influences. It gave Germans the right to refuse business to the evil outside influence of the Jews…. It was a harmless thing and really nobody thought much of it, after all you should have the right to say no to someone who is different, right?
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
Now this is the part the LGBT community is rightfully upset about. It also is self-contradicting, since we have around 5000 religion and not all define it this way.
Actually there are religions that support the marriage of one man to several woman, does that mean those people can refuse a monogamy married couple to do business with?
There are religions that accept and support same gender marriage, are those allowed to refuse service to not same gender married people?
It doesn’t seem so, but if I go with the basic statement of protecting ones rights to refuse based on their believe, I would assume so. After all, it does not define which religion.
Back when I was little my great aunt told me how in order to clarify who could refuse service to whom the German race was defined in those laws. How it made clear who could refuse service, and at the same time without naming them, who to refuse service to. Protecting the eugenic and racial beliefs… sound familiar?
Now that we know what Mississippi considers worth protecting, we can go to section 3
(1) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization:
Translations = The Government will not interfere if
(a) Solemnizes or declines to solemnize any marriage, or provides or declines to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act
Anyone refuses someone not fitting the definition of section 2 any kind of service, lodging, bathroom use, food and drink or privileges.
Good old Hitler did the same with the Jew, by empowering what he considered the German race, he limited the rights and access to stores, and goods for the Jews.
(b) Makes any employment – related decision including, but not limited to, the decision whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent with those of the religious organization, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act; or
And here we take the Jobs away from the Jews… oh wait that was then, now we protect religious believes…. or do we? This law allows anyone to refuse or terminate employment, or place disciplinary measures in place, if you’re not defined by section 2
(c) Makes any decision concerning the sale, rental, occupancy of, or terms and conditions of occupying a dwelling or other housing under its control, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.
Oh… I remember that one from history in school, this is where we take away the Jews rights of ownership in a roundabout way. What this means is that if you don’t fit the definition of section 2 you can be refused to rent or occupy a living space that doesn’t belong to you when this law comes into working order, meaning now. It also means that you can be refused to buy a property because of the same reasons. It also gives a property owner the right to evict you from the place you are currently living in. It makes you homeless if you don’t fit the bill as defined in section 2
Reading on from here I actually was expecting a hidden map to a concentration camp. After all, by now people not fitting section 2 lost their right to enter establishments, are unemployed and homeless. We have to put them somewhere. Best somewhere they won’t bother us with their otherness.
Still, I went on ignoring the churning in my stomach and the fear of repetition of history’s worst times.
(2) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization that advertises, provides or facilitates adoption or foster care, wholly or partially on the basis that such organization has provided or declined to provide any adoption or foster care service, or related service, based
upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.
This one is actually one I could partially live with. It means that no organization or person needs to take a child into foster care that doesn’t fit section 2. Since children and teens that are part of the LGBT community are often mistreated if not place in an open minded home, I could live with it, if not for the danger that section 2 represents. But more to that later.
(3) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person who the state grants custody of a foster or adoptive child, or who seeks from the state custody of a foster or adoptive child, wholly or partially on the basis that the person guides, instructs or raises a child, or intends to guide, instruct, or raise a child based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act
This is a good one too, it supports brainwashing children. With this the government states that they will do nothing if a child that is part of the LGBT community is placed in foster care or one that was adopted, gets bullied, mistreated and told they are spawn of the devil. It does not clearly state how far they will let foster or adoptive parents go, but considering the whole thing, I wouldn’t wonder if electroshock therapy and psychiatric drugs are just fine. Reminds me of a few dystopian novels I read.
(4) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person declines to participate in the provision of treatments, Counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning or declines to participate in the provision of psychological, counseling, or fertility services based upon a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act. This subsection (4) shall not be construed to allow any person to deny visitation, recognition of a designated representative for health care decision – making, or emergency medical treatment necessary to cure an illness or injury as required by law.
The only good thing about this part is that they tried to make clear that treatments not related to being not fitting section 2, still must be provided. Too bad the rest overshadows it.
(5) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person has provided or declined to provide the following services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration, or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act:
This states that the government won’t hunt down those who provide anyone not fitting Section 2 with services, goods and such. Neither will they take interest if they refuse the same. Basically it says we don’t care one way or the other, do as you like.
