I don't live in Starkville but saw the tweets about the meeting and the messages here. What exactly is the issue? Did someone sue for discrimination?
Last edited by a moderator:
Locked:Starkville Meeting
- Thread starter Bulldogg31
- Start date
- Status
Homosexuals are not a protected class in Mississippi. They can be fired for being out and have no legal grounds for wrongful termination.
Starkville (aka Wiseman) is a forward thinking city and decided that they should implement a policy against this. In addition to that they added a caveat that homosexual city employees could extend their benefits to their *spouse* which costs the city $0. Both were shot down in separate votes today.
I can understand the insurance vote even though I strongly disagree with it, but the aldermen voted to allow businesses to discriminate against homosexual employees and customers. There were a lot of references to the Bible, so I'm guessing 5 aldermen think Jesus would want Christians to fire their gay employees and refuse service to homosexuals.
Starkville (aka Wiseman) is a forward thinking city and decided that they should implement a policy against this. In addition to that they added a caveat that homosexual city employees could extend their benefits to their *spouse* which costs the city $0. Both were shot down in separate votes today.
I can understand the insurance vote even though I strongly disagree with it, but the aldermen voted to allow businesses to discriminate against homosexual employees and customers. There were a lot of references to the Bible, so I'm guessing 5 aldermen think Jesus would want Christians to fire their gay employees and refuse service to homosexuals.
Last edited:
Thanks Esplanade. I've followed a bit on Twitter but that helps.
Issues like this are why many Fiscal Conservative/Social Moderates like me are losing interest in politics and the news.
It's hard to find a place to stand between the left and the right. It's seems to be all or nothing, Democrat or Republican, and some (many?) are left in the gap.
I know lots of people who say marry who you want, smoke what you want, keep the military strong, spend the money wisely, own a gun if you want, worship who/where/if you want, promote economic freedom and growth, and keep the government out of all of it as much as possible.
That doesn't sound like the Starkville board, however.
Issues like this are why many Fiscal Conservative/Social Moderates like me are losing interest in politics and the news.
It's hard to find a place to stand between the left and the right. It's seems to be all or nothing, Democrat or Republican, and some (many?) are left in the gap.
I know lots of people who say marry who you want, smoke what you want, keep the military strong, spend the money wisely, own a gun if you want, worship who/where/if you want, promote economic freedom and growth, and keep the government out of all of it as much as possible.
That doesn't sound like the Starkville board, however.
The problem is there isn't a political party for common sense, so instead of voting for the candidate that best fits the needs of the people everyone keeps voting for the Ben Carvers of their party who... And I **** you not... Run on "pro business" models and aren't fit to run a lemonade stand. Who the 17 is anti-business?
How about the politicans who create excessive regulations and treat businesses like a never ending money trough when they want tax money to pay for yet another wasted pet project or program.
So Starkville Parks Department? Or those who oppose Sunday sales or bars being open past 1pm?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking in general terms as a business owner and if you think no politican is anti business then you obviously have never owned a business.
I haven't, but to insinuate anyone is anti-business is crazy. There are just different ideas as to how to be pro-business, I guess.
It's a load of BS to run on that platform for local government regardless of your policy though.
It's a load of BS to run on that platform for local government regardless of your policy though.
Anti-business
Well, you are right about 1 thing. No one ever says they are "anti-business" as that might not be politically correct. But if you think that there isn't a large group of anti-business people in this country then you really have no clue what's going on. There is a growing general sentiment that anyone who owns a business is now public community and the public can choose to use that business owner however they choose. Business are "sell-outs", working for the man, "only concerned about profit" etc.
As a business owner I see it all the time and to hear from someone who has never owned a business that there is no such thing as "anti-business" makes me waffle between laughing at your naivety and getting angry at someone weighing in to a serious conversation with little information.
There were no "anti-black people" in the Civil War either, right! Both sides were "pro-black". One side thought black people where humans with basic human rights that should be protected and the other thought black people were cattle, equipment and tools, and their own personal sex toys. But there were both "pro-black"! Try telling that to one of your black friends and see what there response is.
Well, you are right about 1 thing. No one ever says they are "anti-business" as that might not be politically correct. But if you think that there isn't a large group of anti-business people in this country then you really have no clue what's going on. There is a growing general sentiment that anyone who owns a business is now public community and the public can choose to use that business owner however they choose. Business are "sell-outs", working for the man, "only concerned about profit" etc.
