Miss. venue cancels couple's wedding plans after discovering they're mixed race

[RI]

Of course the wedding venue can't point to anything in the Bible to support their position, because it's not actually about religion.

Yep. This isn't religion; this is racism, plain and simple.

You are right, RI, but I will quibble to note that there is a historical precedence for abusing scripture regarding the sons of ham, etc for justifying slavery end anti-miscegenation laws.

Of course. There is no end to the ways in which people have tortured faith to justify their own prejudices and economic stations, especially in parts of the South and other former slave-owning colonies.

[SInNYC]

W-O-W.

Until the past year or two, I honestly had no idea that anyone still seriously thought anything about mixed-race relationships. Even though I've now realized that there are way more disgusting racists out there than I previously thought, stuff like this never fails to surprise me. Ugh.

In 2000, AL voted to repeal the law banning inter-racial marriage by 59-41. The black belt was heavily for the repeal, which probably meant that the majority of whites were for keeping the ban. Things haven't changed *that* much since 2000, and people dont really change their views much after reaching their 30s.

[Badger]

W-O-W.

Until the past year or two, I honestly had no idea that anyone still seriously thought anything about mixed-race relationships. Even though I've now realized that there are way more disgusting racists out there than I previously thought, stuff like this never fails to surprise me. Ugh.

In 2000, AL voted to repeal the law banning inter-racial marriage by 59-41. The black belt was heavily for the repeal, which probably meant that the majority of whites were for keeping the ban. Things haven't changed *that* much since 2000, and people dont really change their views much after reaching their 30s.

Atlas nerd input. I've read a couple postgraduate feces on this vote, and by all accounts the white vote was split almost exactly 50/50.

[GeorgiaModerate]

W-O-W.

Until the past year or two, I honestly had no idea that anyone still seriously thought anything about mixed-race relationships. Even though I've now realized that there are way more disgusting racists out there than I previously thought, stuff like this never fails to surprise me. Ugh.

In 2000, AL voted to repeal the law banning inter-racial marriage by 59-41. The black belt was heavily for the repeal, which probably meant that the majority of whites were for keeping the ban. Things haven't changed *that* much since 2000, and people dont really change their views much after reaching their 30s.

Atlas nerd input. I've read a couple postgraduate feces on this vote, and by all accounts the white vote was split almost exactly 50/50.

Badger's speech-to-text app for the win!

[RI]

postgraduate feces

More accurate than you know

[DrScholl]

The map for the referendum suggests that the split of the white vote was along educational and income lines.

[Badger]

W-O-W.

Until the past year or two, I honestly had no idea that anyone still seriously thought anything about mixed-race relationships. Even though I've now realized that there are way more disgusting racists out there than I previously thought, stuff like this never fails to surprise me. Ugh.

In 2000, AL voted to repeal the law banning inter-racial marriage by 59-41. The black belt was heavily for the repeal, which probably meant that the majority of whites were for keeping the ban. Things haven't changed *that* much since 2000, and people dont really change their views much after reaching their 30s.

Atlas nerd input. I've read a couple postgraduate feces on this vote, and by all accounts the white vote was split almost exactly 50/50.

Badger's speech-to-text app for the win!

Lol! What a self own on my part.

[7,052,770]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

[Hammy]

W-O-W.

Until the past year or two, I honestly had no idea that anyone still seriously thought anything about mixed-race relationships. Even though I've now realized that there are way more disgusting racists out there than I previously thought, stuff like this never fails to surprise me. Ugh.

Having lived in the south my whole life, I can safely say the visible disgust among many whites towards interracial couples never went away, or even pretended to go away--I'm not surprised in the least by this, sad to say.

[HillGoose]

W-O-W.

Until the past year or two, I honestly had no idea that anyone still seriously thought anything about mixed-race relationships. Even though I've now realized that there are way more disgusting racists out there than I previously thought, stuff like this never fails to surprise me. Ugh.

Having lived in the south my whole life, I can safely say the visible disgust among many whites towards interracial couples never went away, or even pretended to go away--I'm not surprised in the least by this, sad to say.

You are definitely correct. Being in an interracial relationship in the south you def get more hate from your own family than anyone else most of the time, at least in my experience. Which is really messed up when you think about it.

You see it though, around. It's like you can feel everyone judging you, especially older people. Lots of dirty looks. This is a big part of the reason my fiancee and I have no respect for the idea of "community" because around here "community" equates to "judgy people who think they are entitled to be in your business"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

[7,052,770]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

I don't think I agree with this take. The national outrage caused racist owners to change their policy. Had everyone reacted like you, they would still have it. We won.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

I don't think I agree with this take. The national outrage caused racist owners to change their policy. Had everyone reacted like you, they would still have it. We won.

Yeah, but how are you going to use it as evidence against laws protecting religious freedom?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

oh no, i guess they have to not get married now.

You have serious deficiencies when it comes to combining common sense and critical thinking with empathy.  I’d imagine it’s cuz the latter part is lacking and while not on purpose at first, you’ve spent a long time honing in on a world view that embraces said issue.

You see, they don’t care about the discrimination they bring, only what they think is the discrimination against them which is actually equality and fairness of treating everyone the same.

It's completely fair and equal to say that no one can be forced to provide a non-necessary service they don't agree with.   

The idea of criticizing me for a lack of empathy is a joke.  The point of threads like this is not to show empathy for anyone involved in this situation, who is never going to read this thread.  It's to say that the political "other" is bad and dangerous and so we should restrict traditional freedoms in order to punish them.

You're the kind of person who would say that black people in the 1950s should just continue driving from motel to motel all night long until they finally find one that allows blacks, and that that is a perfectly reasonable and sustainable way of doing things.

If you're in business, you provide your service to anyone who can pay, period. Conservatives love to talk about how businesses have no responsibility other than to generate profits for their owners - fine, then this woman should leave her feelings and beliefs at home and focus on generating profit, which she is not doing if she's turning away paying customers for being the wrong color.

Since I see that 14 posters "recommended" this uninformed strawmanning I suppose I should respond to it.

"You're the kind of person...." Gotta love these historically illiterate baseless personal attacks!  Do you know what a "public accommodation" means according to the Civil Rights Act? 
https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations

Since the CRA listed specific places where discrimination should be illegal, don't you think that maybe many people at that time did not take an all-or-nothing approach?  Isn't it possible that discrimination is more of an injustice in some contexts than in others?   

An authentically conservative philosophy is inconsistent with such a fragmented instrumentalist worldview that would proclaim profit as the only thing that matters in the world of business. One should not neglect any true moral principle simply because one has entered a place of work.  Someone who runs a business has a duty to act with integrity in all their work to the best of their lights.  Racial discrimination is wrong because of the nature of the human person, not because it affects the bottom line or even because it might make things awkward on the job.

[7,052,770]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

I don't think I agree with this take. The national outrage caused racist owners to change their policy. Had everyone reacted like you, they would still have it. We won.

Yeah, but how are you going to use it as evidence against laws protecting religious freedom?

Eliminating racism is a lot more important to us than winning a message board argument.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Just some of that good ole “southern hospitality”!

[Ban my account ffs!]

oh no, i guess they have to not get married now.

You have serious deficiencies when it comes to combining common sense and critical thinking with empathy.  I’d imagine it’s cuz the latter part is lacking and while not on purpose at first, you’ve spent a long time honing in on a world view that embraces said issue.

You see, they don’t care about the discrimination they bring, only what they think is the discrimination against them which is actually equality and fairness of treating everyone the same.

It's completely fair and equal to say that no one can be forced to provide a non-necessary service they don't agree with.   

The idea of criticizing me for a lack of empathy is a joke.  The point of threads like this is not to show empathy for anyone involved in this situation, who is never going to read this thread.  It's to say that the political "other" is bad and dangerous and so we should restrict traditional freedoms in order to punish them.

Thank you for precisely proving my point.

[Badger]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

I don't think I agree with this take. The national outrage caused racist owners to change their policy. Had everyone reacted like you, they would still have it. We won.

Yeah, but how are you going to use it as evidence against laws protecting religious freedom?

Permanently. Because it is exhibit a that religious freedom is a smokescreen to discriminate. Such a shame that you are the only one obstinate enough to not acknowledge this.

[tallguy23]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

Screw that. I'd rather get married at a Chuck E Cheese than go there.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

oh no, i guess they have to not get married now.

You have serious deficiencies when it comes to combining common sense and critical thinking with empathy.  I’d imagine it’s cuz the latter part is lacking and while not on purpose at first, you’ve spent a long time honing in on a world view that embraces said issue.

You see, they don’t care about the discrimination they bring, only what they think is the discrimination against them which is actually equality and fairness of treating everyone the same.

It's completely fair and equal to say that no one can be forced to provide a non-necessary service they don't agree with.   

The idea of criticizing me for a lack of empathy is a joke.  The point of threads like this is not to show empathy for anyone involved in this situation, who is never going to read this thread.  It's to say that the political "other" is bad and dangerous and so we should restrict traditional freedoms in order to punish them.

Thank you for precisely proving my point.

I guess maybe that response makes sense in your head?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

oh no, i guess they have to not get married now.

You have serious deficiencies when it comes to combining common sense and critical thinking with empathy.  I’d imagine it’s cuz the latter part is lacking and while not on purpose at first, you’ve spent a long time honing in on a world view that embraces said issue.

You see, they don’t care about the discrimination they bring, only what they think is the discrimination against them which is actually equality and fairness of treating everyone the same.

It's completely fair and equal to say that no one can be forced to provide a non-necessary service they don't agree with.   

The idea of criticizing me for a lack of empathy is a joke.  The point of threads like this is not to show empathy for anyone involved in this situation, who is never going to read this thread.  It's to say that the political "other" is bad and dangerous and so we should restrict traditional freedoms in order to punish them.

Thank you for precisely proving my point.

I guess maybe that response makes sense in your head?

The problem is that the response you cited makes sense in the heads of millions.

[HisGrace]

oh no, i guess they have to not get married now.

You have serious deficiencies when it comes to combining common sense and critical thinking with empathy.  I’d imagine it’s cuz the latter part is lacking and while not on purpose at first, you’ve spent a long time honing in on a world view that embraces said issue.

You see, they don’t care about the discrimination they bring, only what they think is the discrimination against them which is actually equality and fairness of treating everyone the same.

Getting off the subject, but I've been informed a number of times that treating everyone the same is the new racism so I don't know about that.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

I don't think I agree with this take. The national outrage caused racist owners to change their policy. Had everyone reacted like you, they would still have it. We won.

Yeah, but how are you going to use it as evidence against laws protecting religious freedom?

Permanently. Because it is exhibit a that religious freedom is a smokescreen to discriminate. Such a shame that you are the only one obstinate enough to not acknowledge this.

It would be a smokescreen if these people were Biblically correct in their arguments, but they're not.

Katzenbach v. McClung was decided decades ago.  These people were asked to provide a neutral venue, not produce an artistic product.

This is a different issue than the folks from the Masterpiece Cake Shop.  And if you don't think so, would you cater an event for the KKK or Stormfront, complete with artistic creations to reflect the flavor of the event?  Would you wish to be forced to?  Would you think it right to face financial ruin for refusing to do so?

[pbrower2a]

Most Christian churches recognize racism as heresy.

[Badger]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/03/us/mississippi-interracial-couple-wedding.html

The venue caved. The wedding will be allowed there, if the couple still wants to.

How devastating for the political utility of this story!  My thoughts are with all of you at Atlas US Gen Discussion in this difficult time.

I don't think I agree with this take. The national outrage caused racist owners to change their policy. Had everyone reacted like you, they would still have it. We won.

Yeah, but how are you going to use it as evidence against laws protecting religious freedom?

Permanently. Because it is exhibit a that religious freedom is a smokescreen to discriminate. Such a shame that you are the only one obstinate enough to not acknowledge this.

It would be a smokescreen if these people were Biblically correct in their arguments, but they're not.

Katzenbach v. McClung was decided decades ago.  These people were asked to provide a neutral venue, not produce an artistic product.

This is a different issue than the folks from the Masterpiece Cake Shop.  And if you don't think so, would you cater an event for the KKK or Stormfront, complete with artistic creations to reflect the flavor of the event?  Would you wish to be forced to?  Would you think it right to face financial ruin for refusing to do so?

Biblically correct, meaning it's something I agree with rather than what they agree with. New pair of however, fuzzy, the Supreme Court isn't going to look as to whether or not they are " biblically correct" or not. The whole point of these laws is to allow discrimination if the plaintiff in question says my religion forbids X, be at f******, n******, k####, ragheads. Etc. So long as there is the minimum necessary to show a religious basis for that view, such discrimination in the public sector will be allowed under these new so-called " religious freedom" laws.

If you support these lost so much, fuzzy, and you damn well better be ready to be sitting at the counter of a diner somewhere and watch some black children see their parents thrown out because the owners religion supposedly doesn't allow the mixing of races. You can sit there with your scrambled eggs and be so proud of yourself that you helped to contribute to that families humiliation because you couldn't accept the fact that gays in 2019 have the same right to services and acceptance as anyone else.

And when you get up in a self-righteous huff and storm out of that racist restaurant, you'll make yourself feel a whole lot better, but that owner won't give a good goddamn and certainly won't change their position.