(a) Photography, poetry, videography, disc jockey services, wedding planning, printing, publishing or similar marriage related goods or services; or
- b) Floral arrangements, dress making, cake or pastry artistry, assembly hall or other wedding venue rentals, limousine or other car service rentals, jewelry sales and services, or similar marriage related services, accommodations, facilities or goods.
This is just a list of the various things that can be refused without the right to complain about it.
(6) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person establishes sex specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming, or concerning access to restrooms, spas, baths, showers, dressing rooms, locker rooms, or other intimate facilities or settings, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act
This gives anyone the right to refuse all named facilities to anyone not fitting the definition of section 2. Excluding those people from sport facilities, recreational facilities, as well as private schools for example.
Quite frankly I’m so sick of this right now, I want to retch, you know why? Because of how easy section 2 to be changed. As of now it gives anyone the right to refuse all kinds of dealing and right to the LGBT community, how long until they can refuse it to handicap people, sick people, mentally ill people, people of different skin color, or those with a different mindset. Germany went through this in 1935, and nobody stood up and stopped it from happening, nobody wanted to see it happen.
Does it have to happen again?
Up to now I thought it could not get worse. I mean really, it’s the fucking United States, the country that in my youth was used by our schools to empathize what we should aspire to. No longer, not if something like what follows to what already was stated is law. The United States are no longer a country to look up to, it’s one everyone should look down at, and if you want to spit, be my guest.
(7) The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a state employee wholly or partially on the basis that such employee lawfully speaks or engages in expressive conduct based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act, so long as:
In general it means that government employees have the right to verbally express their dislike of you if you don’t fit section 2
(a) If the employee’s speech or expressive conduct occurs in the workplace, that speech or expressive conduct is consistent with the time, place, manner and frequency of any other expression of a religious, political, or moral belief or conviction allowed; or
(b) If the employee’s speech or expressive conduct occurs outside the workplace, that speech or expressive conduct is in the employee’s personal capacity and outside the course of performing work duties.
Meaning that as long as the way he talks to you is the same way anyone is allowed to talk to you, he can say pretty much anything, even verbally bully you, while you’re in his office if you’re not fitting section 2
(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 2 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
This one is a doozy, it basically prohibits any kind of marriage that does not fit section 2, yet at the same time says that those marriage as long as they are within the law, are not to be delayed as a result of the refusal. Time will show which part of it will be more often executed.
(b) Any person employed or acting on behalf of the state government who has authority to perform or solemnize marriages, including, but not limited to, judges, magistrates, justices of the peace or their deputies, may seek recusal from performing or solemnizing lawful marriages based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act. Any person making such recusal shall provide prior written notice to the Administrative Office of Courts, and the state government shall not take any discriminatory action against that person wholly or partially on the basis of such recusal. The Administrative Office of Courts shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the performance or solemnization of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.
Basically more of the same, just widening the range of government employees that can refuse to serve you if you don’t fit section 2
Back in 1935 / 1936 Germany a law was put in action to protect the true German Race, prohibiting any kind of marriage between a German and a person not German. Existing marriages where forcefully divorced by giving the German party at the choice of being treated like the none German person, or be forgiven if that person wasn’t female and hadn’t bred already. It was a slow process over two or three years, beginning with hindering unwanted marriages by government officials.
(1) As used in this act, discriminatory action includes any action taken by the state government to:
(a) Alter in any way the tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, revoke, or otherwise make unavailable an exemption from taxation of any person referred to in Section 3 of this act
(b) Disallow, deny or otherwise make unavailable a deduction for state tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
- c) Withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, materially alter the terms or conditions of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny any state grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, or other similar benefit from or to such person;
- d) Withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, materially alter the terms or conditions of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny any entitlement or benefit under a state benefit program from or to such person;
- e) Impose, levy or assess a monetary fine, fee, penalty or injunction;
- f) Withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, materially alter the terms or conditions of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny any license, certification, accreditation, custody award or agreement, diploma, grade, recognition, or other similar benefit, position, or status from or to any person; or
- g) Refuse to hire or promote, force to resign, fire, demote, sanction, discipline, materially alter the terms or conditions of employment, or retaliate or take other adverse employment action against a person employed or commissioned by the state government
What this boils down to is that the government will reward you for brainwashing children not fitting section 2 by not coming after you for brainwashing and mistreating them in any way. Instead they will give you any support you might want or need to do so, and to support converting the person in foster care to fit section 2
(2) The state government shall consider accredited, licensed or certified any person that would otherwise be accredited, licensed or certified, respectively, for any purposes under state law but for a determination against such person wholly or partially on the basis that the person believes, speaks or acts in
accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in Section 2 of this act.