As a business owner I see it all the time and to hear from someone who has never owned a business that there is no such thing as "anti-business" makes me waffle between laughing at your naivety and getting angry at someone weighing in to a serious conversation with little information.
There were no "anti-black people" in the Civil War either, right! Both sides were "pro-black". One side thought black people where humans with basic human rights that should be protected and the other thought black people were cattle, equipment and tools, and their own personal sex toys. But there were both "pro-black"! Try telling that to one of your black friends and see what there response is.
I haven't seen the ordinance/resolution or the transcript, but I kind of doubt they voted for this. There's a big difference between thinking you don't need a law to address every single think in life you disagree with and voting to allow something. If you've ever dealt with the EEOC, you would be much more hesitant to support more "anti-discrimination" laws. Maybe there's a way to right them where they don't do as much harm as good, but with the views of our current society, I kind of doubt it.
Would this have moved city businesses into the same legal situation as the bakery in Oregon and the photographer in New Mexico? If so, then good for the aldermen.
Find a happy medium that doesn't put good people into that kind of moral quandary, and then get back to us.
Find a happy medium that doesn't put good people into that kind of moral quandary, and then get back to us.
Good people, eh?
"I don't like you, so I want you out of my store".
Yep...definition of "good people".
Btw, does this apply to minorities too, or just gay people, 00? If said baker didn't want to make a cake for a black couple, or dare I say an interracial couple, are they permitted to protect the sanctity of their business in the same fashion?
Uh, huh....I know exactly what you're referring to, baby cakes.
And you didn't answer my question.
So, they have the same rights as everyone else with Mississippi being an at will employment state but this isn't good enough?
In a few years we will look back upon this in the same way your brain reacts to this...
Last edited:
At will doesn't mean you can discriminate... Unless against gays, that is... You still have to have a valid reason for termination (or you will get sued). Did this really have to be spelled out? And, of course, the +1 issue that allowed them the 'same' rights as everyone else in Mississippi and have their significant other get benefits through their employer... you know, like everyone else in Mississippi...
If you know what he's referring to, why would you say something that makes it look like you didn't? Were you just trying to mislead people about the situation he was referencing?
No, it could not result in anything like what happened in Oregon or New Mexico. It only applied to employees of city government. And it was only a policy statement not an ordinance.
One day when you run your own business and are the one that has to pay the miscellaneous taxes and comply with all the regulations then you can let me know if you still think no politicians are anti-business.
Someone please explain this to me:
So, a homosexual can be fired for being a homosexual and it's not considered discrimination in Mississippi?? Also, a homosexual can be kicked out of a privately owned store at it not be considered discrimination??
I don't understand the first at all. I can understand the second being that it protects the rights of the business owner to decide who is allowed in their store. It'd be a dickhead move but I understand the legal justification behind it. The question is, then, does the business owner have the right to remove a Christian, Muslim, or Jew from their store? For that matter, a minority individual?
Christians who support anti-homosexual laws are, in my opinion, no different than the Pharisee and Sadducee that Jesus of Nazareth protested in the Bible. They may be protecting the sanctity of their precious business/marriages/minds/spirits but they are, as a group, destroying their own religion...and they don't even realize it.
So, a homosexual can be fired for being a homosexual and it's not considered discrimination in Mississippi?? Also, a homosexual can be kicked out of a privately owned store at it not be considered discrimination??
I don't understand the first at all. I can understand the second being that it protects the rights of the business owner to decide who is allowed in their store. It'd be a dickhead move but I understand the legal justification behind it. The question is, then, does the business owner have the right to remove a Christian, Muslim, or Jew from their store? For that matter, a minority individual?
Christians who support anti-homosexual laws are, in my opinion, no different than the Pharisee and Sadducee that Jesus of Nazareth protested in the Bible. They may be protecting the sanctity of their precious business/marriages/minds/spirits but they are, as a group, destroying their own religion...and they don't even realize it.
I think you misunderstand him. Politicians that hike up stupid taxes on businesses (trust me I understand...I come form a business owning family) are not anti-business. They rely on raping businesses for their pet projects. That is the result of a politician not understanding business. You guys are arguing semantics.
Just a guess, but...
I'd say he's fully cognizant of the fact that the details of both cases would indicate:
a. No malice on the part of the business owners
b. A willingness by the business owners to put forth extra effort in an attempt to help the customers obtain what they needed
c. A very McCarthy-esque attitude on the part of the customers and their supporters
Neither situation lends itself to an easy support of the laws that caused them, but rather than have difficult discussions, both sides want to hand wave away the gray areas of life with legislation options aligned to opposite ends of the spectrum.
I'd say he's fully cognizant of the fact that the details of both cases would indicate:
a. No malice on the part of the business owners
b. A willingness by the business owners to put forth extra effort in an attempt to help the customers obtain what they needed
c. A very McCarthy-esque attitude on the part of the customers and their supporters
Neither situation lends itself to an easy support of the laws that caused them, but rather than have difficult discussions, both sides want to hand wave away the gray areas of life with legislation options aligned to opposite ends of the spectrum.
He wouldnt refuse business to them probably but he would tell them to do what he told the woman who was caught in the act of adultery to do...
In a few years we will look back upon this in the same way your brain reacts to this...
Ouch...that's gonna sting.
Keep in mind that Mississippi generally has no specific laws against discrimination of any kind, and basically leaves that type of regulation to Congress.
Tell me how I'm misrepresenting the issue at hand? They may be different from the examples I gave, but they are all part of the problem that is at the heart of this overall discussion.
Sure, and why doesn't the photographer work a wedding he doesn't want to, and then have the joy of his name permanently associated with photos he didn't want to take, and didn't support the subject matter of.
I notice no responses so far seem to have a problem with "No, I'd rather not provide my services to you, but here's a list of my business associates who will" being followed by "Screw you, we're going to put you out of business!".
I notice no responses so far seem to have a problem with "No, I'd rather not provide my services to you, but here's a list of my business associates who will" being followed by "Screw you, we're going to put you out of business!".
And what pray tell is the problem at the heart of this overall discussion?
Because when you begin stating that you have a problem with private businesses professionally and courteously attempting to handle a matter and you back the other side taking the Sherman approach in response, you've headed right past discrimination and into attempting to use the law to force acceptance and approval. That's some Thinkspeak level stuff right there.
Because when you begin stating that you have a problem with private businesses professionally and courteously attempting to handle a matter and you back the other side taking the Sherman approach in response, you've headed right past discrimination and into attempting to use the law to force acceptance and approval. That's some Thinkspeak level stuff right there.
So, you basically want a return to "separate but equal"?
Refusing service to someone because you "don't support" them being gay is no different than refusing service due to not supporting someone being black, or really smart, or enjoying broccoli.
Refusing service to someone because you "don't support" them being gay is no different than refusing service due to not supporting someone being black, or really smart, or enjoying broccoli.
I'm sure in your perfect world, every business owner who refuses to accommodate a customer is always "professional and courteous"? Did I say "screw you, I'm gonna ruin your business"? Nope, that's not how I feel this problem needs to be handled. Again, the heart of the discussion is a social stigma based on a religious opinion, that is viewed as antiquated and closeminded by a fast growing portion of our population (now a majority, I believe). And again, you never answered my question: how would this discussion be framed if the florist, baker, or photographer refused the business of a black couple, or interracial couple? You can say, "Well, they offered them an alternative" - that may be true, but the heart of the problem remains their initial refusal.
Equating skin color and sexual behavior is getting tired...
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/gay-is-not-the-new-black
Well you said:
When neither of the situations involved somebody getting kicked out of a store (or even being refused service generally), so it seems like you were either ignorant of the circumstances he referenced or trying to mislead people as to what he was referencing.
I guess you're trying some sleight of hand there by saying "how I'm misrepresenting the issue at hand?" and maybe trying to pretend that even though you were making misleading statements, you weren't misleading about "the issue at hand" but I'm not sure how saying something misleading to avoid responding to a point made by somebody else is not "misrepresenting the issue at hand". If you don't have a valid response to it, it seems like making misleading statements to avoid discussing it is misrepresenting the issue at hand, because you're trying to hand wave legitimate points away.
- Status
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Sunday Notebook: No. 24 Mississippi State 31-24 No. 19 Mizzou
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State's defense bends without breaking again
-
03
Maroon and White
Mississippi State PFF Grades from 31-24 win over Mizzou
-
04
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State's Week 5 date with No. 8 Alabama set for early window
-
05
Maroon and White
Fluff Bothwell finds a way in impact performance for Mississippi State