Andrew Cuomo’s reaction to a religious freedom law is costing this college baseball team

[Acer-m14]

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo banned all non-essential state travel to Mississippi because of the state’s “religious freedom” law, and a college baseball team is paying the price, reports the Sun Herald.

The University of Southern Mississippi was scheduled to host Stony Brook, a public school in New York, for a series Feb. 23-25. Because of Cuomo’s ban, Stony Brook can’t make the trip.

Andrew Cuomo’s reaction to a religious freedom law is costing this college baseball team

 

[Darth]

The law in question is HB 1523, which makes it legal for businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs.

That, by definition, violates the separation of church and state.

It's just too bad many only agree with that separation when it suits something they agree with.

 

[Acer-m14]

correct me if i'm wrong but FUAC's bann on travel is only for govt payed peeps ( his goon squad ) ... not schools .. they have public funding too and FED funding .. besides FUACs $$$ .. which is still we the people's $$$ .... they could have went and should have ...

 

[HEX]

The law in question is HB 1523, which makes it legal for businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs.
That, by definition, violates the separation of church and state.
It's just too bad many only agree with that separation when it suits something they agree with.

You'd be surpris.. well, actually YOU probably wouldn't be surprised that we almost never get post/thread reports about things that we wish people would report, but inevitably we almost always get a report when anyone posts anything negative about Christianity. Something along the lines of "Not respecting other people's religion". Of course unless those posts are intentionally only trying to insult or be directly combative with another member we ignore them completely.
I've removed threads (and always will) with titles like, "There's no such thing as a good Muslim", (though undoubedly with spelling errors) without them ever receiving a single report. Replace the word Muslim with Christian though, and we'd be flooded with 'em.

 

[Saltwater60]

I have no problem with people being allowed to serve or not serve anyone for any reason. Let the market dictate who services and who does not. What does it matter.

I agree cuomo should let them go. It only makes us look like whinny 2 nd graders in NYS.

 

[Grimscale]

So you agree a pharmacy should be allowed to deny you your needed, life sustaining, medication if the owner/operator happens to believe that God should be all you need?

 

[SomeSoldier]

The law in question is HB 1523, which makes it legal for businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs.

That, by definition, violates the separation of church and state.

It's just too bad many only agree with that separation when it suits something they agree with.

A business can refuse a sale based on whatever they choose. It's their property, they own it. Guy doesn't want to bake a cake because he doesn't believe in gay marriage that is his right. Don't like it go some place else.

 

[MilesTeg]

So you agree a pharmacy should be allowed to deny you your needed, life sustaining, medication if the owner/operator happens to believe that God should be all you need?

I don't see his business staying open for very long.

 

[MikeyCNY]

So you agree a pharmacy should be allowed to deny you your needed, life sustaining, medication if the owner/operator happens to believe that God should be all you need?

Is there another pharmacy within a reasonable distance? Then sure. Unless you're in the middle of nowhere there are pharmacies all over. Also if the pharmacist believed that - then they should be in a different career... Though I could certainly see it; I've worked with a pharmacist who didn't "believe in" medicine.. read a lot of homeopathic books, never got the flu shot etc... and yet was always sick. How about that. I've also worked with another one who didn't want to sell Plan B over the counter.. While I understand her thoughts on it, most of the people looking to buy Plan B (or similar) can't afford a kid, and will join welfare to help cover costs.

I've worked in retail where we had at least one on-site overdose after someone bought syringes (legally in NY you can buy 10 over-the-counter); we stopped selling them after that except for known customers with a history of insulin usage. Until we got too many complaints and had to start selling them again... (I still refuse, but there are other people working who can do it if they choose; and it's never the nice little old grandmother buying syringes, it's the tweeked-out 20-something with a hoodie up and sunglasses on. I hate to profile... but 99% of the time the profile is right!)

 

[@thewheels]

So you agree a pharmacy should be allowed to deny you your needed, life sustaining, medication if the owner/operator happens to believe that God should be all you need?

The owner's beliefs would probably preclude them from owning a pharmacy in this case?

This would be like a condom salesmen that doesn't believe in birth control.


ETA: And FUAC!

 

[ProgSpear]

As with the second amendment, the first has been twisted and tortured by so called "smart" people so it's application is almost completely divorced from it's intent. It is a simple statement prohibiting the government from dictating your religious choices, ability to associate with other people, or curtailing your right to freely express your views. It is NOT a diktat on how you, as an individual, should live your life, nor does it permit you to dictate to other people how they should run their lives. If a baker chooses not to bake a cake for someone who's lifestyle they disapprove of, regardless of the reason, religious or not, any consequences should be a result of the market forces, not by some form of government control. I'm still pretty sure that wedding cakes are not any form of essential public service that needs direct governmental control and regulation, and I am OFFENDED that a tiny minority of the population gets to abridge the freedom of association and the freedom of religion clauses simply because they are OFFENDED that someone else might believe that overturning thousands of years of accepted custom to accommodate a practice they find OFFENSIVE is a bad idea.