This is encouragement to take up the role of brainwasher with government support.
SECTION 5. (1) A person may assert a violation of this act
as a claim against the state government in any judicial or administrative proceeding or as defense in any judicial or
administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought by or in the name of the state government, any private person or any other party.
(2) An action under this act may be commenced, and relief may be granted, in a court of the state without regard to whether the person commencing the action has sought or exhausted available administrative remedies.
(3) Violations of this act which are properly governed by
Chapter 46, Title 11, Mississippi Code of 1972, shall be brought
in accordance with that chapter.
This one means you can complain over the goverment, however without reading stated chapter 46, Title 11 of Mississippi code from 1972 the exact meaning eludes me. However, considering the topic and how old the law is I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s bad.
SECTION 6. An aggrieved person must first seek injunctive relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this act or the effects of a violation of this act. If injunctive relief is granted by the court and the injunction is thereafter violated, then and only then may the aggrieved party, subject to the limitations of liability set forth in Section 11-46-15, seek the following:
(a) Compensatory damages for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses; (b) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
(c) Any other appropriate relief, except that only declaratory relief and injunctive relief shall be available against a rivate person not acting under color of state law upon a successful assertion of a claim or defense under this act.
This means that if you can proof you were unfairly treated in conjunction with this bill, something will be done to rectify it.
SECTION 7. A person must bring an action to assert a claim under this act not later than two (2) years after the date that
the person knew or should have known that a discriminatory action was taken against that person.
This means you or someone in your behalf has two years to bring forth the complaint.
SECTION 8. (1) This act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral
convictions, to the maximum extent permitted by the state and federal constitutions.
Ok… this is one says that the government will do everything they can to protect the people defined in section 2
(2) The protection of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions afforded by this act are in addition to the
protections provided under federal law, state law, and the state and federal constitutions. Nothing in this act shall be construed to preempt or repeal any state or local law that is equally or more protective of free exercise of religious beliefs or moral convictions. Nothing in this act shall be construed to narrow the meaning or application of any state or local law protecting free exercise of religious beliefs or moral convictions. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent the state government from providing, either directly or through an individual or entity not seeking protection under this act, any benefit or service authorized under state law.
This states that this bill is not going against federal law but in addition to it. That nothing in this bill will be used to reduce or nullify a law that is offering more protection for people defined in section 2 then this bill already is. So if you live in a town more radical then what this bill suggests, they won’t do a thing about it. They will actually support it.
SECTION 9. As used in Sections 1 through 9 of this act, the
following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Meaning, this is what we say, but within the context is what we mean.
(1) “State benefit program” means any program administered or funded by the state, or by any agent on behalf of the state, providing cash, payments, grants, contracts, loans or in-kind assistance.
(2) “State government” means:
(a) The State of Mississippi or a political subdivision of the state;
(b) Any agency of the state or of a political subdivision of the state, including a department, bureau, board, commission, council, court or public institution of higher education;
(c) Any person acting under color of state law; and
(d) Any private party or third party suing under or enforcing a law, ordinance, rule or regulation of the state or political subdivision of the state.
(3) “Person” means:
(a) A natural person, in his or her individual capacity, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, or in his or her capacity as a member, officer, owner, volunteer, employee, manager, religious leader, clergy or minister of any entity described in this section;
(b) A religious organization;
(c) A sole proprietorship, or closely held company, partnership, association, organization, firm, corporation, cooperative, trust, society or other closely held entity operating with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in this act; or
(d) Cooperatives, ventures or enterprises comprised of two (2) or more individuals or entities described in this subsection.
(4) “Religious organization” means:
(a) A house of worship, including, but not limited to, churches, synagogues, shrines, mosques and temples;
(b) A religious group, corporation, association, school or educational institution, ministry, order, society or similar entity, regardless of whether it is integrated or affiliated with a church or other house of worship; and
(c) An officer, owner, employee, manager, religious leader, clergy or minister of an entity or organization described in this subsection (4).
