Supreme Court allows Mississippi anti-LGBT law to stand

NBC "News" ^ | January 8, 2018 | by Pete Williams

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over a Mississippi law that allows state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections.

Signed into law in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, it allows county clerks to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and protects businesses from lawsuits if they refuse to serve LGBT customers.

The law was immediately challenged. But lower courts, without ruling on the merits of the law, said those suing could not show that they would be harmed by it.

[chris37]

It isn’t anit-GBLT, it’s pro-freedom.

[tomkat]

             

[Moonman62]

The law was immediately challenged. But lower courts, without ruling on the merits of the law, said those suing could not show that they would be harmed by it.

...

Imagine that. There’s no harm, but they still want to destroy anybody who doesn’t bake them a gay cake (unless the bakers are Muslims).

[Senator Goldwater]

Thank God for this Supreme Court, and looking forward to Trump replacing Ginsburg and Breyer in the first term.

[kjam22]

When the winds of changes shift....

[vette6387]

Does anyone know what the decision was? 5/4?

[doorgunner69]

It isn’t anit-GBLT, it’s pro-freedom.

Perfectly frames the deep difference between the conservative and statist viewpoints.

[DoodleDawg]

Does anyone know what the decision was? 5/4?

There was no decision. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case which means at least six justices voted not to take it up. I believe the 5th Circuit decision was a 2 to 1 decision.

[billorites]

Well, bless their heart!

[beergarden]

Good. After 8 years of faggot bullying from the left, it’s time to fight back.

[Yosemitest]

"We will keep fighting in Mississippi until we overturn this harmful law, and in any state where anti-gay legislators pass laws to roll back LGBT civil rights," said Beth Littrell of Lambda Legal.

If we OBEYED GOD, we would NOT have this problem.

Homosexuals had to "Earn their REPROBATE MIND" by refusing God ~ not once, ~ not twice, ~ but THREE times!

You need to not only read, BUT STUDY this link
I especially agree with its last paragraph.

" The Church NEVER can and NEVER will give satisfaction—
and the homosexualist knows it,
for he knows the words against him are INERADICABLE
—to the declared and impenitent homosexual,
the person who, through an act of the vermiculate will,
has identified his person with a sin,
whether HE DEMANDS ACCEPTANCE OF HIS SIN
through "love,"
or VINDICATION
THROUGH IDENTIFICATION OF HIS PERCEIVED ENEMIES AS BIGOTS.
Whether HE PRESENTS HIMSELF as an object of love or indignation,
what HE DEMANDS in either case IS ACCEPTANCE
not of the person,
but OF THE SIN-bound and SIN-DEFINED person.
HE DEMANDS the declaration of SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY that
THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED about this BINDING OF MAN TO SIN,
and ASSURANCE that THIS MONSTROUS AMALGAM can indeed ENTER the kingdom of heaven.
This can NEVER HAPPEN among Christians UNTIL THEY ABANDON Christianity,
WHICH IS AT WAR WITH EVERY SIN,
and whose indelible constitution
places ALL PERVERSIONS of the perfect man
AT THE MUZZLE of its canons. "

There will be NO HOMOSEXUALS ( NOT ONE ) in the afterlife.
They WILL BE ASHES UNDER the soles of your feet ! ! !

[DoodleDawg]

Signed into law in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, it allows county clerks to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and protects businesses from lawsuits if they refuse to serve LGBT customers.

Consider sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Mississippi anti-discrimination laws then businesses could already refuse to serve LGBT customers.

[AndyTheBear]

I was curious to know what the law actually said...but I can’t from the article. They are just so matter-of-factly dishonest.

[EagleUSA]

Finally, some pro-Constitution action from our SCOTUS. Our freedoms are precious and the radical, LGBT left would take those away to suit their sick agenda.

[Uncle Sam 911]

Kentucky clerks, you win! Bakers, you win. Anyone with morals wins. Excellent!!

[DoodleDawg]

I was curious to know what the law actually said...but I can’t from the article. They are just so matter-of-factly dishonest.

BH 1523

[vette6387]

“I believe the 5th Circuit decision was a 2 to 1 decision.”

So now will the 5th do an en banc with more judges to try and overturn the three-judge panel decision?

We had a three-judge ruling in favor of Peruta v. San Diego ( CA Concealed Carry permits) that found for the plaintiffs, only to have the 9th put together an en banc of eleven judges who overturned the original decision.

[Buckeye McFrog]

So the trial judge in the next case will take the hint and rule that the plaintiffs WERE harmed. Feh.

[libertylover]

I hope they’re realizing what a monumental mistake they made with gay marriage.