In the end, everyone is OFFENDED by something. Unfortunately the first amendment has been perverted (with respect to George Orwell) so some animals are more OFFENDED than other animals.

 

[MikeyCNY]

As with the second amendment, the first has been twisted and tortured by so called "smart" people so it's application is almost completely divorced from it's intent. It is a simple statement prohibiting the government from dictating your religious choices, ability to associate with other people, or curtailing your right to freely express your views. It is NOT a diktat on how you, as an individual, should live your life, nor does it permit you to dictate to other people how they should run their lives. If a baker chooses not to bake a cake for someone who's lifestyle they disapprove of, regardless of the reason, religious or not, any consequences should be a result of the market forces, not by some form of government control. I'm still pretty sure that wedding cakes are not any form of essential public service that needs direct governmental control and regulation, and I am OFFENDED that a tiny minority of the population gets to abridge the freedom of association and the freedom of religion clauses simply because they are OFFENDED that someone else might believe that overturning thousands of years of accepted custom to accommodate a practice they find OFFENSIVE is a bad idea.

In the end, everyone is OFFENDED by something. Unfortunately the first amendment has been perverted (with respect to George Orwell) so some animals are more OFFENDED than other animals.

I look at this way... If I wanted a baker to make me a cake for my gay, biracial, transgendered Muslim Democrat-voting child's birthday cake, and then I forced them via lawsuit to bake said cake... how well do you think that cake would turn out?

For 'essential' services (medical) one could make an argument for providing services, and I believe hospitals already have such provisions. They'll treat you whether you are white, black, covered in Nazi tattoos or whatever. However don't expect private businesses to follow suit..

 

[Phazer]

So you agree a pharmacy should be allowed to deny you your needed, life sustaining, medication if the owner/operator happens to believe that God should be all you need?

If a PRIVATE business (including a pharmacy) takes no government money for its operations, then it should be allowed to operate in any fashion that its owner deems appropriate.

By the way...I'm sure that pharmacy handles prescriptions for Medicare and Medicaid prescriptions. So...it would have to operate in accordance with federal government policies. The pharmacy owner is free not to accept Medicare or Medicaid. But, they wouldn't be able to stay in business.

 

[Darth]

A business can refuse a sale based on whatever they choose. It's their property, they own it. Guy doesn't want to bake a cake because he doesn't believe in gay marriage that is his right. Don't like it go some place else.

The only problem of course being that they are introducing a LAW about it.

It's nonsensical.

No business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason. Adding a law about religion is stupid.

 

[Steal2B]

correct me if i'm wrong but FUAC's bann on travel is only for govt payed peeps ( his goon squad ) ... not schools .. they have public funding too and FED funding .. besides FUACs $$$ .. which is still we the people's $$$ .... they could have went and should have ...

Nothing new. FUAC been screwing SUNY sports programs for awhile
Gov. Cuomo's Transgender Travel Ban Forces U-Albany Football to Sleep 70 Miles Away from its Opponen

 

[Darth]

You'd be surpris.. well, actually YOU probably wouldn't be surprised that we almost never get post/thread reports about things that we wish people would report, but inevitably we almost always get a report when anyone posts anything negative about Christianity. Something along the lines of "Not respecting other people's religion". Of course unless those posts are intentionally only trying to insult or be directly combative with another member we ignore them completely.
I've removed threads (and always will) with titles like, "There's no such thing as a good Muslim", (though undoubedly with spelling errors) without them ever receiving a single report. Replace the word Muslim with Christian though, and we'd be flooded with 'em.

You get reports for that!?



Take that crap somewhere else. Behind closed doors Republicans and Democrats are not much different at all.

Reporting a thread because it's "not respecting another's religion?" GTFO!

No wait, let me guess, the "see, you'd do that for Islam, but not us persecuted Christians" crowd is seething...

 

[@thewheels]

The only problem of course being that they are introducing a LAW about it.

It's nonsensical.

No business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason. Adding a law about religion is stupid.

It's what we do now. Another stupid law to counter an existing stupid law.
That's what they think we pay them to do isn't it? Make bad law so they can "rectify" it with more of the same? Both parties are guilty of this.

 

[Darth]

It's what we do now. Another stupid law to counter an existing stupid law.
That's what they think we pay them to do isn't it? Make bad law so they can "rectify" it with more of the same? Both parties are guilty of this.

I hate this.

Just remove the shit law.

Take a law off the books!?

 

[Phazer]

I hate this.

Just remove the shit law.

Take a law off the books!?

They won't do that.

This kind of law is a Liberal "Screw You" to more constitutional states that believe in supporting individual rights and real federalism. Oh...unless you want to talk about "sanctuary" state laws (really: protect-illegals-in-state laws). THEN the Liberal Progressives support federalism to the hilt.

 

[@thewheels]

Take a law off the books!?

The only blatantly obvious solution and no elected official or bcrat will ever come up with it.