(5) “Adoption or foster care” or “adoption or foster care service” means social services provided to or on behalf of children, including:
(a) Assisting abused or neglected children;
(b) Teaching children and parents occupational, homemaking and other domestic skills;
(c) Promoting foster parenting;
(d) Providing foster homes, residential care, group homes or temporary group shelters for children;
(e) Recruiting foster parents;
(f) Placing children in foster homes;
(g) Licensing foster homes;
(h) Promoting adoption or recruiting adoptive parents;
(i) Assisting adoptions or supporting adoptive families;
(j) Performing or assisting home studies;
(k) Assisting kinship guardianships or kinship caregivers;
(l) Providing family preservation services;
(m) Providing family support services; and
(n) Providing temporary family reunification services.
SECTION 10. The provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of this act shall be excluded from the application of Section 11-61-1.
SECTION 11. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2016.
After Germany fell and the war was over, after the whole evil of the concentration camp was revealed, the German citizens were accused of closing their eyes, of turning away and ignoring the evil happing all over the country.
This bill, this law is the perfect example of how it started back then. Not by taking rights away from the Jews (in this case LGBT Community) but by empowering the True German Race (Religiously and morally against the LGBT Community) Not many thought much of it because the Jews were hated or disliked already, so they had it coming, right?
Once the overall mood of the country was against the Jews and taking advantage of the new power they had gotten to go against them, the step to getting rid of them was just a small one. People believed it easily that they were just send away, that they had left of their own free will. And when rumors rose of the truth, nobody wanted to acknowledge them, because it would have made them part of it.
When the German government included handicapped, mentally ill, and genetically impure people, morals and ideals were already twisted to the point that nobody wanted to know.
When I read this bill, I see the past, a dark and painful past. I read this and at the same time I read the Nurnberg Laws, only that the definition in section 2 is a different one, for now.
I always hated how much guilt we were taught in German schools for things our grandparents had done. Now I know why, so we would never stand by again and watch the lead up to another holocaust. So we could stand up and speak up before it happened again.
I don’t know all religions, but I don’t think that there is one God within them all that teaches hatred.
Don’t let it happen again, don’t let it happen in the name of the God you believe in. I might not be religious but if I were, I would fear to stand before him and explain why I supported this bill. Why I supported a launch pad for hatred and discrimination, or worst.
Speak up, stand up and fight this bill. Don’t let history repeat itself.
Discrimination of LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) community people in the States.
When you Google the definition of Human Rights you find several long winding explanations. What they boil down to, or should boil down to is, the right of being yourself and being accepted as such. I’m not a part of the LGBT community, but I have friends that are, I follow actors, musicians and writers that are. People I respect and admire, people that have a good heart and an open mind. Humans that live as I do, they work, pay taxes, raise families, and often help others out.
When I read about laws being passed to subdue and discriminate those who have a different sexual orientation, I want to resort to violence towards the idiots passing those awful laws. Since the French Revolution liberty, equality and fraternity have been goals we fight for. For freedom of being who we are, of being accepted as who we are as equals, for being part of the large brotherhood of human beings.
What certain states in the USA are doing at the moment, the laws they are passing, are not only discriminating, they are a launching pad for the same mindset Adolf Hitler had. It’s the beginning of the end. What will come next? Any religion that isn’t fitting the mindset will be condemned, then people with handicap or learning disorders, and what then, back to when other colored people were slaves or less?
When I was little, the United States where a synonym for human right movement, for the goal of equality and freedom. Now I look over the border, and see only one thing, the horrors of the past. If we allow laws to pass that set part of our society apart from the rest, if we allow them to be singled out, prosecuted for who they are, what they believe in or their sexual orientation, we might as well start shovelling graves for them.
I was born in Germany, I know how it started with the Jews, everyone who ever was in school or watched history channel know it. Are we willing to let it happen again by staying silent? I will sign any and all petitions against such a thing, will stand up and speak my mind, because I will not let happen what my great parents or their parents allowed to happen. I will not silently stand by and watch when people who are not the perceived norm are being discriminated and persecuted. I know I’m not alone, several celebrities like Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams are against those laws as well and standing up. You should to, every voice counts, because when enough people speak up, and stand united against such discrimination, it becomes a force to be reckoned with.
Speak up, say your piece, sign petitions, do what you can before history repeats itself.