Very strong image. Wonderful work.

Pretty good image. Have you read http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Forty-Agnostic-Sermons-More-ebook/dp/B00B6LLZGA/ref=la_B00NI54RBC_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412670717&sr=1-9

You might enjoy it. There is also http://www.amazon.com/Books-Fatal-Their-Authors-Ditchfield-ebook/dp/B00WSEWKXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430287685&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+henry+huff which is educational.

In order to say something about this instead of just taking sides, I looked up the law. http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippis-religious-freedom-bill-sweeping-anti-lgbt-law/story?id=38170420

"Specifically, religious organizations protected by the law can: "

"- Decline to "solemnize any marriage" or provide wedding-related services based on their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Those services run a full gamut, from wedding planning, photography, disc-jockey services and floral arrangements to cakes, venues and limos."

I don't have a problem with this. I just means that LGBT funds will go to people who accept them rather than to those who don't. In addition, I get upset at the idea of the state making it illegal for me to marry LGBT people since gay marriage is a sacrament in my church, and therefore, on principle I get upset at the state forcing people to marry LGBT people if it is against their religion. It is a legitimate free practice of religion clause.

• Decide "whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent” with their beliefs or moral convictions.

This is wrong. It is a violation of civil rights and the SC will almost certainly overturn the entire law because of it. It violates 'free practice of religion' in the other direction.

• Decide to whom they will sell or rent housing they control based on their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

I would draw a fine line here. If it is a close personal arrangement as renting a room in their home, not a problem. If it is an impersonal commercial arrangement, renting apartments etc. it is wrong.

In addition, for others protected under the law:

• Adoptive or foster parents can raise a child they’ve been granted custody of by the state with the same beliefs and convictions of those protected by the law.

Parents should be able to raise their children adopted or otherwise in accordance with their beliefs. I prefer to see a lot of different forms of crazy in the world instead of one uniform government enforced crazy.

• Medical and therapy professionals can decline "treatments, counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning" and "psychological, counseling, or fertility services" to people whose lifestyles violate their religious beliefs.

Again, I don't have a problem with this. Surgeons who want to provide such services can, those who don't, can provide other services. On principle, this is protection of peoples religious freedom.

• People can create "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."

I actually favor school uniforms and dress codes for students in High School. Students should be learning math not ogling tits. In principle, I think this is legitmate, but I think it could be easily abused.

• State employees and those acting on behalf of the state may recuse themselves from authorizing or licensing legal marriages, although they may not stand in the way of others doing so.

If I were back in uniform and I was ordered to supervise the transfer of Jews to death camps should I comply or obey? If I was back in uniform and I was ordered to protect a visiting ISIS dignitary should I comply or obey? Since the Nuremberg trials said that "I was just obeying orders" was not a legitimate excuse for doing things you believe is immoral, government employees are in a tough position. If they don't follow their conscience, they go to prison for life when the other side wins. If they do, they got to death camps or lose their jobs. I think this is an important issue. "Following orders" should be a legitimate excuse for 'immoral' behavior among the rank and file. Until it is, I guess you have to let government officials refuse to do things they call immoral.

The right makes LGBT into a propaganda issue to fire up their side, and the left makes laws like this into propaganda issues to fire up their side. Then, with a law like this, both the legitimate and the wrong parts are treated the same, without intelligent, thoughtful consideration. Propaganda wars are not rational discussion of issues.

Thanks for being intelligent. Most state's already have law's protecting religious groups from being forced to perform ceremonies which would conflict with their faith. For example a Catholic priest can not be forced to marry a budist and a Catholic. In fact a priest can refuse if a member of the wedding party is not of his faith as this happened to me. So this issue has a gaping hole in it. Also in many states this cover's religious institutions, schools, hospitals or businesses. Services can be denied for inability to make payment or if you're an ahole, I know this as I am a business owner. Any refusal of service based upon grouping is discrimination. For me religious freedom is guaranteed in places of worship, hearts and minds not in the work place certainly not at a government building where citizens frequent to receive government services. These bills are directly aimed at the gay community and as you stated including medical treatment. Personally I find the refusal of medical treatment abhorrent in the extreme. I to served in uniform, and while I might have committed a crime to save my fellow soldiers, I would never perform atrocities on order's. In fact I had discussions with with older NCO's and most of us would put a round into the monster who was giving us the order. I would rather rot in prison for killing a monster than be one. These laws are very similar even in the wording to the law's these same state's passed against black's decades ago. After listening to a Mississippi senator about how the bill was introduced and passed, and the review of its wording I have no doubts. This is hate wrapped in a cloak of religious fever, which disgusts me. But I still love my country and would still give my last to defend it.

impressive and powerful. PayPal just abandoned its plans to build a site in North Carolina because of their law against the LGBT community

Thanks, as a sign of support I will not knowingly purchase products or services from Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina or any state that enact such civil rights crimes. My last words (I hope) on this are, what about hermaphrodites, whom may they marry, what faith are they allowed to worship? Personally I wish all good peace loving tolerant people well.

Great statement piece!!!

thats so great!

absolutely great render