 

[SomeSoldier]

The only problem of course being that they are introducing a LAW about it.

It's nonsensical.

No business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason. Adding a law about religion is stupid.

I agree and I would like to see the reason they created the law.

The law should just read any business has the right to refuse service for any reason and be done with it.

 

[Darth]

I agree and I would like to see the reason they created the law.

The law should just read any business has the right to refuse service for any reason and be done with it.

There should be no law.

 

[carpediem]

The law in question is HB 1523, which makes it legal for businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs.

That, by definition, violates the separation of church and state.

It's just too bad many only agree with that separation when it suits something they agree with.

I am going to "poke the bear" here and say that the separation of church and state, as set forth in the 1st Amendment is, as I read it, to prevent the construction of a "Church of America" akin to that the founding fathers were familiar with being the Church of England and the compulsory membership there in. It has nothing to do with the free exercise, by private citizens in their own establishment, of any religion. Muslims can and do ban gays from their bakeries here in the US. Steven Crowder exposed that in a video some time ago. If you, as a business owner choose not to violate your own religious beliefs, who are you, the government or anyone to force them to? Can not the gays get a cake in a bakery that exists outside of any religious ownership? You bet your ass they can. They just want to make a spectacle and stomp on some "Bible thumpers" and get paid in the process.
I appreciate you don't practice any religious beliefs and that is your freedom. Just don't tell people who want to run a business and have their own set of beliefs that they aren't allowed that freedom and should be punished and put out of business.

 

[Darth]

I am going to "poke the bear" here and say that the separation of church and state, as set forth in the 1st Amendment is, as I read it, to prevent the construction of a "Church of America" akin to that the founding fathers were familiar with being the Church of England and the compulsory membership there in. It has nothing to do with the free exercise, by private citizens in their own establishment, of any religion. Muslims can and do ban gays from their bakeries here in the US. Steven Crowder exposed that in a video some time ago. If you, as a business owner choose not to violate your own religious beliefs, who are you, the government or anyone to force them to? Can not the gays get a cake in a bakery that exists outside of any religious ownership? You bet your ass they can. They just want to make a spectacle and stomp on some "Bible thumpers" and get paid in the process.
I appreciate you don't practice any religious beliefs and that is your freedom. Just don't tell people who want to run a business and have their own set of beliefs that they aren't allowed that freedom and should be punished and put out of business.

Congratulations, we agree.

Might want to understand the argument being made before the dissertation.

 

[carpediem]

Congratulations, we agree.

Might want to understand the argument being made before the dissertation.

I saw what you said in posts further down. Might want to read farther before soap boxing. I think the law is as someone else said, because people so poorly understand the 1st A that the religious freedoms need a new law to protect them. A sad statement about our society really.

 

[Darth]

I read the whole thread.

My point stands. A law negating another law is stupid. One that specifically includes religion is illegal.

 

[carpediem]

I read the whole thread.

My point stands. A law negating another law is stupid. One that specifically includes religion is illegal.

Not you read the whole thread, I meant me.
And yes, I agree.

 

[Robin]

Again, it must be said. FUAC!
robin

 

[Celt]

I have no problem with people being allowed to serve or not serve anyone for any reason. Let the market dictate who services and who does not. What does it matter.

I agree cuomo should let them go. It only makes SCUMHOLE look like a whinny 2 nd grader in NYS.

I agree, with an edit.

 

[Bushmaster]

You'd be surpris.. well, actually YOU probably wouldn't be surprised that we almost never get post/thread reports about things that we wish people would report, but inevitably we almost always get a report when anyone posts anything negative about Christianity. Something along the lines of "Not respecting other people's religion". Of course unless those posts are intentionally only trying to insult or be directly combative with another member we ignore them completely.
I've removed threads (and always will) with titles like, "There's no such thing as a good Muslim", (though undoubedly with spelling errors) without them ever receiving a single report. Replace the word Muslim with Christian though, and we'd be flooded with 'em.

What kind of country are we living in that puts up with these antics from our devout enemies?

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Paris shooters were Muslims
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'

Think of it:

Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha'is = No Problem
Baha'is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha'is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

*** So This Leads To ***
They’re not happy in Gaza
They're not happy in Egypt
They're not happy in Libya
They're not happy in Morocco
They're not happy in Iran
They're not happy in Iraq
They're not happy in Yemen
They're not happy in Afghanistan
They're not happy in Pakistan
They're not happy in Syria
They're not happy in Lebanon
They're not happy in Nigeria
They're not happy in Kenya
They're not happy in Sudan

*** So, where are they happy? ***

They're happy in Australia
They're happy in England
They're happy in Belgium
They're happy in France
They're happy in Italy
They're happy in Germany
They're happy in Sweden
They're happy in the USA & Canada
They're happy in Norway & India
They're happy in almost every country that is not Islamic!

And who do they blame? Not Islam... Not their leadership... Not themselves... THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they're happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy, and claim that finally they will get to be happy.

Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE